Elisa: I didn't say that my father is perfect, but one of the best people me and many others have known.  There's a big difference, Jim.  We all make mistakes, and we all have personality traits that don't suit some people.  My father included.  But what didn't work was that a handful of people took one particular incident and attempted to smear his entire character and foul his lifetime journalistic work.  OK by them, they were free to do that of course, but it didn't work.  Why?  Because most people chose to look at what was good in him (much more than the bad) and also liked his fabulous work. 

Jim: Why are you talking about whether or not your father's perfect?  I didn't say anything at all about that.  Reread my post, please.  I was just making the point that if you're saying that he was falsely accused it's because you either know or believe that to be true (assuming you're sincere, of course).  I was just trying to get you to say which, both with respect to your father and Rawat.

Elisa: OK:  The incident did happen but not the way described by those few people;  there were other several people who witnessed the incident and spoke up to give their version of what happened, which was more credible to his friends, co-workers and readers.  My father didn't really want to get into fighting this smear campaign because he was very busy with his journalistic work at the time, so it remained only a thorn on his side.  The smear campaign didn't work, and I can safely predict that yours won't work either

Jim again: Elisa, you say that the incident did happen but not the way some people described.  It sounds like you investigated it.  You talked with the various witnesses and determined for yourself what really happened.  So why not go through the same process with Rawat?  I'll tell you why.  Because, for premies, the idea of doubting Rawat, let alone "investigating" him, is taboo.  Even more so than with your father, I bet. 

Anyway, if you're right, your father was indeed the victim of a smear campaign and good for him that it didn't work.  But you can only say it was a smear campaign because you looked into the allegations.  Until you do likewise with Rawat, you've no right to say any such thing.

Take the cyclist incident, for instance.  Mike Dettmers says he was there and saw it happen.  He also says Randy Prouty orchestrated the Chinese Fire Drill in which people changed places so Rawat wouldn't be found behind the wheel.  So many premies have come and bitched about this "allegation" but, to the best of my knowledge, not a one has ever contacted Mike to discuss it further.  Nor has anyone taken the matter up with Prouty.  That's my point.  Like Jack Nicholson said in A Few Good Men, "You want the truth?!  You can't handle the truth!"  Don't mean to be rude but, honestly, aren't there some things about Rawat that you'd simply rather not know?  It's easier that way, isn't it?

Elisa: But since you've insisted on the issue of death:  Yes, I've heard Maharaji express in context something about the moment of death (I think about it on occasion myself) but only a handful of times.  However, this is not the gist of his message and I happen to go for the gist:  You can know the "life force" or "creative energy" or "God" or "Maker" (or however you choose to call this) while alive.  You can feel all the love and all the peace and all the joy that you wish to feel while alive

Jim: Let's not be any vaguer than we need to be, shall we?  Rawat said that it's not necessary to leave this world empty-handed.  What does that mean to you?

Elisa: Religions say that empty-handed you come and empty-handed you leave.  True, when you take "empty-handed" in respect to physical things.  False, when you take it in respect to everything you wish to feel and to realize about this existence, which can fill you up completely.  And Maharaji puts the emphasis on this last one.  Jim, what does it mean to you? 

Jim again:  Sorry but I don't have any idea what you're talking about.  Look at my question again.  If Rawat's saying that you don't have to leave this world empty-handed what is he saying?  Isn't he saying that you can leave this world with something?  Now what would that something be?  And, to the point, isn't this exactly the kind of promise about the afterlife that you first said Rawat never made?