Jonx,

This response of yours is very insipid.  It's like you're scraping the bottom of the bowel for something to say.  But if this is it, you'd have been better off saying nothing.  Really, you're just making a fool of yourself with these inanities.  But then, you're anonymous for a reason, right?

Understanding Rawat is more a matter of familiarity than theory.  It's one's experience in the cult and with the cult leader that matters, not one's education in the abstract. 

You are flip-flopping Jim. You who consistently tries to refute premies' experiential basis of reality in favour of abstract postulations from theorists like Dawkins are now doing a complete about-face and favouring experience over intellect. You lose much credibility my friend.

You're very mixed up here.  I cite Dawkins and other scientists when the issue's scientific.  Dawkins doesn't inform me one way or the other about the Maharaji cult.  This was a very stupid comment of yours.   

As for why exes are better observers of the cult than current members, well, the answer is too obvious for words.  You guys are pressured to not scrutinize, let alone criticize, anything about Rawat. 

Pure bullocks! I see the same facts that you do. I also see some that you don't. That is precisly why your perspective offers no greater authority than mine. To think otherwise underscores an imbalance caused by oversight and arrogance. Frankly you are a fool to think like you do.

Would you like to see examples of some of the countless times Rawat has discouraged you guys from scrutinizing or criticizing him?  Countless, jonx, as well you know. Would you like to see a few?  No, of course not.  You know as well as I do what the story is here.   

You can't openly criticize Rawat.

I could openly criticize him but I don't because in balance his input into my life is a good thing. Period. Like a good friend, I am not blind to his faults, but he is still a friend.

Now this is laughable!  What are his faults, Jonx?  You don't even have the guts to spell them out behind your anonymity.  And the idea of doing so with your real name ... well, that's unthinkable, isn't it?  Can you imagine?  No, really, what if, for argument's sake, you thought Rawat was selfish.  You know, that's not such an outrageous criticism to have for a friend.  Selfish, a bit dishonest at times, greedy, cowardly ... these are just some of the imperfections we see in each other even when we still love and admire that person.  So what are Rawat's then?  What are his faults?  Is he a bit selfish?  Can you say?  What, Jonx?  What??  LOL!!!!!

The best you can do is join him in scapegoating others for the failures and shortcomings of his movement over time.

More bullocks Jim.

Brilliant!  Did you struggle over that answer?

When people were as immersed in a culture such as we all were, we learn so much about each other, in particular what was keeping us and what was propelling us out.  I, like so many other exes, have had countless discussions on this issue with premies and ex-premies of all different stripes. 

Jim, you obviously have a high opinion of your powers of observation. Well here's a little something that could help... they aren't as great as you think they are. You have't had "discussions" with premies. To discuss is a two-way process. You hear nothing but your own voice. You have done little more than pontificate and badger.

Sorry, dude, but you don't have a clue what you're talking about.  I've had many deep, probing discussions with premies.  Some even left the cult eventually.  Why don't you give me a call sometime?