Clear thinking is very important in regard to this matter, as it is in many situations.

It is important to distinguish between - on the one hand - beliefs, assumptions, inferences, conjecture, speculation, suspicions, imagination, etc., and - on the other hand - facts, actuality, reality. If you don't know something is a fact, it can be a big mistakes to assume it is a fact. (This is a very important point which is emphasised in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, which some people on this board may possibly be familiar with.)

It is also very important to distinguish between Maharaji and Maharaji's premies. Maharaji is not any of his followers. Maharaji is Maharaji. If you blame Maharaji for something someone else has done - which Maharaji did not do, and had no knowledge of - then you are being extremely unfair. It is easy to accuse someone of something they have not done, to throw mud, to blacken someone's name, to character-assassinate, to libel, to slander, to defame - it is very easy to do that, and also very wrong. That is why the law regards it as very serious, (and morally it is very serious), and that is why (at least in the country I live in), a person is regarded as innocent until proven guilty. You are entitled to your beliefs, Cynthia, but you must realise that they are just beliefs - which you may think are true, but which may not in fact be true.

I noticed one thing you said a few days ago, in a previous post to me about Jagdeo, which I wish to draw to your attention. You said:

"There is another woman named Susan who reads and posts on this forum. She reported the abuse to Randy Prouty and Judy Osbourne in 1977, and both told her they had informed Maharaji about it then. They later had a lapse of memory about this and now deny it. This is all about deceipt, Godo.
That's called collusion and it's a cover-up. Maharaji knew and he did nothing to protect innocent children."

You state that last sentence as if it is a fact - "Maharaji knew and he did nothing to protect innocent children."

So where did you derive that "fact" from? Well, it's not a fact, so I will re-phrase that question: How did you come to that conclusion? You say:

"Susan...reported the abuse to Randy Prouty and Judy Osbourne in 1977, and both told her they had informed Maharaji about it then. They later had a lapse of memory about this and now deny it."

In other words you believe that Randy Prouty and Judy Osbourne "informed Maharaji about it then", and therefore you conclude (for certain?) that "Maharaji knew and he did nothing to protect innocent children."

Yet you go on to state that Randy Prouty and Judy Osbourne "later had a lapse of memory about this and now deny it."

Thus you are clearly implying that they are now lying. If your account is true, they were either lying the first time, or lying the second time (assuming they both haven't got very faulty memories). So, by your account, they are definitely liars. Yet you choose to believe a pair of liars that they "informed Maharaji about it then" - and you choose to disbelieve Maharaji - who has no record of ever lying, who has an impeccable reputation for honesty. Thus, on the evidence of two - by your own account - liars, you totally condemn Maharaji, and you are certain that he is deceitful. Even just by your own account Cynthia - leaving aside EV's account, or Maharaji's account - even just by your own account, the evidence is very weak. Yet you think it is strong enough evidence to freely blacken Maharaji's good name with it.

(I wish to make it clear that I am not necessarily saying that Randy Prouty and Judy Osbourne are liars, I am saying that by your account, Cynthia, they are definitely liars, one way or another.)

I am prepared to discuss this with you, if you wish to continue discussing it, but you must realise there is no way I can sufficiently familiarize myself with all the details of the whole Jagdeo issue, and come to the conclusion you might wish me to come to. I understand that you have your side of the story, and EV have their side of the story, and Maharaji has his side of the story. I trust Maharaji more than I trust any premies, and more than I trust any ex-premies - so guess whose side of the story I'm going to believe? The Jagdeo issue is for the courts to judge upon. If any judgements go against Maharaji, you can let me know!

In the meantime, it is important to distinguish beliefs from facts. If I beleived that what you said about Maharaji was the reality, I'd probably get very depressed. It would be a hell of a shame to get depressed over something that is not true.

(Please note that I do not necessarily dispute anything you have said about Jagdeo, or any of the premies involved in this.)

I suffered physical, psychological and sexual abuse from Christian Brothers, a Catholic religious order in Ireland, while I was at school as a teenager. I condemn the people who were responsible, both directly and indirectly, but I do not condemn the people who were not responsible, and I do not go around being disrespectful and slanderous towards the entire Catholic Church. I may not agree with all of their teachings, but I recognise that most priests, bishops, cardinals, and ordinary Catholics, are decent sincere human beings, and many of them do a lot of good work in the world.

It is important to see things as they are, and not let your imagination run wild. Maharaji emphasises the importance of clarity, and any right-thinking person would agree with that. Please be accurate, Cynthia - in your thinking, and in what you say, and suggest.

You state one side of the story. There is a different side of the story on the following website:

www.one-reality.net/index.htm

from which I have copied and pasted the following extract:

4. "The Jagdeo affair."
This unfortunate affair involves allegations that a former instructor, Jagdeo, molested children during the 1970s. According to grievance 4, "Mr. Rawat did not prevent Jagdeo from continuing in his service..." The fact is that allegations referred to in Brauns' web site were not made until several years after the alleged offenses. In spite of contrary claims, Maharaji was not informed at that time. A contributor to Brauns' site, Michael Detmers, who was head of DLM at the time, says "It was my personal experience that, whenever Maharaji became aware of improper sexual behavior by any of his instructors, he took immediate disciplinary action."

I agree, on the whole, with the viewpoints expressed on the www.one-reality.net/index.htm website, though I do not necessarily assume that everything, stated there, is in fact correct. (And I do not necessarily agree with the way it is expressed.)

I agree with this though: "If you throw enough mud, some of it will stick."