Ultimately how much we all have a choice about the decisions we make and how much those choices are made for us is a philosophical/sociological question that is probably beyond the scope of this forum. Somehow I don't really get the point of all this. Of course in the sense that no one was holding a gun to our heads we did have a choice. Yet the American legal system, as just one short example, seems to think that the choice to smoke cigarettes does not rest entirely with the smoker, because of the overwhelming power of advertising and the fact that the cigarette industry held back information about the detrimental and addictive effects of smoking. In that case the legal system has unequivocally decided that some responsibility rests with the industry itself – for false advertising and withholding of information. And not that the people who chose to start smoking are just dumber than others.
Similar charges could be made against Prem Rawat. He and his organisation meet both criteria, except that the damages are difficult if not impossible to prove. While you are of course correct, that the Rawat con is not the most clever around, under the right circumstances, when a person is in a certain state of vulnerability and susceptibility, it works – well enough that Rawat is a very rich man today.
From a therapeutical perspective however, I think that it is important for ex-premies to accept their own responsibility for their involvement. That is the best way to reclaim the reins of their life and also an important part of growing up. It is a very freeing process to escape the bounds of one's own self-pity, and believe me, I am speaking completely from my own experience and growth process here.
And this is what I think is important on this forum. We should be offering help to each other and not having pedantic debates that just result in making someone feel bad about themselves.
