|
|
|
While I can imagine that 'frustrating powerlessness' may have been the experience of people exiting cults pre-internet, I have no such feelings now, and neither, I suspect, do Jean-Michel, Mike Finch, and Jim. Ex-premie.org and the other sites have been so successful in getting the truth out there that the experience is more of 'satisfying empowerment' than 'frustrating powerlessness'.This is probably a good time to give some stats for ex-premie.org:- Here are average daily page reads for April for each year since the site moved to the current host:- April 2002 - 1209
April 2003 - 1851
April 2004 - 2219
April 2005 - 2322
April 2006 - 3619 May so far is averaging 4400 page reads a day. I think much of the increase can be explained by the efforts of Rawat and his publicists to spread the humanitarian, inspiration speaker image. The more they advertise Rawat, the more people who had never heard of him find out the truth. Here are page reads by month since February 2002:- ############################################################
# Report: ex-premie.org
# Report Name: Pageviews Graph
# Date Range: 02/01/2002 - 04/30/2006
############################################################ 2/2002 36790
3/2002 37819
4/2002 36283
5/2002 39823
6/2002 65136
7/2002 53038
8/2002 41496
9/2002 47498
10/2002 46655
11/2002 44058
12/2002 43176
1/2003 43993
2/2003 45116
3/2003 44276
4/2003 55546
5/2003 57613
6/2003 55997
7/2003 54115
8/2003 52256
9/2003 60464
10/2003 68553
11/2003 55221
12/2003 51439
1/2004 62208
2/2004 53144
3/2004 58974
4/2004 66587
5/2004 57332
6/2004 58108
7/2004 65776
8/2004 70571
9/2004 74280
10/2004 71496
11/2004 69451
12/2004 78957
1/2005 78065
2/2005 63815
3/2005 72694
4/2005 69686
5/2005 75478
6/2005 67804
7/2005 68768
8/2005 71438
9/2005 75808
10/2005 82496
11/2005 117193
12/2005 89982
1/2006 103474
2/2006 83250
3/2006 119162
4/2006 108593
Modified by JHB at Thu, May 18, 2006, 06:36:26
|
|
|
|
I agree to that the ability to post our view of it all is empowering, and perhaps there is nothing more we need do. Those figures are rising.
It would be interesting to see how many people get 'knowledge' these days, and add those figures to a graph showing the number of reads here. Surely just about anyone who hears about Rawat - sees a DVD or the trailer - would do a quick search on Google to find out more, and here we are with our customer reviews.
It would be nice to see the demise of this cult, powered just by placing our experiences on the net.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for these stats, John! This is a LOT of people! I also had no idea just how many people must be reading here. Obviously there are also quite a few posting, as well. You can't help wondering what people who don't post must get from the forum--aside from the premie spies who are looking for who to go after next. While the focus here may be on our personal and individual experiences, there's no end to the possibilities of how many may be touched and inspired by the honest search for truth here. It would be nice to know, but I trust the universe in this--there are MANY out there that appreciate what we do here. I don't personally feel the obligation to "save" anyone from Rawat's clutches beyond simply speaking my own truth, and pointing to where truth (or at least, information) can be found, so that people can weigh it for themselves. I'm a reference librarian after all, and it's the sacred (if you'll pardon the word) duty of librarians to make information, ALL information available. It's the creed of the American Library Association, too--and they haven't backed down in the face of some pretty regressive and oppressive efforts to change that. Librarians have actually been making some press in the States in refusing to co-operate with searches of patron records and other invasions of privacy in the name of the Patriot Act. No more Miss Wimpy, no more Marion the Librarian! We are trouble-makers! Merely by protecting the right to read and provide information without fear of retribution. Something to do with the Constitution, I do believe.  I agree that there is so much more going on here, in these discussions, than a handful of people who are looking to bring Rawat down. It must be so annoying for the folks who want to put us in that little box! We just don't and never could fit! I wonder to what extent the intelligence level here is a threat? When you think about repressive regimes, and cultic behaviour in general, the first things to go out the window usually are the rights to question, and the books follow shortly thereafter. THanks for your work with this forum, John! And thanks again for the stats. They say a lot. ~Shelagh
|
|
|
|
Shelagh,The stats I published are for the static, read-only website, ex-premie.org. They do not include any of the forums that have existed since the start of the stats. They also do not include any of the EPO mirror sites, nor any of the other Rawat information sites such as PRMi or PRC or the Gallery (which started to be hosted on EPo from May this year). Yes, well done to librarians - let's hope they will in future also be the guardians of books exposing Rawat. John.
|
|
|
|
Oops! I stand corrected! But will sit and fan myself for a while. I'm not a numbers person--but thankful for those who are, so again, thanks for the work you do on all this, John--and thanks for the "education" about them which some of us apparently need. ~Shelagh
|
|
|
|
While I can imagine that 'frustrating
powerlessness' may have been the experience of people exiting cults
pre-internet, I have no such feelings now, and neither, I suspect, do
Jean-Michel, Mike Finch, and Jim. Ex-premie.org and the other sites
have been so successful in getting the truth out there that the
experience is more of 'satisfying empowerment' than 'frustrating
powerlessness'.
For sure, I never felt powerless after leaving my 'master' ....
Maybe some people leaving a cult feel deeply powerless, but that's never been my case !!
|
|
|
|
Hi Jean Michel,
We are fortunate to be in this unique time in history. I feel an optimism, a reason for hope that these forms of cult based on blind belief and mass deception may grow more difficult to maintain because of the internet.
lp
|
|
|
|
I was too much extrapolating from my experience, I guess. Andries
|
|
|
|
I also know that some exes feel powerless
and are of that type Susan is talking about.
I've met some of them in person, and I guess I know what they feel, and I deeply sympathise.
In France, for instance, I know some people who are still thinking of suing the ex-directors of the defunct DLM !!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
I'm confused about the statistics as there was a period of a few weeks when the forum wasn't available with therefore zero hits ( between the forum 8 melt down and the start of this forum.) Later Edit:Just seen your post to Shelagh,John.The stats are for EPO. I misunderstood.Sorry.
Modified by lexy at Thu, May 18, 2006, 13:21:49
|
|
|
|
Lexy,See my reply to Shelagh above. The stats are for ex-premie.org, which hasn't hosted a forum since summer 2001. The stats are from February 2002, as ex-premie.org was moved to its current host in mid-January 2002 after two denial of service attacks on the previous hosts. Since moving to the current host, ex-premie.org has enjoyed over four years of uninterrupted uptime. John.
Modified by JHB at Thu, May 18, 2006, 13:32:21
|
|
|
|
Depending whether these are strictly EPO page figures you are quoting, or forum hits, makes a big difference to how we interpret them. I get the impression you mean EPO pages, in which case, these stats are astonishing. What I mean is, most exes (if they are anything like me) never really visit the main site unless something new has been added. In which case these figures would seem to be a measure of premies, EV monitors or 'neutral' outsiders just curious. But I guess it might also be measuring ex-premie regulars passing through en-route to the forum. Do you have stats on visit length or visit depth (average pages read per visit)?
Modified by Nigel at Thu, May 18, 2006, 14:03:35
|
|
|
|
Depending whether these are strictly EPO page figures you are quoting, or forum hits, makes a big difference to how we interpret them. I get the impression you mean EPO pages, in which case, these stats are astonishing. What I mean is, most exes (if they are anything like me) never really visit the main site unless something new has been added. In which case these figures would seem to be a measure of premies, EV monitors or 'neutral' outsiders just curious.Do have stats on visit length or visit depth (average pages read per visit)? But I guess it might also be measuring ex-premie regulars passing through en-route to the forum. The distinction between websites is very clear to me, and I continue to be baffled as to why it is not clear to others, but let me make it easier for others to understand. When I say these are the stats for ex-premie.org, I mean they are the stats for all the webpages whose address begins with 'http://ex-premie.org/'. Webpages on this forum begin with 'http://prem-rawat-talk.org/', webpages on forum8 began with 'http://forum8.org/', and so on for the three forum 7's webpages; so these stats include none of these pages. These are all different websites. I don't want to get into a big analysis of the stats, but of course many of the page reads are people who were looking for something else, or, as you say, looking for the link to this and previous forums; but the fact that the most popular search strings are 'prem rawat' and 'maharaji' are evidence that the bulk of the page reads are from people looking for information on Rawat. Yes, stats on length of visit are available, and here they are! Most visits are very short (1-2 pages), but there are significant numbers of longer visits. Here are the stats for this year so far - I like to believe a significant number of the 20+ category are exiting premies  :- ############################################################
# Report: ex-premie.org
# Report Name: Depth of Session
# Date Range: 01/01/2006 - 05/17/2006
############################################################ 1 page 167390
2 pages 27957
3 pages 6691
4 pages 4175
5 pages 2252
6 pages 2292
7 pages 1231
8 pages 955
9 pages 719
10 pages 667
11 pages 461
12 pages 429
13 pages 347
14 pages 292
15 pages 245
16 pages 259
17 pages 152
18 pages 154
19 pages 133
20+ pages 1915
Modified by JHB at Thu, May 18, 2006, 13:31:21
|
|
|
|
I understood what you meant by 'EPO', but clearly not everyone automatically makes that distinction - probably because most previous forums have been EPO-based. Sorry if this a disappointing observation or conversation-killer, but I suspect the '167390' figure for one-page hits is for exes who have bookmarked EPO on their 'favourites' list rather than the page where they are really going, ie. this forum or even 'the other place' to discuss Iranian politics and creationism. (There is Drekkie's place, too.) Views of one page only means someone has landed on your website and followed no links within than site, surely? In which case more realistic EPO visit figures are those for 2 pages and upwards. But even then, 27,957 views is impressive stuff (compared to my own home page )
Modified by Nigel at Thu, May 18, 2006, 14:25:32
|
|
|
|
I am being very happy today to be correcting others' misunderstanding!I understood what you meant by 'EPO', but clearly not everyone automatically makes that distinction - probably because most previous forums have been EPO-based. Only Forum 3 and Forum 5 were hosted on ex-premie.org. Forum 1 was on purgatory.com, and then usenet
Forum 2 was on paradise.com, the new name for purgatory.com
Forum 3 was on ex-premie.org
Forum 4 was on paradise.com
Forum 5 was on ex-premie.org
Forum 6 was on hotboards.com, the new name for paradise.com
Forum 7 was on hotboards.com, and then anyboards.net
Forum 8 was on forum8.org
The Prem Rawat Talk Forum is on prem-rawat-talk.org So, by the usually accepted definition of the word 'most', 2 out of 9 of the most popular ex-premies forums (there have been others not listed here, none of which were on ex-premie.org) does not qualify as 'most'.  John
|
|
|
|
If just a couple of previous forums were EPO-based then it is enough to fix an association in people's heads that these sites are one and the same hateful place (where ex-premie warhorses get put to grass and die in shame and fear for having dared to voice an original opinion). It is an easy mistake to make, especially for newbies. Surely my point about 'one hit' visits versus 'two plus' still holds?
Modified by Nigel at Thu, May 18, 2006, 15:01:55
|
|
|
|
Forums 1,2 - 1 year
Forum 3 - 1.25 years
Forum 4 - 0.25 years
Forum 5 - 1.5 years
Forums 6,7,8,PRTF - 4.75 yearsSo, 2.75 years on EPO, 6 years off EPO. No, can't make 'most' stretch here either. John the don't I have something better to do?
|
|
|
|
Maybe we should just let the main thread carry on?
Modified by Nigel at Thu, May 18, 2006, 15:31:11
|
|
|
|
Surely my point about 'one hit' visits versus 'two plus' still holds?Of course, and I thought I made it clear that I agree. A lot of the two hit sessions (home page and preforum page) are people finding this forum, and a lot of one page hits are people searching for people's names and finding entries in White Pages, or elsewhere. For some reason at one time, below 'Prem Rawat' and 'Maharaji', 'Ramparts' magazine was a popular search. My guess is that about a quarter to half of the page reads are people looking for info on Rawat. John.
Modified by JHB at Thu, May 18, 2006, 15:09:22
|
|
|
|
I didn't cheat John. I never edit a post once someone has replied. My last edit was made one minute before your reply, probably while you were typing? (Mine was last modified at 15:01, your reply was posted at 15:02)
Modified by Nigel at Thu, May 18, 2006, 15:22:11
|
|
|
|
And of course you couldn't know I was replying!
|
|
|
|
I agree with John. Going public has been very empowering to me and I've never given much thought to trying to talk sense to Prem Rawat. He's a sociopahtic narcissist, and there's no there's no talking to one of those. The only letters I've written to him and Elan Vital post-cult were "open letters" posted on the ex-premie forum, mostly in an effort to get some resolution for the victims of Jagdeo's sexual abuse. That was also empowering for me to do. Trying to discuss my involvement with Rawat himself would be like me trying to talk sense with my late father (also a sociopathic narcissist). After 52 years of life (well, not the pre-verbal years) thousands of attempts never worked, and never would work as a resolution to the problems he created in my life. It's unrealistic to try to seek communication with a cult leader to try to solve anything post-cult unless maybe it's in a court of law. To John: Thanks for the great stats -- I had no idea the hits were so high.
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, May 18, 2006, 07:34:44
|
|
|
|
Andries, I increasingly get the uncomfortable feeling that you are writing the ex Rawat followers' story in your own terms. Not only is this Rothbaum reference 'out of date' but Rawat's 'leave takers' have never comprised an homogenous group (though it's EV propaganda that we do) and while Rothbaum's article may well acurately describe her observations I think it could only ever have been applicable to a small percentage of Rawat's ex followers. As John and others have pointed out, the Internet has made a huge difference in how 'leave takers' can communicate, both with each other and the wider world; in addition there are other changes that make Rothbaum's article, which deals with a situation of twenty and thirty years ago, of historical relevance only. Rothbaum refers only to a religious context, yet today cultism is recognised as existing in political, self improvement, lifestyle, financial enhancement and socially focused groupings as well as amongst the religious. This wider background for 'leave taking' offers a radically changed social environment in which the rejection of 'harmful belief' is far more likely to find an affirmative response. Even within the limits of religious cultism, there has been a substantial change in perspective - thirty years ago giving up a 'guru' was not generally characterised by the 'leave taker' as a rejection of religion or a belief in godhead or enlightenment, but was described in terms of having 'taking the wrong path' and the leave taker would invariably adopt an alternative religious package. With writers such as Mary Garden providing a challenge to the whole notion of guruism and enlightenment, those giving up on a cult today are as likely to give up the whole belief package that drew them to the cult in the first place, as they are to look for a replacement 'teacher' to fulfil their continued holding of belief. Rothbaum's proposition that seeking legal redress in the Courts or exposing fraud in the media is a psychological substitute for being 'heard' by the rejected teacher, is particularly problematic. Whether or not someone has a need to be heard, recognised, appreciated etc. has nothing to do with whether legal redress is deserved or whether fraud should or should not be exposed. The key thing is that cults frequently avoid normal social consequences - legal liability, criminal charges etc by the very nature of the demand for loyalty from followers. Any leave taker who breaks the bonds of their illfounded loyalty - owes it to themselves and to the wider society, to achieve settlement of any grievance and to expose any fraud or illegality. Nik
Modified by Nik at Thu, May 18, 2006, 11:04:40
|
|
|
|
Hi Nik,Much as I liked your post, naturally enough I am not replying to say so but to chew over the last line which bothers me.. "Any leave taker who breaks the bonds of their illfounded loyalty - owes it to themselves and to the wider society, to achieve settlement of any grievance and to expose any fraud or illegality." I fall into the category you address. So what exactly are you telling me I owe, that it is my personal and social responsibility to achieve? The way I felt about it when leaving was that my prime personal and social responsibility was to look after myself. To step carefully away from the cult around Rawat and establish my own sense of comfort and safety. And determine for myself what how when and with whom I should and would do. Though naturally I am open to discussion, ...lol. It's worked out well.
|
|
|
|
>Much as I liked your post, naturally enough I am not replying to say so but to chew over the last line which bothers me..< Lesley, you are right that line is problematic in all sorts of ways - before attempting to 'de-problematise' it, I will repeat what I've written many times on the forums, that is: no-one should be under any prescription about how they ex a cult - the very fact of leaving requires that the individual does it a manner that 'takes care' of them and is not predicated on some 'other', which is what cultism requires and is what must be rejected if exing is to be successful. OK what I wrote was > "Any leave taker who breaks the bonds of their illfounded loyalty - owes it to themselves and to the wider society, to achieve settlement of any grievance and to expose any fraud or illegality." This was in response to Rothbaum's apparent proposition that legal or media activity was being pursued by leave takers as a substitute for 'psychological resolution. The point I was trying to get at has a triple aspect: Firstly the fact of leave taking (exing) involves the individual changing their cult perspective for a social perspective - that is they stop judging the world by the terms common to cult members as propounded by the cult's leaders - and begin to share (at least in social contexts) the perspective of a wider society. Of course the individual may be as critical of the societal perspective as they are of the cult perspective - however in societies which have liberal education, fair Laws and a democratic political structure there are likely to be many aspects of the wider social perspective that the leave taker can happily share. Secondly, as part of the process of 'taking care' of themselves as an individual, (as opposed to a cult entity), the leave taker has a duty to themselves (as a carer) to consider whether the cult organisation and/or its leaders have any liability toward the individual leave taker which requires redress. Thirdly, as part of the process of 'rejoining' a wider society the leave taker must necessarily start to consider what are the normal/usual expectations of a citizen, that as a cult member the individual may have avoided or been actively prevented from fulfilling, . If the 'leave taker is aware of illegal or corrupt or other questionable activity or practices that took place and which were protected from exposure by the secrecy of the cult, then the leave taker is likely to have to consider (as part of the exiting process) whether they as a citizen have a duty to take a role in exposing the illegality, corruption etc. So to summarise - what I wrote previously was overly prescriptive. However I do see the change over from cult perspective to societal perspective as an essential part of exing and (IMO) to fully effect the change, at the very least the leave taker does have to consider their role as a social agent in relation to their knowledge and experience of a cult, particularly where that cult is overtly harmful to the interests of wider society. But honestly I'm not telling anyone what they should do ! And I absolutely endorse Lesley's approach> The way I felt about it when leaving was that my prime personal and social responsibility was to look after myself. To step carefully away from the cult around Rawat and establish my own sense of comfort and safety. Nik
|
|
|
|
"the very fact of leaving requires that the individual does it a manner that 'takes care' of them and is not predicated on some 'other'"Yes thanks, that was my point. But still chewing, now over those three points. I agree, Susan Rothbaum is unconvincing in discussing the motivations of an individual, plus it seems to me most cult exiters have not sought retribution through courts or the media. Perhaps I should have entitled this post 'If the glove fits' or 'Good happens when bad men do nothing' - personally I am way fed up with the saying 'Bad happens when good men do nothing' and have reversed it. There seems to me a tendency in the early days of leaving a cult to revert back for a short while to how you viewed things before you joined it. Excellent as this is, - I found I was able to follow the crumbs of personal thoughts from the beginning right through my days as a premie and gained much solace from this, - there can be a loss of wariness. When you talk about a duty to expose corruption and illegality I have to ask to whom? To me it became a question of only wear it if the glove fits. For instance recently I noticed that the young man sitting next to me on a plane trip was reading a treatise advocating creationism as a world view which had been published by some christian group. As we approached our destination I asked him if he had read anything else on the subject and suggested he do so. My civic duty for the day! But then, that is as wide a civic social arena as I aspire to. And I think that very sensible of me. I guess I feel I have redressed my wider involvement resulting from being a cult member by posting my journey.
|
|
|
|
Hi Lesley, Hope you are well and Happy, XXXXX
|
|
|
|
Nice to see you pop in for a hello! Hope you and yours are well. X's & O's
|
|
|
|
Hi Bai Ji
If it's any consolation I haven't forgotten your predicament, not that I can do anything about it, nor have I passed on to anyone your private messages to me, which you sent on a previous forum.
Talk to Marianne, is my advice.
|
|
|
|
Yes, give or take the odd limp, I am very well and happy. Give us a call, love Lesley.
|
|
|
|
Really, Andries, I can't imagine a more obvious observation. So ex-members are frustrated that some people still adhere to the belief system and want to get the word out? Wow! I never thought of that!!
|
|
|
|
...if others continue to follow the belief system. The process of extraction from the cult is difficult and it may be easier ( and better) for some to stay than leave. I'm not happy about young people and teenagers being seduced into it but I don't feel that it's as fundamentalist and dangerous as it was when I was brainwashed in the 1970s. Nevermind "trite, obvious ,boring and banal" . Sometimes it's good to look at basic issues. I have no particular urge to give out anti-rawat leaflets.It reminds me too much of "doing service".
|
|
|
|
I am just curious why you posted it. It's sort of hard to tell what the point is. Is the point, don't bother to try to do something because your impotent? What was were the motivations of the author Susan Rothbaum is there any way to know her background. Is she herself a cult member or ex member? I know that one of the weirder responses (IMO) we ex members who speak out get is---so and so and all these other people left without talking about it---why do you do this? I don't think myself its any big mystery why people want to try to do something about the cults that tricked them. Its a way to try to do something positive ( and healing ) about something that would otherwise be a fairly meaningless loss of money, energy and years of your life. Why is there MADD ( Mothers against Drunk Driving ) and why did the father of murdered child Adam Walsh change his whole life to try to try to prevent other senseless crimes and bring criminals to justice. I think its bigger than cults, victims of injustice or painful difficult things can find something healing in trying to stop it from happening to others, or helping others with the same problem. Something about your quote gives me the willies ( makes me uncomfortable) and I think there is an undertone of blaming the victim in it. What do you think or feel about it Andries?
|
|
|
|
All these exhortations from Rawat's supporters to "move on" - what's that all about? Move on, and let the abuse continue? The psychological, psychic - physical even (as you know too well, Susan) - abuse that the legacy of Rawat's teachings have caused: let that continue ... unchallenged? That's not moving on. That's submitting to the power of the abuser. And that's apparently what the Maha/Rawat still wants. Even if he (and his minions) can't yet realise the trip they're on. Think about it - if he truly wanted closure with all his critics and exes (and how many former followers do you think he has?) - he'd at least talk with us. He refuses to. Does he want closure? Apparently not. What's at stake? His former "divinity"? That's an aspect of his psychic virginity he'll have to get used to having used/sold for his own profit. Not that the "divinity" he once believed he personified was anything other than a class-based prejudice that his family inherited from the caste-based heirarchy that they, decades go, accepted as part of their heritage. I might be wrong, but why else would the Rawats consider themselves "divine"? As to the current situation that Prem Rawat has inherited: the mistake that both he and Elan Vital continue to make is to presume that those who have left him - and those who will, in the future, leave him - are prepared to submit forever to being castigated as "hate-group' members. Is that the only future Rawat can envisage for people who move on? The reality is that "hate-group member" is neither an accurate nor fair description of the premie who moves on from dependence on the archetypal authority-figure that Shri Hans Ji Maharaji and then his chosen son and heir the "born Lord of Yogis" Balyogeshwar/Prem Pal/Guru Maharaj Ji/Maharaji/Prem Rawat has always represented. Always? Well - that's how the caste system works. And if Prem Rawat thinks that threatening his current batch of followers/adherents with the pejoritative label of "hate-group members" - if they ever leave the fold - will cower them into allegiance to him, well, he'll no doubt continue to get the kind of submissive followers he deserves!
Modified by cq at Thu, May 18, 2006, 17:30:00
|
|
|
|
Susan, the point was that I thought that Rothbaum describes the feeling and the situation of the posters here. She does describe my situation and feelings. I thought you would find her quote interesting. The book (probably written by the editor i.e. Bromley) states the following about Rothbaum "Susan Rothbaum received her M.S.W. from the University of Illinois in 1979. Since 1980 she has provided counseling to former members of alternative religions through Sorting It Out, a Berkely-based nonprofit educational corporation. She became Director of Sorting It Out in 1985"
Rothbaum writes the following about Sorting It Out "This chapter is based upon conversations based conducted over a five-years period at Sorting It Out (SIO), a Berkeley-based transition counseling center. SIO was created as an alternative to the polarized perspectives of the deprogrammers and the devotees, a middle ground where leavetakers could explore both the positive and negative aspects of their experiences. Unlike the populations described in previous literature on ex-members (Singer 1979; Goldberg and Goldberg, 1982; Levine 1984), most of the SIO's approximately 2,500 participants did not come from the relatively small number of groups that practice aggresive or deceptive street recruiting of new members. Rather they came from over 250 different groups, including branches of Buddhism and Hinduism, communities surrounding American occultists and self-styled gurus, psychologically based therapy groups, and Catholic convents. Some of the groups had thousands of members, others fewer than five. The majority were centered on the teachings of a living charismatic leader who supposedly personified the community's highest ideals."
The linked article states the following about Rothbaum Rothbaum, an East Bay social worker, and Josh Baran, a former Zen Buddhist monk and a self-styled public relations consultant, formed Sorting It Out in Berkeley in 1979, with the assumption, said Rothbaum, "that we were interested in spiritual growth." Rothbaum and Baran say they have seen more than 2,000 clients from more than 250 groups. "We don't do deprogramming - kidnapping. We do transition deprogramming," Rothbaum emphasized.
|
From Susan Rothbaum 1988 Between Two Worlds: Issues of Separation and Identity after Leaving a religious Community, in the book edited by David G. Bromley part III:Disaffiliation from Alternative Religious Groups, Falling from the Faith: The Causes and Consequences of Religious Apostasy. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications, (1988) ISBN 0803931883 Andries
Related link: http://www.lightmind.com/thevoid/daism/mvr-02.html
Modified by Andries at Sat, May 20, 2006, 15:25:09
|
|
|
|
Andries, Since you told us that it was you that inserted the sentences into the Wiki "hate group" article by referencing EV's allegation about ex-premies, I also have to say that I'm also growing uncomfortable with your dual role as a poster here. By dual role, I mean: 1) posting here for feedback from exes for your Wiki-research; and 2) posting here as an ex-cult member. I'm not at all saying you shouldn't post here, but for the record, I don't believe that any professional scholar/researcher would blur the boundaries as you have, by being both an observer, taking the "pulse" of ex-premies here, while also being a participant, posting as an ex-cult member. I recently read excerpts of Marc Galanter's study of premies one of the week-long DLM Hans Jayanti festivals -- I attended both. Galanter didn't continue to hang out with the premies when his research was done. He got what he needed and when was done, he was gone. Again, I'm not saying you should go away. If a scholar/researcher logged in here and announced they were studying ex-premies, and wanted some feedback, I'd probably be willing to have conversations with them, but not if that same person decided to hang out and try to be friends. How would they be objective, and how would exes trust their motives? I think you'd benefit far more on a personal level if you used this forum to try to deconstruct your own involvement with your former cult leader, than using exes as a sounding board. But, that's up to you, but don't be surprised if some people here become leery of your motives in posting. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts about this. Cynth
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, May 18, 2006, 13:02:29
|
|
|
|
Cynthia, The reason why I came originally to forum8 was because I was concerned about the one-sided contents that the article in Wikipedia about Prem Rawat got and the disputes about them. I wanted to alert posters about this and wanted them to do something about it. This is still one of my motivations for posting here. Of course, my concern about this was caused by my own experience. Other motives for posting here now are - wanting to come to terms my own experience, including a desire to understand and compare the similarities and differences between Maharaji/DLM/Elan Vital and the SSB/SSB org.
- absence of a decent discussion forum regarding SSB
- I like debating on this forum
- Of course, it has for me by now a social aspect too
And if you distrust my motives then I can tell you that there is ample evidence on the internet (also on this and forum8) that I am concerned about the harm done to people who get deeply involved with unreliable gurus. My phone nr. is published on the internet if you want to hear more from me on this. http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/6128.html Andries
Modified by Andries at Fri, May 19, 2006, 06:11:08
|
|
|
|
Andries, First, I don't believe that you are insincere in your concern for others who have been involved in cults. That's not the point of my post above. I know what your motives are for posting here and I don't think that you are insincere about them, either. However, I do agree with Marianne that sometimes your lack of good judgment has caused ex-premies harm, particularly the hate group article. Did you also place the same comment in the NRM article? I ask because sometimes information in Wikipedia works like the spread of a bad virus, causing an epidemic of misinformation. Once something is written, it's used as precedent for repeating it, even if it's untrue. As you said, it becomes impossible to remove. Inserting ex-premies in that particular article was harmful to exes in general, Andries. But, coming from you, someone who has declared you like the exes and want to debate and socialize with them can cause your actions to feel like a personal hurt, too. Remember that you post here; the other Wiki editors don't. You keep avoiding my points about the whether or not it's proper for someone to have dual/triple roles on a forum like this. You say you want to use the forum for personal growth (there's been little evidence of your doing that), then you say you like the debates (there's not too much evidence of that, except that you answer questions mostly with quotes of others). Therefore, Andries, the body of evidence is that you post here mostly to fulfill your Wikipedia researching needs. I'd like you to discuss here how you see that it's not a conflict when you to use this forum socially, as a personal growth vehicle, a place for debate, and still use ex-premies as research subjects and sounding boards for your findings. Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, May 19, 2006, 07:07:52
|
|
|
|
I have to admit that I have also edited a Wikipedia entry of a rather famous family member, but was very careful not to insert negative facts and opinions about her for obvious reasons.
Andries
|
|
|
|
Hi Andries,
I presume you posted this quote to get individual responses to it. Firstly I would hope that all people feel a compelling need to tell the truth even while they were in the cult. My standards of truth-telling may not be all that high in ordinary life but when one is discussing something pertaining to the Truth of life, God, the meaning of life, etc then the need to tell the truth becomes paramount.
I left the cult when my need to tell the truth about, it both to myself and to the people I met, became impossible as the story being told by the leader, his honchos and other members was no longer close enough to my views of the truth to be tenable.
I was prepared to put up with some "little white spiritual lies". If DLM was so stupid as to try to portray Prem Pal Rawat as a charitable social leader rather than as the Lord of the Universe, well, that was possibly just a small part of the truth and not an outright lie. But when it became obvious that the meditation practices were not effecting the type of life changes that had been claimed for them and when the order came to destroy all prior DLM documentation then truth was being destroyed.
I was an apostate for over a decade before I knew another "ex-premie". During that time most of my friends were still premies but I didn't feel powerless, I felt relieved. There was cognitive dissonance abounding in DLM in the 70's, it was a relief to leave the false concepts behind, it was empowering to discover that I had much more strength than I had thought, to rediscover that non-premies were no different to premis and that life was just as enjoyable and inspiring without that "practice".
I did miss the bliss of 'Satsang' though I expect, no I know, that if I had been a person who found another religion or spiritual path then I would have felt that inspiration and bliss in their rituals as well as even these days I "get high as a kite" in church or temple even though I'm a Darwinian, almost a Dawkinsian, atheist.
And the there is the internet. A network that allows single individuals from far flung areas to get in touch and find that they are in the great majority. I always knew that most people who become involved with Prem Rawat later leave because of the false claims he makes but that isn't the same as "meeting" them, actually discussing it with them and making a small contribution to having the truth be told publicly.
I think there is one thing that separates ex-premies from ex-saibabarites. Sai Baba is going along practising the same old bullshit. He's not pretending he didn't use to do magic tricks (of course he's saying they're not magic tricks), he's not pretending he didn't give away fake jewellery, he's not pretending he didn't use to vomit up statues (small ones). He didn't try to have everything ever written about him by his followers destroyed. Rawat is caught up in a web of lies of an order of magnitude greater than most charlatan gurus. A web of lies he ordered to be created. All of those young people who have grown up in that web of lies are complicit. They're 50-60ish people like the frog that allowed itself to be boiled alive, one degree warmer at a time.
|
|
|
|
Ocker, Of course, I can understand that it hurts when somebody starts to re-write your personal history. And it is true that there is no serious revisionism in the SSB movement though downgrading of divinity does occur. It is very common in cults and new religious movements, because it hurts the recruitment and public relations. Examples include or included the Aetherius society and the Unification Church in which the belief that rev. Moon is the Messiah was or is de-emphasized. This not necessarily have to be deceptive because followers may be sincerely convinced that the teachings are more important than the status of the teacher. But there is also a difference between SSB and Prem Rawat. With a sympathetic view of Rawat one could say that he at best and at least initially and most of the times believes in himself. This is not possible in the case of SSB (false materializing) and he can only be considered a charlatan (and also a criminal). In that respect criticism of SSB and opposition to SSB seems more appropriate than criticism of Rawat who can be considered just one among many self-deluded incompetent religious founders. References
Modified by Andries at Thu, May 25, 2006, 04:22:56
|
|
|
|
I think that you do more harm than good with your writing on wikipedia about ex premies. You write first - about a group about which you were never involved - and think later. You make incorrect assumptions. You write things that harm ex-premies when you do this. I for one am not happy about this. Marianne
|
|
|
|
Hi Marianne,
Since when does one have to have first-hand experience of something to write about it? If Andries has written things which you think are incorrect then explicitly tell him what they are and provide acceptable evidence that you are correct in those instances. I cannot see how anything he has written can "harm ex-premies" but if I am wrong please post your evidence. However, if the things he has written are correct and harmful then so be it, let the truth be written and let the chips fall where they may.
|
|
|
|
It takes only seconds to remove what I wrote. You can use the argument that it is defamation of living people, not supported by a reputable source (Elan Vital is not a reputable source for that article) And again, I wonder who the current article makes look back. Please do not forget that people have brain of their own. Also, of course, I make sometimes mistakes when I write. I will only answer to some of posts with comments to me, because there are too many to deal with. Andries
Related link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group
Modified by Andries at Fri, May 19, 2006, 02:32:13
|
|
|
|
This is the section in the Wiki Hate Group article that mentions "ex-premies". There is a minor grammatical error that Andries might have made it says "it critics" instead of "it's critics". If I was a premie I'd remove it immediately because it redounds so badly on Elan Vital. In the midst of a very good article on Hate Groups comes this very questionable accusation.
"Hate group" as a label
The classification of other groups as a hate group is controversial
and little or no consensus has developed as to whether political,
religious or anti-religious movements deserve the label hate group. The
term "hate group" as a pejorative characterization slung against one's
opponents has come to be used by a wide variety of people and groups:
See also
|
|
|
