Cynthia, I aint no revisionist.  I was there, right in the thick of it, from 1972 onwards when the pressure to join the asram was at its strongest.  I succumbed to that pressure for a while, but I also knew premies who didn't succumb but never doubted the intensity of their devotion - they just saw what was going on in the ashrams and didn't feel it was for them.

I was also aware of the nudging and winking when M said "ashram life, householder life, it's all the same as long as you do s, s and m" etc, but some people simply took no notice, and took M at his other word, which was just - s, s and m.  I find the difference between the two groups of people interesting and it's my prerogative to come here and comment on it, after much reflection.

Look, computers draw you in and take over your entire life.  Some people use a computer for what they need it for, and fit a lot else into their life.  Others become almost hermits, spending countless hours online.  Years later they might turn round and go "oh no, I've just wasted years and years of my life on the computer".  What are they going to do?  Blame the computer?  Hardly.  But if that computer was a guru, they'd blame the guru, because he's animate and the computer isn't.

But is the fact that the guru is animate and the computer, or dope, or alcohol, or gambling, or anything else inanimate that "sucks you in and takes you over" more relevant than one's own propensity to be sucked in?  There's a million thing sout there we could be sucked in by; I find it a little odd that we see it as our responsibility when it's online addiction, drug addiction, alcoholism or whatever, but entirely the guru's fault when it's a guru.

And look, there's no way I'm trying to exonerate M here.  Sure he's doing a bad thing.  He's taking vast sums of money off people as and where he can.  He turned a blind eye to Jagdeo's abuse of children, which is heinous, no doubt, and it was the discovery of that that caused me to ex and stop believing in him.  The revisionism stinks, and I haven't changed my mind on any of that.  The only thing I've changed my mind about is trying to convince other people to ex - it's up to them to make the discoveries, although I'll give my views i asked.  I've come to realise that for some people it's a prop that gets them through, as long as they don't devote too much time and energy to it, in which case it's damaging.

The only thing I'm trying to examine is how far the responsibility was ours.  Look, people left in 72, 73, 74, 75 and every year after that.  People got up and walked out of the ashram and never looked back - I can think of many examples over the years.  And many didn't.  Surely it's fascinating to examine the differences between the people who were able to do that, and the people who weren't.  What was the need in them that caused them to stay?  And why did some take M at his word when he said "ashram is best", and others when he said it didn't matter?  Were the ashramites just more sincere?  Or did they have a greater propensity to obey?

Yes, being susceptible is what makes people join cults; it also makes people succumb to advertising, dire political parties, cons of all shapes and sizes, etc etc.  It's to do with the suspension of intellect and of one's critical faculties, as we all know.  So why did we all suspend our critical faculties at that critical point, when so many others smelt a rat and didn't?  Why didn't we smell a rat for so long?  Are we still prone to not smelling rats, given our propensity back then?

I think it's an interesting and healthy subject for debate, that's all.

Gotta go now.

Livia

PS By the way, I'm not seeking to minimalise in any way the things that happened to you personally and to so many others.  I have always felt for you on this, particuarly what happened to you around Charananand and DECA etc.  These are not small things, and I would never suggest that they were.  What I'm trying to say is about perspective, and ways of analysing the exact reasons for what happened.  The received wisdom is that the people who get suckered into cults are usually of average to above average intelligence, and while this is true, and I can see you are a highly intelligent person, as are most of us here, something in us allowed us to "snap".  Others don't snap and what I'm interested in here purely, is - why?