I stongly disagree that my choosing to stay out of these battles means that I condone them. Besides I have always expressed that I would prefer a more civil debate with premies. The fact is that neither you or I can actually do anything about it even if we wanted. Also don't forget that the 'attacking individuals' and 'putting up of websites that denigrate individuals' has been something that premies have done too. They are in my opinion just as guilty of these kind of tactics.

I do understand that ex-premies are rather like ex-lovers and are perceived as an irrational and maybe unpredictable threat to Rawat's work and possibly even sometimes to him personally. Just like ex-lovers can be. I've had an ex-girlfriend throw a plant pot through my window once. Tell me about it! Irrational emotional behaviour is scary. I just think this is inevitable- goes with the territory - and it seems to me that TPRF have plenty of legal weight at their disposal to protect themselves from illegal attacks. Hasn't this been demonstrated in the way that they responded to John McG's attack in Australia? I understand he has been pretty much financially ruined as a result. I can tell you that I for one don't want to get the wrong side of this kind of organisation. TPRF has plenty of money and power to defend themselves don't you worry. I'm certain that it is Rawat policy to tolerate vocal criticism but to unleash the hounds in their full fury when critics do something illegal. That would actually be the appropriate 'corporate' policy in this day and age. Any more sinister means of squashing opposition could spell the end of TPRF's aspirations.

Also, as I say, the 'sickos' are not the one's to worry about. Comparatively speaking they are no threat at all. It's when Rawat gets himself into a situation where he has to answer some 'un-prepared' questions in public that I predict he will face his toughest challenge. David Frost for example had no qualms at all about asking Bill Clinton about the 'dirt'. As you so rightly say the press go straight for that because it's so interesting to the public! Bill took it on the chin and simply told the truth and came out of the whole thing looking like a respectable beacon of honesty and virtue! Can PR do that?

I don't think that this is about how big or how small, but about the freedom to chose, the freedom to love and the freedom to feel.

That's a bit rum coming from you who are so fond of belittling and condemning peoples freedom of speech. However I do agree with you here as it happens. My feeling is that if Rawat brings fulfilment and peace to people that's great and I accept you all should be be free to practice your religion/feelings or whatever you want to call it.
That does not mean, in my book, that individuals, premies, other organised groups, cults, sects or more orthodox religions should be exempt from public scrutiny, debate and criticism where found wanting. (After all a cult is by definition something purposely 'hidden' away from the attention of mainstrain society and this may account for it's negative connotation. )

I think that the way TPRF and Rawat should respond to accusations and attacks is simply to make sure they are accountable and open for inspection as it were. Maybe they are - I don't know. If Rawat has nothing to hide or be ashamed of he has nothing to fear. If they have done wrongs they can simply admit it. It's a simple principle and one which has worked well for people who have been caught out like Clinton. His public honesty, apologies for lying and frankness about his mistakes has earned him more public respect than he could have ever gained in other ways.

I am interested to know if you broadly disagree with this or whether you think that
Masters are always doomed to somehow rub up society the wrong way and thus are forced to take a low profile, propagating their Knowedge in a way that doesn't attract the attention of the 'demon' of the world at large. I say this because I now see the world as a place which does not, by default, crucify do-gooders but actually as a place where genuine do-gooders can be more recognised and accepted for what they are. Take for example Nelson Mandela. Sure people like Mother Theresa get accused of all sorts of hidden agendas etc. But by and large, if somebody does something that really resonates with untainted goodness or 'social usefulness' they are welcomed by society. I wonder if Rawat doesn't still labour under some of the Hindu religious doctrine he was brought up around, where the world is historically viewed with great suspicion and demonised as the enemy of God and his elect. Formerly 'The World' was used by Maharaji almost as a synonym for Evil, along with 'The Mind'. Both enemies warranting constant wariness.