| Premies are Brainwashed: the fact they dont care that their master is a pedophile is the proof |
|  |
|
|
Post Reply |
Forum |
|
|
|
Dear ex-premie friends,This period I have been communicating with premies letting them know that their Master is a pedophile, since Hans has openly spoken about it and part of the phonecall with Rawat confessing that he did sexually molested his sons has been published at ex-premie forum.
Their reaction is OUTRAGEOUS: they dont reply (even people I used to be in touch with, even after they knew I had left Rawat and knew me very well and chatted with me) and they block me on social media .
Others who do post publicly about it basically say:
Even if it is true, and Rawat IS pedophile, we don't care, because he "gives" us the "experience" of peace.
To consciously choose to follow a pedophile Master and not care about it, is the proof that premies are brainwashed.
Who would choose for a Spiritual Master a father who has sexually molested his own children ?
If pemies are not brainwashed then they are hopelessly sociopaths and dangerous people who dont even accept basic LAWS of democratic societies in the west where sexually molesting children is a VERY serious criminal offense.
|
|
|
|
|
"To consciously choose to follow a pedophile Master and not care about it, is the proof that premies are brainwashed."
I'm at a loss for words to describe how appalling that kind of behavior is. When everything is upside down and backwards. When moral compasses spin out of control. When reactions to factual information are so counter to a fundamental sense of right, wrong and decency that they can only come from somewhere beyond reality.
That kind of behavior is especially appalling because in this case, except that he's doing nothing to stop it, Prem is not the one in control, i.e., he's not the one pulling the strings, circling the wagons or spreading the lies. It's the brainwashed premies creating and feeding off each other's lies.
Although it's purely conjecture on my part, I separate them into two groups:
Group 1: The people in this group are like passengers on the Titanic. They've invested decades, if not their entire adult lives, into making the sinking ship of Prem Rawat and his so-called self-knowledge the basis of their entire existence on this earth. They're panicking. The first thing I learned in Sr. Lifesaving was that without a floating device to safely extend to them, don't go near a drowning person who's panicking because they might be so delirious that they can't distinguish between you and a piece of floating debris to grab onto and they might drown you as well. You're trained to wait until they're too exhausted from flailing before you attempt a physical maneuver to rescue them.
The people in this group are so delirious that they'll grab onto anything, any fabricated story or lie concocted by Group 2 (below) just to keep themselves afloat and find a way to justify their willingness to cling to their Master.
Group 2: The people in this group are the insideous, cynical, self-interested conspirators; the tightly connected insiders and influencers whom the people in Group 1 take their cues from because they believe they're closer to Prem Rawat and more "in the know."
What kinds of fabricated stories and lies have the the people in Group 2 concocted about one of the victims and his wife? The following and more is all out there on social media:
• He's too weak to think, speak and stand-up for himself against the influence of his manipulative, controlling wife and a hate group. • He's allowing himself to be used by his wife and the hate group to the extent that he's allowing them to compose fabricated false allegations and post them on social media under his name. • He's suffering from post-concussion syndrome. • He's suffering from alcohol and substance abuse. • He twisted false memories into a story of traumatic molestation and he's acting out on it. • His wife coerced him into isolating themselves from his parents and siblings with no justification whatsoever. • They're doing it for money. • It was not sexual molestation, but rather a well-documented and socially acceptable practice common in cultures throughout the world.
The pure, unadulterated character assassination of a victim of childhood sexual abuse by people who profess to know their true self and Prem Rawat does nothing to stop it or intervene to protect and defend his own son. That's the kind of utterly worthless debris the drowning people in Group 1 are grasping at in a desperate attempt to stay afloat and avoid the truth about Prem Rawat.
To give anyone reading this a better sense of why this is so insideous, they've all likely heard or heard of the recorded conversation in which Prem Rawat admitted to sexually molesting two of his children and they make-up these lies anyway.
Modified by lakeshore at Tue, Apr 16, 2024, 10:22:14
|
|
|
|
Group 2 telling Group 1 what to think. Yes.
Also, your list was reminiscent of this one--
https://drek.org/pages/apologia.shtml feel looking at premie responses on Facebook seen an example of almost every one. Did not see gun to head, but did see -a mahatma once said a doubt was worse than a gun to the head-
it's in this reel
https://www.facebook.com/reel/301716055863636
|
|
|
|
I don't know how many people you have contacted but surely its a very small group and its quite possible they don't believe you. I imagine very few premies have actually heard of the accusations. Does anyone know how many people there are on these Facebook pages that have read about the accusations? None of them chose a master who they thought was a pedophile, in fact he was prepubescent at the beginning.
Which brings up the second point. In a 30 year relationship with premies from the 70s satsang days to people coming to my home to see Rawat's speech on a Satellite broadcast around the early 2000s I never met a premie who had an "experience of peace." There were some who had experiences of peace and of inspiration and of hope and of shared joy and frustration and fatigue and dedication but I never met a premie who was special in any way more than people I met at work or anywhere else. Many were less than normally happy with drug and alcohol problems and addiction to tobacco.
There had been people back in 70s satsangs who I thought must have a special experience but I only ever saw them in satsang. Every premie I knew out of satsang was quite normal or more intensely changeably emotional than most non-premies.
|
|
|
|
"I imagine very few premies have actually heard of the accusations."
Relatvely speaking, this is likely true. But "very few" can certainly amount to hundreds if not thousands of premies by now... and spreading. I believe the news has saturated the inner circle, the higher ups and the major donor network. That's why they're doing everything they can to fabricate and stand behind all the lies.
As for your second point, you may have overlooked one of the most fundamental tenants of this cult. The "heavy devotion era," perhaps best summarized as Prem's ruthless fear mongering phase, rendered "experience" obsolete and irrelevant. There was absolutely nothing light, joyful and blissful, let alone peaceful, about it. After that, a premie's so called experience made no difference whatsoever. It was all about maintaining that connection and not allowing the thread to be broken no matter what.
Drugs, alcohol, broken families, divorces, dumped, broke, getting fired... so what! Prem said the only thing that mattered was being on the boat and trusting the captain. "Knowledge makes the ride smoother" and crap like that. But, as Prem's dark threat went, once that thread is broken, it cannot be reconnected. Again, experience is not the point in this god forsaken cult.
Even worse, if you corner a premie about their experience, they'll likely lie about it and puff it up into something it isn't for them. Practicing Knowledge is what they do. Period. Sunny day, rainy day, shitty day, doesn't matter. Just do it so the thread will never be broken because without Prem, there is nothing.
The experience is a feeling of being connected to Prem, the invisible friend who's always there, even in your darkest hour; a feeling of connection that comes from doing whatever he says. The defensiveness and all the other appalling behaviors stem from the fear of that connection being broken, the fear of not having Prem in one's life, regardless and in spite of day-to-day experience.
Redundant and ever so slightly exaggerated to make a point. 
Modified by lakeshore at Tue, Apr 16, 2024, 17:38:39
|
|
|
|
Lakeshore, not redundant and not exaggerated 
Just made a post saying the same thing.
|
|
|
|
why gossip is quashed in cults
https://www.instagram.com/daniellamyoung_/reel/C4oO__mpsX5/
numbers? reads? not so impressive but here are some--
Some of Don's posts about cult are getting several hundreds of comments
Hans 111 "likes" etc and 80+ comments
The what do you call them, excuses? denials? 82 likes and 24 likes
Possible Documentary (1096 reads)
Hans Comments (446 reads)
Quotes from Hans (526 reads)
I never thought I would hear Rawat Confess (2117 reads)
on chit chat
| | Hello�to EVERONE! I have many Thank You's to give to those who responded to my posts... who have helped explain the scam of�Prem Rawat's words from the old days. Thank You for sure! �So many wonderful people are still here ... Joe, Cynthia, Anna, and Judy (my knowledge session friend from 1972) Did I see the light?� Sure! �But my eyeballs were almost flattened into my brain and it�did hurt. I bet I could show someone the "light" too by poking their eyes real hard with my fingers. What do you think?��Not to mention the never ending mind abuse by Prem Rawat. Do any of you old timers remember this agya?�No more chit chat! Don't talk! Anyhow ~ Thank You for responding� once again. Truely! I like what LP and others had to say.��Steve is right on too�with the old "And It Is Divine" quote by Prem Rawat. And John please don't worry ~ I love owning horrible mind abusing cult crap�from the past... so I�will keep it safe. Free shipping? I might get more on Ebay. I'm too�attached. Love and Best Thoughts To Everyone, even the ones who still might love Prem Rawat for whatever reason.I like the thought that I started a thread that had so many great responces. I�Thank those who care enough to help others. This attachment�is a picture of Prem Rawat etc. from Elan Vial - Autumn 1977, Volume 1, Issue 1, Page 15. Best Thoughts! Even if Prem Rawat tried to kill our�minds.
| | There certainly was a period when chit chat was frowned upon by 'serious' premies. I can't remember when but I am pretty certain it came directly from Rawat, so, like other impossible instructions from him, premies tried to follow it. At the time, I remember feeling 'in my mind' when I spoke about anything that wasn't satsang. I also remember the feeling outside formal satsang when another premie was giving satsang I should listen as I would in formal satsang. I think this was during the ultra devotional period of trhe Kissimee programs, as I have a memory of t-shirts with the text 'I'd rather have satsang'. I think the culture sort of faded away. Well it did for me anyway.John.
| | Well, here's the rub for me:� I continue to meditate on occasion using these techniques and I wouldn't be doing so unless I gained a sense of well-being doing so.� Naturally, I have nothing against humanity doing whatever if it feels good and doesn't harm anyone.� The harm is when a deluded and/or possibly megalomaniacal leader abuses his/her position by demanding absolute fealty in return. In my mind Rawat has abused whatever goodwill was extended by me to him in return for the techniques.� He ascribed a metaphysical�significance to "knowledge" that was/is simply not warranted.� Feeling at peace does not equate to spiritual liberation or guru subservience and all of the Hindu concepts he has been�complicit in exporting around the world.� He demanded a surrender and devotion to him personally which was a deeply troubling chapter in my life. Hilltop's posting of the published speeches of Maharaji/Rawat make it abundantly clear (again and again) that Rawat alone is responsible for all the wack concepts surrounding the simple techniques.� Any mental and emotional abuse arising from these concepts can therefore be placed quite rightly at Rawat's feet.� Moreover, Rawat alluding to being Krishna, Lord, Perfect Master, God, greater that God, all that crazy stuff was not a cultural misunderstanding but a severely deluded attempt to solicit our devotion and perpetuate a mythical belief system.� Rawat, in the Essen Coordinators meeting, also makes clear that all decisions are made by him not by his officials.� Therefore it is Rawat alone who can be blamed for all of the misguided propogation campaigns, fund-raising campaigns, no chit-chat directives and the like. While Rawat and his organizations have belatedly learned a thing or two in terms of public relations and presentation over the years (as have many other cults) the fact remains that he has refused to be accountable for his�direction and decisions or otherwise accept responsibility for any harm arising as a consequence.� Just the opposite - he and his organizations have embarked on a long-standing campaign to destroy, spin and revise his history.��Therefore, one can only conclude that Rawat is responsible for this deception as well.
|
|
|
Modified by Susan at Tue, Apr 16, 2024, 21:28:15
|
|
|
|
Setting aside your excellent point of why gossip is quashed in cults and why it's an essential and well-documented aspect of human evolution...
Regarding "no chit chat," Dr. wow states that no one was more responsible for creating concepts than Prem Rawat. In hindsight, it's as if Prem contributed mightily to the very darkness he purported to save us from. I say that because nothing in my life was darker (and more onerous) than my nearly ten years living (if you can call it that) in Prem Rawat's ashrams.
Premie suicide atempts, mental and physical breakdowns, the twice daily Arti ritual, relentless money issues, wack job* initiators, morning 'till night indoor satsang and meditation marathons on sunny days in July and whatnot aside, it was the entirely unnatural repression of twenty and thirty somethings in 1970s western culture that took its toll.
As one very small example, imagine yourself sitting down at the dinner table with perhaps fifteen others in an atmosphere of stiff, awkward silence. You know these people. You live with them. But you can't talk to them. The only vocalizations were things like "please pass the salt." Inevitably someone would slip-up and comment on something. That's when a pious premie would raise their index finger to their mouth and shush them. I remember times when "please pass the salt" was reduced to finger pointing.
Indeed, "no chit chat."
Then, after a brief interlude, the local community would file in (leaving a mountain of shoes by the door) or everyone would pile into a few vehicles for a trip to the satsang hall where there was typically a feature presentation such as a video of Maharaji giving satsang or a forty-five minute slide show of close-ups of Maharaji set to music by One Foundation or mutually agreed upon (acceptable) popular songs like Rod Stewart's "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy?"
(It's funny the way premies dodged all that and made things up about that crap gap in their resumes.)
I'll say it again: a certain premie apologist/revisionist had the temerity to say that the ashrams were no more onerous than little league of summer camp. This time, however, I'll leave out his absurd re-writing of the cause of the unnatural, pervasive and crippling social and sexual repression that harmed so many premies.
Meanwhile, we all know that Prem Rawat was secretly engaging in the polar opposite behavior of sex, drugs, rock & roll, alcohol, cigaretts, insatiable greed and materialism, and treating followers like playthings. (What does that say about the "self" in his so called "self-knowledge?" ) Premies were so damaged by then that the rationalization was that he was so enlighted that he could do anything he wanted in the playground he created.
Sadly and unfortunately, as Maria77 points out, the damage to the moral core of far too many of them only got worse over time.
* a crazy or extremely eccentric person.
Modified by lakeshore at Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 06:49:30
|
|
|
|
Prembo spoke out against chit chat, chit-chat and chat many times. Far more times than he ever spoke Cit
What is there to say except do satsang, service and meditation? As Bob was explaining to you before, when I say satsang, I do not mean chitchat. Let me explain that to you a little bit. I don't think a lot of premies understand that. What I really mean by that is three premies get together and they turn on a stereo, and they have extremely different opinions about that stereo. So they talk about it, they talk about it, they talk about it, they talk about it, they talk about it for hours. Finally, they end up at one point where they say, "Yeah, well, okay," and all of the three people agree that that stereo is good or that stereo is bad. Then they turn around, come to another premie, and he says, "Well, what were you doing that evening?" They say, "Oh, we were having satsang about the stereo." That's not satsang. Believe me that's not satsang.  I realized this very recently, that this is what premies were being mistaken about. They would go out and talk about these different ridiculous things, and they would come back to the ashram or anywhere and say, "Oh man, I just had the most fantastic satsang with that guy." Then somebody asks him, "Well, what was it all about?" He says, "I finally talked him out of the price." Well, that's not satsang, you know. You finally agreed, "Okay, I'll give you this unit for 250 dollars instead of 500 dollars," and you say, "I just had the most fantastic satsang with him." Not that you told him that it was for a spiritual cause that you were taking it. No. That was for your home. You just chit-chatted with him, and you think that's satsang. No! That is not satsang. Satsang is the real, true communication between the person who has mastered it and the person who is listening to that person who has mastered it. Because satsang really means, "the company of Truth." If a person is not in the company of Truth, then how can he put you in the company of Truth? Therefore, if he cannot put you in the company of Truth, how can you ever call it satsang?
|
|
|
|
As an outsider premie I bow to your greater insider experience of those days. I mean the word 'experience' in its standard meaning not in premienglish.
|
|
|
|
yes, outrageous isn't it.
It's odd. Not everyone is like that. There are people who are innocent in their brainwashing so that when they are presented with the truth honesty will prevail.
My mother said to me that we had a safety net - that's what she called it and she was right - when I started to see through the cracks of the Maharaji facade I didn't try to paper over the cracks, I walked out into the light of day.
Then I tried to tell my friends - Maharaji was not the good man we believed him to be.
I was made manmut. I saw a premie literally cross the street to avoid me. Then one day I am going for a parking spot and pull in to see a good friend just getting out of her car.
There's no way she can get away, I am up there and smiling and happy to see her as always and we are chatting and I make a joke. It was funny, we were laughing, and omg she choked.
I could see the ticker-tape running in her head like it was yelling at her - 'she's supposed to be a wretch but look at her, she's more fun and better than I ever seen before.'
And then the fear sparked in her eyes. we both shuttered down, it was bad. she took a step back and I didn't follow, I would never want to make someone feel like that.
So I think that's a lot of what makes brainwashing so successful, that inculcation of fear - fear of disloyalty, fear that if you go thinking about it and putting two and two together you might trick yourself out of your place in heaven?
No, it's the cult that is tricking you in the first place, not your mind. Listening to your thoughts is very underrated.
Always glad for my friend she found love again before the end.
|
|
|
|
It’s always puzzle for those who’ve moved outside the ‘group think’ to understand why those on the inside can’t see what is staring them in the face.
Maybe it’s worth thinking about who premies are and what the online reactions actually represent in terms of numbers and what might actually be going on in the collective premie mind.
We can’t know for certain how many adherents Prem has left but I think we can make some reasonable estimates – albeit excluding the Indian followers and members of Indian diasporas in the UK, Canada etc.
In the early 2000s Prem’s non Indian supporters i.e those parting with cash and attending events, likely totalled around 5,000, that number certainly decreased as was evidenced by falling event attendance figures over the next ten years, probably levelling to a hard core of around 3,000. Revelations on the forum, the various critical websites and Mike Finch’s book, undoubtedly had an impact and as people grew older a proportion naturally became less invested in a commitment that was unrewarding in older age.
The last ten years may have seen departures at a slower rate than the previous decade but age has an inevitable impact and “natural wastage” is starting to bite in a premie population whose median age is around 70. There’s probably a remaining old timer base of between 2,000 and 2,500, of these there’ll be 50 less each year, and that rate that will double every 5 > 7 years. One of the effects is that the female to male ratio will increase.
More significantly disability and ill health is becoming a major determinant of how premies interact with Prem’s organisations. Many, though desperate to hang on to their faith, are simply too distant to engage other than via online, so we perhaps shouldn’t be surprised that there are those who are simply unable to face shutting off their only meaningful social lifeline, no matter how damning the evidence that Prem isn’t fit to hold the position in their lives that he does.
Not that individual premies don’t have responsibility to speak up but as I suggested previously the onus is now on those who hold public position in the Charity and non-profit organisations to transparently address what has been revealed about Prem. It’s not a private matter and Linda Pascotto and others at TPRF, James Shaw and others at HDSK, Roland Klepzig and others at WOPG, and Brian Murray and others at IRF, should act to explain how their respective organisations are addressing what has been revealed about Prem’s behaviour within his own family and toward his then young children.
|
|
|
|
I am noticing the "likes" on the apologist statements. One statement is from a VP of TPRF. I don't know, but I question, if someone on a board has a legal responsibility to call for an outside investigation of such a thing, even if a family member.
I see some of the "likes" which signals an awareness of the allegations, even if it is an awareness of the denial of the allegations, are from people who hold leadership positions in the Peace Education Program. PEP advertises their presence in schools, with minors, all over the world, and in world scouts leadership. Isn't this too, an issue?
Who is supposed to decide whether or not an allegation is worth investigating? If you have a "conflict of interest" and a "whistleblower" policy... what the heck do they say? If the leader is the accused then it it fine for the family to deny it and look no further and insult the whistleblower online because after all, the head of the organization is by definition beyond reproach? I doubt it says that.
I imagine there is some mandated reporter stuff that applies, especially if someone has a mental health license or medical license, as do some of the "likes". The law is clear, that mandated reporters are not supposed to decide whether the allegation is true or not, just report reasonable suspicions. I doubt, I know him it is impossible, flies.
I also think that the organization should not have any role whatsoever in choosing "who" does an investigation. No one with a horse in the game should choose that. They should talk to me about what happened with the supposed Jagdeo investigation, and Anth, Karen, Deepak, Kathy G, Tim Gallwey, Valerio, Katie, Arthur B, Glenn Whitaker, Dettmers, incomplete list here but examples of some people named as having a role either with exposing Jagdeo or managing the crisis or said internal investigation, at the time on the forum, any name mentioned at the time, or any person we heard about behind scenes.... all should be under penalty of perjury too.
It's a pattern of how allegations are dealt with ... or buried.
|
|
|
|
What do you think about a campaign challenging all past and present Prem Rawat organizations to declare null and void any past settlement or NDA as they apply not to their trade secrets or whatever, but as they apply to handling of sexual harrassment, sexual assault, or his personal life behavior, that they can decide to handle this with utter transparency by releasing anyone who has ever signed a non disclosure agreement free to speak publicly about their personal experiences of sexual assault, sexual harrassment, or the handling of such, and Prem Rawat's personal behavior ...
https://www.cantbuymysilence.com/
and of course, no victim is ever obligated to be public. Releasing these would just give them the option.
|
|
|
|
I’m not a lawyer so I’m cautious about commenting on things like NDAs which can be very complicated – but some general points.
Outside of very strict commercial considerations NDAs are positively evil and any opportunity to campaign against them seems justified to me and I’m sure such a campaign would gain media attention.
However a couple of things probably need to be taken into consideration.
1) If the organisation that was a Party to the NDA, no longer exists, there may be no legal way to enforce the specific NDA. It will all depend on the specifics, consulting a contract lawyer would be wise.
2) Some NDAs can be drawn up in such a way that it is a breach to acknowledge that the NDA even exists, so caution has to taken in how and by whom the existence of an NDA is revealed.
3) No NDA can block the reporting of criminal acts, and I suspect that in the US it would (on free speech grounds) be difficult to block the reporting of the fact that a criminal act had been reported to a relevant authority.
4) Despite Government promises in 2019 things are still pretty murky around NDAs in the UK and no new legislation will happen till after a general Election – progress unlikely for at least another year. Despite supposed specific protections whistle blowers still face a difficult time here, however a campaign on NDAs addressing all Prems related organisations might well collect some attention regarding HDSK which is the renamed UK Elan Vital. I don’t know whether there are UK folks with NDAs who could be released from them or who would speak up.
5) Just to be clear non of the Trustees of the Rawat orgs can use an NDA to inhibit their duty to the wider public.
So – yes I think a campaign around Rawat orgs NDAs would be great but some thought and legal advice needed first to ensure it could have a practical effect and that individuals are protected. Small print needs reading !!!
Modified by Nik at Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 13:28:40
|
|
|
|
Your posts have been very clearheaded and helpful.
I agree, Doctor Google is a big mistake as I assume that Attorney Google is. There is likely a reason people get all this advanced education on things we think we can google and understand.
I do think, that suspected widespread use of NDAs in the Prem Rawat organization, possible settlement agreements and as what sounds like a replacement for the x-rating of the past, is something that should be looked into.
It's really hard for me not see a relevance to how the Jagdeo victims were treated, the responses, how many of the same people were involved in managing it, how similar the blame the victims tactics were..
Now, we have "it was very common" "it was not a taboo thing"
This is hard to stomach.
|
|
|
|
First thing to say is that the world has changed since Jagdeo was allowed free reign and there could be now (with very rare exceptions) no excuse for any person holding a Trusteeship not to ensure that current/recent abuse was reported and for the organisation not to make public the actions it has taken in response to the abuse.
Historic abuse is more problematic and many of the legal entities that protected Jagdeo for example no longer exist. I think perjury would only come into play were there to be a court case, and without a legal entity to sue that it is likely to be difficult to achieve.
As you say, in the US especially, mandatory reporting is a big thing, I don't know the US law in detail and I'm unclear how it applies to historic cases rather than present threats to a child.
In terms of process, an internal review might be warranted as an initial step - and for a diligent organisation that might be sufficient to produce appropriate action. Clearly an internal review that says ‘nothing to see here’ is wholly inadequate. The obvious conflicts in the Rawat orgs require at the minimum bringing in external advisors and both acting upon and publishing, that external advice.
Any organisation that has contact with under 18s should have stated policies on child protection – these would include minors being protected from exposed to any individual who may be threat to a young person’s well being. Any indication that these policies have breached should trigger an investigation, and based on that the organisation should be able say either, based on external advice that they consider there to be no danger to children, or that following information received and advice taken – “the following steps have been taken”.
This seems like pretty good over view of what would apply for example to TPRF: https://www.gg-law.com/gg-legal-faqs/child-abuse-legal-overview-of-nonprofit-responsibility/
The California Attorney General’s Guide for Charities also makes for interesting reading (more so than SoS material) with notable references to duty of care and fiduciary duty: https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/Guide%20for%20Charities.pdf
|
|
|
|
I can’t believe I read all this and didn’t acknowledge it. I have a way of doing that when a post is just so great and clear and there is nothing left to say. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Essentially EVERYTHING!For them Prem is GOD, so their eternal soul is at stake. This world is just Maya, illusion, and Prem is their reality. All is lila, the play of the Lord, so morality is just part of this illusion. The long time premies have invested @50 years of their life into this. They are now old. They have invested money, energy, put their kids second, and their life into this. What would they have to lose? Basically the foundation of their life. What do they have to gain? Nothing. Pretty much nothing.
|
|
|
|
Sometimes impending mortality makes people re-assess their beliefs. People are prompted to try and repair broken relationships, honour betrayed promises etc. I wouldn't give up on every remaining premie just yet
|
|
|
|
Whoa!
We’ve already heard that penis touching is considered normal and affectionate in some cultures. And Rawat said that was the case in his culture. John Miller has said that Hans had a complaint the required applying ointment to his penis. Obviously Hans will see that through an entirely different lens, partcularly as a four year old. They are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
|
All the subtlety of a interent troll. You think you have the right to talk about the childhood ailments of another person whom you don't know and who clearly wouldn't welcome your commentary ?
As with so much about premie behaviour this lacks any reference to normality or decency, it is a perverse coda and never has traction in the real world where your average person will not put up with it.
A four year old is perfectly capable of being instructed in the application of thrush creme to their own genitals without anything being misinterpreted about the parent's intentions.
And a four year old is perfectly able to form perspective memories - that is they can tell when things are 'normal' and when they are not, and no amount of sociopathic trolling is going to undermine the validity of childhood testimony.
https://www.tiktok.com/@jennifer..x.x.x/photo/7359234065758686497?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc
Modified by Nik at Fri, Apr 19, 2024, 08:39:50
|
|
|
|
and claims to be Hans Pal's daily playmate until he was 7 years old. He doesn't seem to realise how weird and suspect that is if true which it probably is.
|
|
|
|
What I said about Hans and about John Miller I found in posts posted by ex-prem
|
|
|
|
The statement of Miller and recording of Prem Rawat are contradictory. Prem Rawat admits that what he did to Hans was wrong and knows it was wrong now, but he claims he didn't realise it at the time because it was what his family had done.
That is completely contradictory to Miller's claim that nothing happened beyond a medical treatment.
Beyond that, Miller's statement is just absurd. How can he possibly know what happened in the Rawat house at all times and in every room, even in the intimacy of the family private space?
So I asked you a question earlier which you didn't answer. Now I will ask you again. Rawat was living in Miami, with an American wife and surrounded by Westerners, where what he did to his son Hans would not only be considered wrong, it would be considered a crime. Do you think what Prem Rawat did to Hans is okay in that context?
|
|
|
|
AB - The statement of Miller and recording of Prem Rawat are contradictory.
T - John Miller doesn't know what happens when he's not there. He can only refer to his own experience.
AB - Prem Rawat admits that what he did to Hans was wrong and knows it was wrong now, but he claims he didn't realise it at the time because it was what his family had done.
T - Prem Rawat didn't admit that what he did with Hans was wrong. He said touching a little boy's penis was " in our, in our whatever India was, it was very common. It was not a taboo thing." And we know that it was common and affectionate in many cultures. Rawat believes that what he did wasn't wrong and he still doesn't believe it was wrong.
T - Rawat's answer to the second half of Hans' question "did you not know that touching (my) genitals would have a negative impact, a life-changing impact on me?" Of course he didn't. In Rawat's culture it's a gesture of affection. The prevalence of little Indian boys of a certain culture remembering it as "sexual abuse" is unknown. What Rawat is referring to is Hans. He is realising that Hans is having "a negative impact, a life-changing" response to what Rawat thought was a gesture of affection. So he agrees with Hans, he realises that it is possible "Now I realise that that’s true, now I do, I do, I do." Hans is have "a negative impact, a life-changing" response.
AB - That is completely contradictory to Miller's claim that nothing happened beyond a medical treatment.
T - Once again we can discount anything John Miller didn't see.
AB - Beyond that, Miller's statement is just absurd. How can he possibly know what happened in the Rawat house at all times and in every room, even in the intimacy of the family private space?
T - Obviously he couldn't.
AB - So I asked you a question earlier which you didn't answer. Now I will ask you again. Rawat was living in Miami, with an American wife and surrounded by Westerners, where what he did to his son Hans would not only be considered wrong, it would be considered a crime. Do you think what Prem Rawat did to Hans is okay in that context?
T - We agree that Rawat touched his son's penis. All fathers and mothers touch their son's penises. In Rawat's culture it's a gesture of affection. So yes it's OK.
|
|
|
|
Where are you quoting from? Is that from the transcript that was posted here? Or have you heard the recording?
Because I have heard the recording and you are grossly distorting and misrepresenting what was said. For example, it wasn't a discussion about a parent innocently touching a child's genitals to wash or dress them for example, but rather"inappropriately" and repeatedly doing so. A lot more is said about this referring to both sons being victims and both parents being the abusers. It is quite shocking and Prem Rawat does indeed admit to knowing what he did was wrong.
So I have to wonder what your intention here is. If you feel uncertain because you lack the full picture, why would you so vehemently defend Prem Rawat over the very clear accusations coming from his adult son that it was indeed abuse. Why would you jump to the defence of an alleged child abuser rather than at least remain impartial?
Or are you not playing with an open deck here? It is just bizarre, like you are Prem's defence lawyer in a trial. In any case, you clearly seem like you are on a mission not to find out the truth but rather to vindicate Prem Rawat at all costs.
|
|
|
|
AB - Where are you quoting from? Is that from the transcript that was posted here? Or have you heard the recording?
T - The transcript
AB - Because I have heard the recording and you are grossly distorting and misrepresenting what was said. For example, it wasn't a discussion about a parent innocently touching a child's genitals to wash or dress them for example, but rather"inappropriately" and repeatedly doing so. A lot more is said about this referring to both sons being victims and both parents being the abusers.
T - Amar denies that Rawat abused him. Who then is telling the truth?
T - It is quite shocking and Prem Rawat does indeed admit to knowing what he did was wrong.
T - Please connect me to the audio. Rawat admits to the possibility that Hans is negatively effected by Rawat touching him.
B - So I have to wonder what your intention here is. If you feel uncertain because you lack the full picture, why would you so vehemently defend Prem Rawat over the very clear accusations coming from his adult son that it was indeed abuse. Why would you jump to the defence of an alleged child abuser rather than at least remain impartial?
T - Because Amar denies the he was abused by Rawat. That makes Hans or Amar a liar Why believe Hans? He's at war with his parents, his sister and his brother.
AB - Or are you not playing with an open deck here? It is just bizarre, like you are Prem's defence lawyer in a trial. In any case, you clearly seem like you are on a mission not to find out the truth but rather to vindicate Prem Rawat at all costs.
T - Prem said what he did was common and accepted in his culture. Hans has told him he has been negatively affected by it. Rawat is surprised. but now accepts that Hans is being negatively affected by it.
|
|
|
|
Dear "Thinking", your posts would have whole lot more weight if you would use your real name. I do. Karen Kirschbaum. I was a 10 year ashram premie. I am horrified at this information about Prem and Marolyn! I am also appalled at your response. It is not Hans vs Amar. Both of the daughters were involved in this conversation and believed Hans. One called Marolyn a " scorpion" and stated she worried for Amar's safety because of Marolyn. Why do you do anything you can to excuse his behavior? Is there no line that Prem could cross that would be too far? Murder? The 7deadly sins? If you can't say there is a line he shouldn't cross, you are in a cult. BTW, there are past accounts given by former PAM'S that Prem WAS INVOLVED IN A HIT AND RUN DEATH IN INDIA. He forced a devotee to take the fall. Also, PAM's relate that Prem is guilty of committing the 7 deadly sins. Other than dispensing a warmed over Hindu meditation, not unique to him, and claiming to bring peace, WHAT EXACTLY ARE ANY REDEEMING QUALITIES DOES HE REPRESENT???? NONE.
KAREN KIRSCHBAUM
|
|
|
|
Thinker - there’s an aspect to your posts which I think is worth noting.
Prem’s personal life has been quite strongly protected by legal restrictions – PDAs etc, which have very effectively limited what those who worked closely with Prem can say. The usual terms of such personally focused PDAs is that they invariably give protection not just to the principle but also to the principle’s family and close associates, notably children are often given especial protection.
Despite this you seem happy to repeat claims by a member of Prem’s personal staff regarding a child’s medical condition, to make a claim regarding the current interactions of Prem’s family, to make a claim about one person’s extreme attitude to his parents and siblings, and to make claims about the denial by one family member regarding statements of another, all of which can only come from protected sources, unless of course you are being economical with the verisimilitude.
So do you have access to usually protected sources in the Rawat family ? Have you been told that Hans Rawat no longer enjoys the protection provided by PDAs applied to the Rawat family ? If so, has it been explained to you the legal basis for Hans being ‘cut loose’ in this way ? Have you been given permission to quote members of the Rawat family ? Are those quotes limited to derogation of one family member for purposes of protecting the selfish interests of one or more other family members or individuals involved in Prem’s businesses or non profits ? Or is it you are drawing quotes from the atmosphere ?
|
|
|
|
I'm quoting from material Hans and others have published on the net.
|
|
|
|
Thinking, you have responded to everyone's replies to you except m post. Why?
|
|
|
|
You quote John Miller but that seems unique to you, rather than being "what others have published on the net"; perhaps you could clarify ?
The quote is significant as it is very specific and must have required conversations between more than one individual with knowledge of the Rawat family. The individuals being exactly those who would be expected to be covered by an NDA and therefore at penalty from making such personal disclosures about a (then) child.
|
|
|
|
Okay I will follow suit.
- How do you know Amar denies Rawat abused him? I don't recall seeing that posted here, but maybe I missed it.
- I can't connect an anonymous poster here to the audio. How should that work? Anyway not mine to share.
- Your next answer makes not sense to me, but let's break it down. First of all, Amar I assume is not denying that Hans was abused. Hans says he was abused and he also said his brother was abused. So let's just say Hans is mistaken about his brother. In this case, they could otherwise be telling the truth about their personal experience. So it isn't necessarily either/or right?
- Second point about this. Hans has absolutely nothing to gain by lying. He risks losing his inheritance. Amar has quite a lot to gain by lying for the same reason. That does weigh the scales a bit doesn't it?
- Third point, exactly because you see ambiguity, why do you vehemently defend Rawat? Why not just reserve judgement?
This reminds me of the case of Woody Allen and his daughter Dylan. There is a glaring difference in that Woody Allen always denied that he abused his daughter and Prem admitted it. But leaving that aside, when the case first came up I think around 1992 Allen was not prosecuted. A big reason was the ongoing custody battle and there was reasonable doubt in that her mother might have coached her. In subsequent times the tide of public opinion has turned against Allen because Dylan is now an adult (like Hans) and has stuck by her story.
Yet that is not the point. Even back in 1992, when there was still reasonable ambiguity, I certainly would not have defended Allen, even though I liked his movies. I just felt like I couldn't be sure. I am definitely not going to avidly defend a potential child molester based on a possibility of innocence. That is just weird, unless I am his defence lawyer or his mother maybe.
- Your last point about Prem. Both Hans and Prem agree that Prem did something to Hans sexually that was wrong and terribly damaging to Hans. Your defence of Prem is based on the statement from him that he didn't realise it was wrong at the time.
But what if he is the one who is lying? He certainly would have a very good reason to do that. He is accused of something heinous and this would mitigate his responsibility. This is very common behaviour among people accused of sexual crimes. Is this not also at least part of the ambiguity here, or is the idea that Prem could be the one lying not possible for you to accept?
|
|
|
|
Just because you posted some link earlier about cultural practices in some Asian cultures, doesn’t establish as fact that this kind of behaviour is acceptable in India. You can dig up a link about anything online. India is a big place with over a billion people. I would do a lot more research about that before coming to such grand conclusions. Hans also addresses that in the recording by the way.
I don't find it very relevant anyway. This happened in Miami, Florida, not Delhi. Prem was married to an American woman, who Hans also accuses of incestuous child abuse by the way. But Prem was also surrounded by Americans and other Westerners. He seemed to do all he could to adapt to Western ways. The only way he could get away with this is if he did it surreptitiously, meaning he knew then that it was not okay. Otherwise, if he was innocently following some alleged Indian practice, people around him would have quickly corrected him.
And beyond that, there is a ton of documentation, starting with a newspaper interview of Bob Mishler, where Prem's bizarre penchant for sadistic sexual degradation is revealed. These were not displays of affection but rather his own gratification at the suffering and humiliation of others. Hans addresses that too in the recording.
|
|
|
|
AB - Just because you posted some link earlier about cultural practices in some Asian cultures, doesn’t establish as fact that this kind of behaviour is acceptable in India.
T - It is common amongst the Tegulu speaking people of India and they number 80 million. Rawat said it was common and acceptable in his culture. And it is his culture we are concerned with.
AB - This happened in Miami, Florida, not Delhi. Prem was married to an American woman, but Prem was also surrounded by Americans and other Westerners. He seemed to do all he could to adapt to Western ways.
T - But he still embraces Indian ways
AB - The only way he could get away with this is if he did it surreptitiously, meaning he knew then that it was not okay.
T - Apparently not. Didn't he do it in front of a third party?
T - Otherwise, if he was innocently following some alleged Indian practice, people around him would have quickly corrected him.
T - Long before America existed people in India used cannabis as an every day relaxent. Now, thanks to Richard Nixon, using cannabis is a crime in some states of America. No intelligent person is going to assume American law is rational, humans and just.
|
|
|
|
So in your opinion to sexually molest your children is a practice you believe should be legalized in the west as smoking hash should be legal ?What else should be legal ? Misleading the public the media and authorities in order to protect your Guru ? Fortunately in the largest part of the world no human being is considered above the laws that each country decides to follow.
|
|
|
|
No. I'm saying that touching a child's penis isn't necessarily sexual abuse. Otherwise all parents would be in jail. Hans also claims Amar was sexually abused but Amar denies it.
|
|
|
|
All laws are rational to themselves, and unless demonstrably perverse, rational to the jurisdiction to which they apply. There’s no pick and mix option, unless you think you should be free to choose which side of the road to drive on according to personal whim. The fact some other jurisdiction has a different road discipline doesn’t alter the rationality of having a single code of conduct for driving in any one jurisdiction.
Prem made a choice to not just live in, but to become a citizen of the US, which involved him swearing to defend its Laws, there’s no cultural get out from that, though perhaps he is pleading victimhood as mitigation. What Prem acknowledges is that he acted in a way that likely constitutes an assault by him (a US citizen) on a minor person, who was at the time, and still is, also a US citizen.
There are now two primary issues which no amount of cultural relativism can distract from, firstly how does Prem explain himself to the wider society in which he has chosen to live ? Even setting aside the legal connotations, there is a cultural primacy which raises real or alleged harm to a child above other considerations and all public figures have a clear culturally identifiable social duty to be wholly transparent where the abuse of a child has been suggested to have occurred.
Secondly how do those individuals and organisations who represent Prem in the public sphere deal openly and transparently with the information about Prem’s behaviour towards one or more of his children ? There is a duty to explain and a duty to protect, the organisations need to engage with those duties openly and transparently without delay.
|
|
|
|
As above.Touching a child's penis in acceptable and legal in most countries, otherwise all parents would be in jail for bathing their children.
|
|
|
|
Which is not in issue, however sound parenting generally leads to guidance to the child on how to care for their most sensitive parts at an early age. That is clearly not what Prem has acknowledge to his now adult children, that he was doing.
In any case, if it is all so innocent/normal why do he and his representative organisations not publicly clarify the issue ? Any self respecting corporate entity or promoter of peace would be eager to get ahead of any public misunderstanding and address the problem head on. What we have from Prem and the orgs is embarrassed/guilty silence.
|
|
|
|
Needless to say that the content of the phone call many people have listened to has nothing to do with touching a child to give them a bath. Nor does Prem use this excuse for his behavior. So why are you making up this irrelevant excuse for him, whilst dismissing the content of the phone call ? I understand that everything you write here is addressed to people who have not listened to the phone call to mislead them.
|
|
|
|
Date: Thurs, Jun 28, 2001 at 17:37:32 (GMT)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: ********
Subject: *******, you are being disingenuous
Message:
| Stop painting all that Maharaji has done and all premies with your sanctimonious victim brush. That is just wrong. That demonstrates a misrepresentation of the real situation, and it shows what kind of character you are really made of. Right now I count 2 people who have stepped forward and claimed abuse by Jagdeo. Okay agreed, there is no excuse for even one case of child abuse, but 2 cases in 30 years does not represent a systemic corruption of the fundamental principles of a man or an organization, like you are representing the situation. Okay ****** you’ve been wronged. So is that your crusade in life now? And so you are willing to ally with a group of spiteful people with their own axes to grind to further your crusade while they use you to further theirs -- which by the way is not to protect the victims of child abuse. The whole thing you’re doing is crap and I don’t care if the whole fucking world sides with you, it is wrong. You are participating in the wrongful demonization of not only Maharaji but all premies, who on the whole are as sincere a group of human beings as you will find. |
|
http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/jagd_evpr.htm
| | "DUO LAUNCHES CIVIL SUIT AGAINST MAN ACCUSED OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT | | | | | | Divine United Organization (DUO), a society registered in India with similar goals and values to the US organization Elan Vital Inc. (EVI), has initiated civil action against a former instructor accused of inappropriate sexual behavior more than twenty-five years ago. The lawsuit, lodged in India’s Sub-Judge Court, in Patna, charges Jagdeo Upadhaya, a retired instructor of the former Divine Light Mission, with “inappropriate and tortuous behavior” and having breached his duty to the organization. EVI spokesperson, Linda Gross, said DUO and other Elan Vital organizations around the world would not tolerate such behavior.
“If Upadhaya did this, then it is a terrible thing for the victims and a violation of our organization’s trust and decency - values for which we are respected worldwide," she said. When the first of the alleged victims came forward in 1999, EVI immediately began inquiries. At the time, Upadhaya was living in retirement at a DUO ashram in Mehrauli, India. When confronted with the allegations, he left the ashram and has not been seen since. The second alleged victim, claiming to have been abused by Upadhaya in 1976, contacted EVI in April 2001.
“In the absence of any criminal or civil action filed by the alleged victims, DUO resolved that pursuing Upadhaya through a civil action was the proper course of action,” Ms Gross said.'
| DUO LAUNCHES CIVIL SUIT AGAINST MAN ACCUSED OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT | | | BACKGROUND INFORMATION | | | Conflicting and spurious allegations regarding the alleged incidents of sexual abuse have been posted anonymously on the Internet and EVI is concerned to set the record straight. We make the following points: - Neither alleged victims has ever taken law enforcement or legal action over the alleged childhood incidents.
- Both alleged victims claim to have previously notified EVI about the incident. Our inquiry determined that these claims were unfounded.
- The second alleged victim detailed psychological difficulties encountered as a result of the alleged abuse. Although under no legal obligation to do so, EVI responded immediately with an offer of help, including payment for professional counseling of the person’s choice. This offer was rejected. The person then demanded a large amount of cash, public apologies from persons uninvolved with the episode, and, finally, that EVI buy her a house. Later, the person’s attorney told EVI that the organization would have to pay dearly to buy the alleged victim’s silence. We found these actions disconcerting. Subsequently, EVI learned that the person had been simultaneously negotiating with the producers of Australian television’s “Sixty Minutes” to broadcast the story, who apparently turned it down. The person then began negotiating with the French Communist magazine “Combat Face Au Sida,” which advocates actions based on the recently passed “About-Picard” law. This law, which is considered to restrict freedom of thought, conscience and religion in France, has been strongly criticized by the US State Department, members of the United States Congress as well as by civil rights leaders worldwide. According to the Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, the law ” goes against freedom of association, expression, religion and conscience; it imperils the rights of minorities and creates prejudices incompatible with the notion of tolerance intrinsic to human rights.”
EVI spokesperson, Linda Gross, said that even after DUO had indicated that, to the best of its knowledge, Upadhaya was living in Buxar in the Indian State of Bihar, the alleged victims continued to make false and conflicting claims that DUO was harboring Upadhaya and had not revealed his whereabouts. “Any statement that EVI harbored this man, and innuendo that EVI knew of and ignored the allegations of sexual misconduct are flatly false and defamatory. It is just not true,” Ms Gross said. |
|
http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/jagd_abuse.htm#a
Prior to this date, if one consults the archives, there are many posts by this victim discussing her interactions with Prem Rawat representatives, Valerio Pascotto, Kathy, and Tim Gallwey are all named. The obvious implication is something akin to the post that follows is to be expected.Webmaster's note:-
'A's story appeared here until May 2002. At that time, she requested that personal details of her story be removed from the site. Although she never confirmed it, the webmaster of this site believes this was a condition of a settlement she had reached with Elan Vital. It is also believed that another condition was the publication on Elan Vital's website of an invitation to other victims to come forward. This invitation (http://www.elanvital.org/policies.html) is so well hidden on their site, it is unlikely that any victim of Jagdeo would ever find it,
The events 'A' described took place at Wringford Manor when she was seven. She describes Jagdeo sexually abusing a room full of children, and then asking all the other children to leave. Then behind a locked door, he raped 'A'. This was repeated on several occasions. 'A' described her feelings of horror, and the way she felt her body no longer belonged to her. She made one attempt through a third party to tell her mother, but she did not have the language, and her mother didn't understand. Jagdeo was, after all, a Holy man.
Years later she told her father who was horrified. He told other premies, including Gurucharnanand, one of the most senior people working for Maharaji. Nothing was done to stop Jagdeo touring. 'A's father later renounced Maharaji. |
Subject: Re: Pedophilia in the Maharaji CultFrom: CPGTo: JoeDate Posted: Thurs, Jul 11, 2002 at 17:06:25 (PDT)Email Address: Not ProvidedMessage:If true, the allegations against Jagdeo are reprehensible and deserve to be looked into. However, with only ONE victim coming forward out of the hundreds of thousands in contact with Jagdeo over the years, this sounds very difficult. How does one contact other victims if they don't come forward/. And lets make it clear there were no allegations of complicity by Maharaji in this alleged crime as reported by the one alleged victim.
This guy CPG is just about crowing about the success of the cult in silencing a victim. You would think he wouldn't want to ring that bell, but no, he has to brag that only ONE now is willing to be named.
I think 20+ years ago Prem Rawat's representatives showed just how kind they are to victims of child sexual assault. If they would go so far to distance Prem from having known about a child sexual abuser in his organization, how far will they go if the allegation is against Prem Rawat himself?
The excuse that what is being discussed is some kind and gentle affectionate custom, or if that doesn't stick, a medical procedure, is absurd and self serving. Lakeshore addressed that so well here.
https://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi/forum?cmd=get&cG=9343039383&zu=3934303837&v=2&gV=0&p=
It's textbook Standard Maharajia Apologia- but tailored to throwing it all against the wall in this specific case because something might stick.
Who is "Thinking"s intended audience? They have serious contempt for ex-premies. So it's probably not the regulars here. I think it's the lurkers. I think they have thrown out a bunch of crap for premies to latch onto who are looking for any reason to disbelieve yet another allegation of child sexual abuse within the Prem Rawat cult. Cynically, I speculate that they have lost some donors. Maybe even a major donor.
https://drek.org/pages/apologia.shtml
(Sara Sidner is on my TV right now, looking gorgeous and amazing in her royal blue dress. The way CNN hosted Prem Rawat and ignored my request for an explanation of her long time family involvement with Prem Rawat continues to dismay me. I naively think people should give a crap about the things they claim to give a crap about.)
It was never about me-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNs_5M0eG-k
If you have a Perfect Master You can't do anything but worship him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dckRZozcwnA
Modified by Susan at Sat, Apr 27, 2024, 18:59:51
|
|
|
|
Some other great responses here, but I would like to add a couple of things.
- 80 million people is about 6% of the entire 1.5 billion population of India. More importantly, Tegulu-speaking people live in southern India. Delhi, where Prem is from is in the north and is a completely different culture.
- Beyond that, you speak with such certainty of the cultural practices of the Tegulu people of Andhra Pradesh like it is established fact. That is based on a page you googled? Seriously, in 2024? The "I read it on the internet" argument? To be able to even begin to make a statement about such a sensitive topic you would have to be expert on their culture. Its not exactly something they would write in their tourist brochures. Well you clearly are not an expert and honestly none of us are here. If you were, you wouldn't have even brought it up because you would know it is the wrong part of the very large and diverse Indian continent.
- The rest of your statement, I just find it kind of ridiculous. Of course he hid his behaviour. And of course you have to follow the laws of the countries you live in, especially if you are a citizen. Anyway I have to run now.
|
|
|
|
All we know is Rawat touched his young son's penis and his son now claims it was sexual abuse. According to Hans, Rawat did the same to Amar but Amar denies it was sexual abuse.
|
|
|
|
You avoid the difficult questions now.
But to your point, no that is not all we know.
A: First of all, I ask you again where you have this denial from Amar from?
B: I don’t feel comfortable talking about Amar in public like this and it is not my place, but I will just say that there are things that would call into question his credibility in this matter. This is public information but I don’t want to repeat it here.
C: In the call, both sisters support Hans. He goes on to talk about the sexual abuse from his mother and explicitly expresses concern for Amar with regards to the mother. Premlata jumps in at this point to also express concern about the mother.
D: There are significant public statements from Mishler and Dettmers about Prem’s sexual abuse of followers.
E: There is also evidence of Prem’s protection of Jagdeo when his sexual abuse came to light.
F: It seems pretty clear that Marilyn’s relationship with Prem when he was 15 and she was 24 would also be categorised as sexual abuse, at least today. Teachers have gone to jail for exactly that.
|
|
|
|
AB - You avoid the difficult questions now.
But to your point, no that is not all we know.
A: First of all, I ask you again where you have this denial from Amar from?
T - From Hans as per -Hans (in reply to Janice) I have absolutely no reason to concoct such lies about anyone in fact I have many reason not to allow this information to get out. By speaking out against my parents, I am walking away from a promised multimillion dollar inheritance! This is exactly the reason my brother who is also a sexual abuse victim of my parents is keeping silent or denying these allegations. AB : In the call, both sisters support Hans. He goes on to talk about the sexual abuse from his mother and explicitly expresses concern for Amar with regards to the mother. Premlata jumps in at this point to also express concern about the mother. T - I haven't heard the tape so I can't comment. I'm not interested in Marolyn. She could be the new Mata Ji for all I care. AB - There are significant public statements from Mishler and Dettmers about Prem’s sexual abuse of followers.
T - Nor am I interested in Mishler and Dettmers.
AB - There is also evidence of Prem’s protection of Jagdeo when his sexual abuse came to light.
T - Haven't seen it.
AB - It seems pretty clear that Marilyn’s relationship with Prem when he was 15 and she was 24 would also be categorised as sexual abuse, at least today. Teachers have gone to jail for exactly that.
T - It's an easy thing to say but hard to prove.
|
|
|
|
I find it, I don't know, mindboggling is perhaps the right word, that you sort of imply that Hans is lying based on what Hans says about what Amar is saying. I hope that made sense. In other words, if you think Hans might be lying, then how is he a reliable source for Amar? Also I think that is what lawyers call hearsay.
Again, my main point about is this. In the face of uncertainty, which the information you say you have seem to dictate, and considering the severity of the accusations, isn't it better to just remain neutral until you have more concrete information? Certainly not to defend the accused abuser? If the accusations turn out to be true, then that is going to be quite regrettable for you don't you think?
Once more I am reminded of Dylan Farrow. She just had an interview with Drew Barrymore, where the first thing Drew did was basically apologise or acknowledge that she made a mistake being in a Woody Allen picture after the allegations had first come out. Note she hadn't defended Allen, she just appeared in one of his pictures. She talks about how the incident helped her to grow and see the world differently.
Anyway, I don't think we need to continue this. I have nothing more to add at this point.
|
|
|
|
Based on the information I have, I absolutely believe Hans. Just want to get that off of my chest.
Modified by aunt bea at Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 03:40:41
|
|
|
|
AB - I find it, I don't know, mindboggling is perhaps the right word, that you sort of imply that Hans is lying based on what Hans says about what Amar is saying. I hope that made sense. In other words, if you think Hans might be lying, then how is he a reliable source for Amar? Also I think that is what lawyers call hearsay.
T - If you believe Hans is being truthful then Hans' own brother is calling him a liar. If you believe Amar, then Amar is still calling Hans a liar. Everything on this page is hearsay and, legally speaking, Prem Rawat is innocent until proven guilty. But that hasn't stopped people on this forum calling Rawat a "pedophile" on the word of someone who claims everyone in the family has "done him wrong" and he is bravely "forfeiting a promised multi-million dollar inheritance." A more plausible explanation is Hans already knows he will not be his father's successor and he's furious. It's 1974 all over again. Eldest son passed over and starts war on youngest son.
AB - Again, my main point about is this. In the face of uncertainty, which the information you say you have seem to dictate, and considering the severity of the accusations, isn't it better to just remain neutral until you have more concrete information? Certainly not to defend the accused abuser? If the accusations turn out to be true, then that is going to be quite regrettable for you don't you think?
T - Mind boggling is the right word to describe your statement above. Yes, in the face of uncertainty, it would be prudent to remain neutral, but instead you and others here have broadcast far and wide that Prem Rawat sexually abused his son and is a pedophile without a shred of evidence. Perhaps, hypocrisy is a better word, don't you think?
Prem Rawat says "in his culture touching an infant's penis is not taboo" and in many cultures it is considered a non sexual and affectionate gesture. Hans thinks his parents and siblings have "wronged him" and so he has publicly accused his father of "sexually abusing" himself and his brother. His brother denies it. But hey, "innocent until proven guilty", common decency and fairness are not part of the ex-premie modus operandi. Happy to discuss this further AB.
|
|
|
|
|
"innocent until proven guilty".
From the perspective of someone who does not personally know any of the actors involved that is a fair comment.
Certainly many claims have been made about PR's behaviour in secret that if more widely known would completely undermine his business model based upon his claim to teach a path to an inner experience of peace via his unique insights and his techniques of self-knowledge.
So any judgement -if indeed you wish to make any judgement - can only be based upon what seems most probable as opposed to what is certain. On EPO and this forum at least a dozen different people with access to PR (notably Mishler, Finch, Dettmers, Donner) - as well as many others with more passing involvements - paint an entirely self consistent picture of a sometime bullying, likely alcoholic, troubled and sexually unfaithful man with poor self control and a dysfunctional family life. Again though - innocent until proved guilty? - perhaps they all had a personal grudge? So let's say a 50:50 chance for each of them - 0.5^12 ? Pretty long odds then that PR is a truthful person with nothing to hide and a peaceful examplar of his own teaching - far less than 0.1% .
So the point is that Hans's accusation --certainly the most egregious claim to be made against PR -- does not exist entirely in a vacuum. Personally I withhold judgement but based on form - and against the background of everything else - think that unfortunately it is more likely to be true than not.
I think that that is a more reasonable position to take than just taking a 'nothing to see here' attitude. If PR wants to maintain any credibility as someone with something to teach that is of genuine value then he really needs to be open and honest - as things stand he is a public figure and must fairly expect scrutiny of his character. If he had listened to Mishler then maybe things would have turned out better.
Tim
Modified by tommo at Sun, Apr 28, 2024, 07:33:24
|
|
|
|
Thinking wrote: "in the face of uncertainty, it would be prudent to remain neutral, but instead you and others here have broadcast far and wide that Prem Rawat sexually abused his son and is a pedophile without a shred of evidence"
Testimony is evidence, and people are responding to what is clearly the honestly expressed view of someone who experienced abusive treatment from a parent. You may not give value to that evidence, but that doesn't mean the evidence does not exist or that others should not value it.
I agree that a neutral stance is desirable, but modern societies, recognising that child abuse, sexual or otherwise, has the potential for extreme harm do not start from the position of guilty/not guilty. Instead all involved are expected to respond with responsibility to ensure protection and resolution, which may or may not be tested by a criminal status of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Again you may not agree that this a desirable approach, but it is a social norm which socially responsible bodies - businesses, non profits, charities etc are expected to comply with.
At this point, the issue is not about Prem - certainly not his innocence or guilt, it is about the occurence of harmful behaviour, which may or may not have had sexual intention, but which on a balance of probabilities (Prem has acknowledged it) actually occured.
Prem is a person of influence in multiple organisations, he stands at this point in the position of a Weinstein, an Epstein, a Cosby, a Prince of Wales, prior to any court case or settlement.
Prem, and his organisations should now act in the best societal interests in addressing the abuse of children and of adult survivors - that means honesty and transparency in publicly acknowledging the situation, not hiding behind some notional criminal standard of innocence.
|
|
|
|
Hi Nik. The sturdy patriot and defender of the royal family in me just wants to point out that where you wrote 'Prince of Wales' you probably meant 'Prince of York' Tim
|
|
|
|
I'd better change that, wouldn't want the world to know I'm bloody Roundhead
Ahh - too late to edit - hell everyone knows I meant the Duke of York right ???
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrews-12m-court-settlement-26244075
Modified by Nik at Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 04:16:38
|
|
|
|
Don't care, not interested, haven't seen it.
So? Not worth bothering, and if I haven't seen it it hasn't happened?
Just great...
|
|
|
|
Mr. or Ms. Thinking really cares about things that might mitigate the culpability of Prem Rawat. For example they couldn't stop talking about the cultural practices of Telugu-speaking Indians they had found on some web page, which it turns out is totally irrelevant.
But what close associates had to say about Rawat, that is somehow not important to them. And that Prem's wife abused their children under his nose, yeah why should that possibly matter?
Obviously a dyed in the wool follower, but what I don't understand is why they post here. Are they thinking they are going to convince someone with that pretzel logic? Or is this some way of pushing back on their own doubts? Or is this simply someone like Charles Glasser doing service?
I suppose we will never know. But I found out something interesting recently. There was an Australian premie, who I am guessing is an ex-premie now, who used to post on the forum to defend Rawat back in those early raucous days. He explained to me that their avatars were in reality run by a team of premies. They had – for that time – sophisticated software that controlled who posted and also masked the original authors. There were indeed several teams doing this at the time. Maybe Thinking is also a team effort? I don't think so though.
However these kind of efforts typically backfire on them. It just reveals the cult nature of Prem and his followers.
Modified by aunt bea at Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 04:49:02
|
|
|
|
Yes, that was the idea though I think the reality was a bit different. In terms of Catweasel one person did pretty much all the posts and only an occasional post from another.
|
|
|
|
I just found out and find it fascinating. The way it was explained is that there two groups in two different cities in Australia. He also said he believed there were groups elsewhere like in the US.
In their group, (not the Catweasel one), one person was an IT guy who developed the software. This enabled them to first of all totally mask their identity through an additional layer and also would only allow one of the people to access or post as the avatar at a time. The way I imagine that today different people can work on a single cloud document simultaneously, like Google Docs.
All cyberpunk spy thriller stuff, and I guess they probably really got off on that aspect of it.
I believe there was some suspicion back then that the avatars were being run by multiple people simply because of the times they were posting.
He also mentioned that Catweasel was a single individual though, but also part of the other group. Apparently Catweasel has died. I didn't ask for his/her identity and didn't think it was my business.
This is all from a public FB post, so I am just repeating it here.
|
|
|
|
goodness. I knew nothing about the software involved, what I heard was the idea that by making it multiple people no one could be held responsible.
Catweasel was brutal, it is not how he talks in every day life. It is a while since I last saw him, maybe a year, he was fine then. Still a premie but seemed to be in good health to me. would be sorry to hear he is gone.
|
|
|
|
If you are certain on Catweasel - what is your reason for not naming him? Maybe everyone else knows who he is?
Not suprising on not how he talks in everyday life.
|
|
|
|
An Australian premie. someone I knew well. When I exited and started reading here I recognised him from his posts and the first thing I did was let JHB know. And there was a private forum at the time, I spoke about it there. But if I remember correctly there was some discussion about him here by name around that time.
when I first read his posts I got such a shock. He does not speak like that in real life, it was fascinating, like hearing his inner voice - I thought he is channelling his father!
Modified by lesley at Sat, Apr 27, 2024, 15:38:32
|
|
|
