|
|
|
|||
|
| Recent Discussions re John MacGregor |  | ||
| Forum | |||
|
Recently I was explaining to a premie friend that I wasn’t the author of http://prem-rawat-critique.org/. I had no idea who created it but that there were plenty of likely candidates who posted on ex-premie org because the percentage of very smart people who posted there was way over the community average, let alone the former premie average. There were also a few paranoid crazies and in that regard I’d like to thank the forum administrators for removing the wildest and most abusive attacks on me. There are certain legal constraints upon the topics on which I am allowed to speak publicly so I thought I’d quote some of those people who seem to have the best understanding of this affair though I am not necessarily verifying their views or validating their statements. As far as I know, apart from John and myself, Nya and Jim have the best knowledge of the events though there may be others. PatD wrote: The only person who can explain himself is Gubler. I don't mind if he does that here, after all he's posted before. I don't appreciate the fact that he's written stuff of a general nature under another name since though. I did not wish to be a public figure involved in criticism of Prem Rawat and contacted John initially re some questions about premie consciousness. I also vowed not to allow the abusive attacks of some others who post here to drive me away because they do not like my intelligent, reasoned viewpoint on DLM/EV. I only use my real name when I am discussing this topic, one in which I was involved. PatD uses an alias, why shouldn’t I? My motive for contacting John was straightforward. I cannot understand how the people who became premies in the early/mid 1970’s have been able to accept the changes involved in the practise and "experience" of "Knowledge" over the last 30 years as I stopped circa 1980 when it became apparent that no actual consciousness evolution was occurring no matter how much satsang, service and meditation was done. This is a difficult question and not one I wish to discuss with people to whom I am close. To me premies are just normal people with a religious belief in Prem Rawat and no special "experience". Unfortunately, John was unable to answer this question in a satisfactory manner. Nya: Actually Gerry, one of John's flaws is that he, like a number of journalists, will suspend his normally nice and consequent nature in the interests of getting accolades for his journalism. A streak of ruthless ambition perhaps? And that is probably why he had no regard for Tom, as he has had no regard for shopping the exes who helped him. Indeed a complex character. As I say he also has many fine strengths. Nya probably knows John much better than I do and was present at our first meeting. John certainly acted very irresponsibly on numerous occasions. As he made far more foolish errors and thoughtless mistakes in his own defence than in decisions affecting others I believe he acted in good faith. Gerry what happened was (as told me by Tom = he is a truthful chap, although will lie his head off to protect his wife) While Nya and I agree on actual events, her interpretations are more melodramatic than my own. Jim: My understanding is that John specifically promised Tom that, whatever use he made of the information in the docs, he wouldn't publish them wholesale and thus leave it clear for anyone to know where the info came from. John broke that promise. And while any cynical and paranoid conspiracy nut might jump to the conclusion that John was thus setting Tom up, perhaps as part of some grand cult-driven betrayal, rational people will give the benefit of the doubt to John and assume, without further evidence one way or the other, that he simply made a mistake. Tempora: If anyone is to blame for John's problems, it is probably John himself, though I don't enjoy saying so. All John had to do was obey the court order or seek legal advice within 24 hours and there would have been no major problems for him. The court transcripts show the judge was puzzled and incredulous that John had acted as he did. JHB: Sure he was stupid and deserving of our contempt for signing that affidavit. I have more reason than most to condemn his action as I am named in that affidavit (even though at the time Tom had never heard of me, and I certainly had never heard of Tom). I think his willingness to do so suggests he was (and is?) not as free from the cult conditioning as he thinks he is. I can't imagine someone in his position who had never been in the cult would sign such a document simply out of fear that his cult member wife was about to come home. I can’t imagine anyone who has been married for over 20 years not understanding my position. Joe: It's kind of hard to believe that he believed she wouldn't find out anyway, however, and, of course, it doesn't excuse the lack of backbone in lying under oath to protect himself from the rath(sic) of his wife. And Joe is not in a position to understand how a husband would feel about his wife at all. J The EV/Amaroo solicitor had told me that that his clients were very anxious to keep the affair secret. I am pretty naïve and assumed that meant permanently. But I signed that affidavit partly because it was so ridiculous and written in EV cultspeak that I thought anyone reading it would recognise it as absurd cult propaganda. If there are any copies still on the Internet read it and see if you don’t agree. As Joe said about John’s later "apology": I couldn't care less if John thinks I'm part of a "hate group" because the whole concept is laughable and absurd, and I think John knows that. I know it too. Joe: I have a theory that premies and ex-premies are easily intimidated because on some level there is residual belief that Rawat will come and get you like the big, boogey man some day, and you deserve whatever you get because you turned your back on "the love'. It's not rational, but it's there, because we were all indoctrinated as premies that Rawat is all-powerful, all-knowing, and beyond judgment and we are not allowed to be independent human beings in his world. I became a premie despite Rawat and though I gave it my best shot, my bullshit detector was too strong. "Darshan" was a nightmare for me because up close I didn’t like what I saw. John said that he had experienced the same but accepted the "Maharaji is the perfect mirror" concept to explain this experience away. I just tried more meditation until I finally looked around and realised no matter how personally intense and "blissful" being a premie was, we hadn’t moved in a positive direction. JHB: In public posts here, and in private emails, I have also asked John if there was anything in his articles that was untrue (particularly because I have published, and continue to publish, them, on EPO) and he has not retracted a single statement. Whatever is left of his integrity clearly wouldn't allow him to do so. Bunny: One thing I will say for John; even in his "apology" he did not retract one single thing he said or wrote. He only folded like a deck of cards and said he had no right to say it, was insensitive to say it, and the like. I find John’s "apology" inexplicable but then we have nearly nothing in common but that we both at different times became disillusioned with Prem Rawat and "Knowledge". I have told him that I was the one deserving an apology, not the people trying to ruin him, but that I hold no grudges and that if he’s ever in my neighbourhood to call me. |
| Previous | Recommend View All Current page | Next |
| Replies to this message |
|
