THIS IS ABOUT THOSE THAT NEVER FULLY COMMITTED TO THE PRACTICE OF K OR EVER FULLY COMMITTED TO FOLLOWING M, AND THEN... COMING IN HERE AND TELLING EX'S THAT THEY WERE TO BLAME FOR ALL THAT HAPPENED, MOCKING SOME OF US FOR OUR STUPIDITY IN BELIEVING M WHEN HE SAID HE WAS THE LORD OF THE UNIVERSE. (see posts from Elaine, Jonx, Livia and other's)

OK, enough is enough.  You, Danny, have absolutely no right to imply the above about me.

I gave my life for 10 good years, from the age of 22 to the age of 32.  No question - s, s and m was all I did.  I must have gone to satsang virtually every night for 10 years, so how dare you suggest I wasn't fully committed?  Neither have I ever mocked anyone for their "stupidity" for believing M when he said he was lord etc.  I've seen those contemptible posts here and elsewhere from people like Catweasel, where he mocked exes for ever believing that stuff - the hypocrisy was stunning because I have absolutely no doubt he would have believed it all himslef if he was around back then - nearly all of us did, including myself.  Why else would I have devoted 10 years? 

For the record, I was still a practising premie for the following 10 years, although in a looser way, ie  developing an interest in other pursuits for their own sake for the first time since receiving K in 1972.  Then had a baby but went on believing in M (as lord) until reading EPO in 2001.

It's amazing how one's words can get twisted.

What I was trying to say, until most of you here tried to tear me into little shreds for saying it, was that perhaps we should just look a little more closely at the reasons why we were drawn to M, and why we stayed so long.  I stayed a long time myself, so am most certainly including myself in this.  It's just an interesting line of thought, and there's nothing wrong with examining a phenomenon from every angle - or is there, in your book?

I've never even hinted for a moment that I'm attempting to absolve M of any blame.  I personally believe he should have come clean sometime around that 1976-77 era, when he must have fully realised he wasn't what we thought he was.  Before then he may well have believed it himself - he was only 13 when he came to the West for heavens sake.  He was only 14 when I first saw him - he had been born into it.  But by 1977 he was 20 and had most likely worked it out, and when Bob Mishler begged him to come clean with the premies, and he chose not to - most likely because he had grown to love the lifestyle - this is when it all started to go horribly, horribly wrong.  I truly wish I'd walked in 77 when he pulled all the premies back in.  It was a horrible time, but I must have been too afraid of what would happen if I walked - well, I didn't even consider it as an option, but moved staight back into the ashram, as many of us did.

However, what seems to fail to go on here is any questioning of the very premise of "mind-control", as written about in certain books about cults. Should those books become a bible for us, or should we not feel free to question them, as we should surely question everything?  Their conclusions have by no means been scientifically proven, and I have seen much healthy debate about the whole concept of mind-control at other sites.  It's worth having a look at what's being said - and I'm not talking about cult apologists here.

I believe some Western governments have looked at the whole phenomenon, and decided not to prosecute cult leaders for mind control, or make cults illegal, for the very reason that the very concept of mind-control is in doubt - or unproven.  (France is an exception)

So - there seems to be a generally-held view here now that mind-control is an indisputable reality.  The conclusion then drawn is that M is 100% responsible, and that our particular vulnerability to him at that time is somehow irrelevant.  Even the fact that if we hadn't swallowed M's line, we were probably ripe for swallowing someone else's is deemed irrelevant.

I guess my current view is that mind-control is debatable - in other words, I DON'T KNOW.  And nor does anybody here.  The problem is, though, that the people still posting here (who haven't been hounded off for expressing a contrary view) seem to hold the collective view that mind-control is an indisputable fact.

I think some people are far more prone to mind-control than others, for whatever reason.  And some people are also more prone to group-think than others.  There was definitely a lot of group-think going on with premies back then as well as everything else, in other words, we all helped perpertuate each other's continuing devotion.  There were certain things it was OK to say, and certain things it wasn't OK to say, and most of us toed the line - if you didn't you were labelled a "bongo" or worse.  I distinctly remember telling a premie at a festival once that I felt miserable and wasn't having any experience at all, and she reprimanded me sharply for being "in my mind" and bringing her down.  I learnt my lesson and kept quiet after that when not feeling the required feeling (especially around her).  Etc.  It wasn't only M who kept premies in line - we all did it to each other, guided of course by the unseen M, the Big Brother in the sky (and at programmes, on a stage).  But I'm sure you know what I mean.  The imaginary friend, too.  Our God.

But it wasn't only M who kept us in line, was it?  And this is where the phenomenon of group dynamics comes into play.

What I find somewhat disturbing now, if disturbing isn't too strong a word, is the evidence here that some of us (myself included up to a year or so ago) are succumbing to "group-think" again.  Someone expressing a contrary view to the accepted analysis taking precedence here is quickly leapt upon and pretty much hounded and insulted until they apologise, rephrase or reword what they said, or leave.  The number of supportive messages I receieved (from exes not premies) (and I receieved lots) is clearly symptomatic of the numbers of exes out there with the same views but who no longer feel comfortable posting alternative views here.

Oscar Wilde once said something like "why attend to the thoughts of others when you have plenty of your own?"

I think it's important we understand the (very human) tendency to forgo independence of thought and submit to group-think.  As we were prone to it before, there's certainly a possibility we could submit to it again, and some of us here may have already done it again, quite unwittingly.  There are some awesomely strong intellects here, and some people with bullying instincts too.  There are also some very kind people here too, I would never dispute that.

One little problem though - the posters with strong intellects and a bullying tendency may well be prone to intimidating others who are less confident about their own thought processes.

Humans are group animals after all, and will always tend to form tribes with other people sharing similar views, but people here should be aware of the dangers of spending too long here, and then waking up too late again, realising another chunk of life has been wasted. 

Who to blame then?

Which, believe it or not, was my whole reason for posting last week.  I glanced at the forum again, saw all the same people going over and over the same stuff and thought "how long should it take to get your anger out?"  Surely more than a couple of years is longer than is good for anyone.  Visit, post, question, analyse, understand, grieve, rant and rave - fine.  Even for a couple of years or so.  But then - move over and make room for others who may need to go through the same stuff in a supportive environment.  If you don't, then the clear danger is of succumbing to yet more group-think in a closely-knit group yet again, and creating an environment where new posters don't feel safe to say absolutely anything they want without quickly being inveigled into yet another way of thinking.

Then you're doing fragile new exes a disservice, and I would have thought that would be the last thing you, or any of us, would want.

Regards

Livia

PS  No doubt this will be taken apart, misunderstood, and I'll be labelled a cult-apologist and all the rest.  So be it.