|
|
|
There are other mentions of Bob Mishler but only in passing and
non-controversial.
162 Peace Is Possible and always would be,” he says. “Here was something that did not
exist in the domain of language, but rather in the realm of direct experience.
Here was a mirror that reflected what was already inside me. This possibility
was so different from anything I had come across, and when I received
Knowledge, it was a beautiful experience. I knew it was real, and I started a
lifelong exploration of an inner realm that to this day is very beautiful,
peaceful, and satisfying.” In Carmel,
Maharaji was asked a question that came up time and again along his travels:
“Is renunciation the only way to find peace?” “No,” he answered in the tradition of his father, “you can
carry on your daily activities, but always remember who you are.” Maharaji spent the week of August 18 to August 27 in a cabin
in the old mining camp of Wall Street near Boulder,
Colorado, where he sat with his students
each morning under a tepee in a field and answered questions. As usual, he
reminded them they needn’t bother looking for peace on the outside, where it could
not be found. “Today people want to find peace in books instead of nature,” he
said. “But nature is a part of peace, as your soul is, because your soul is
also natural. It is not artificial. Your body is also natural. It is not
artificial either. So your way of living may be artificial, but your body is
not. It is real. It is natural like a tree, and you have to realize the mystery
of the nature that is working within your body.” A yoga teacher from Denver
named Bob Mishler was at these gatherings in the woods. He had come to meet
Maharaji with one of his yoga students, Bill Patterson. Bill had been in India
and told Bob about the thirteen-year-old guru. Mishler was impressed. When he
met Maharaji, he offered to help in any way he could, and he was so dedicated
and efficient that within a year, Bob had become the main organizer in the United
States. Always focused on his purpose, Maharaji spoke at Mackie
Auditorium at the University of Colorado
in Boulder in front of
The Umbrella of Knowledge p.213 Maharaji’s summer tour in 1976 was colored by his attempt to
heal the rift between himself and the organization. At many events, he had
given Bob Mishler a place of honor and asked him to speak first. But by July,
the organizers’ disrespect toward Maharaji had escalated to a new level. A core
group of the international organizers were suggesting that Maharaji be nothing
more than a figurehead and that his message be spread through the instructors
only. During that period, Maharaji invited Bob Mishler and his
wife, Eileen, to his residence in Malibu,
where he asked Eileen, “Does he still practice Knowledge?” “He says he does it constantly,” said Eileen. “But does he actually sit down and practice?” he asked. “No,” was her unequivocal answer. It was inevitable, then, that organization power plays would
escalate. While Maharaji worked relentlessly to spread the word among his
students that the practice of Knowledge was the key to realizing what he
offered, some of the main organizers had become so caught up in their work
that they abandoned this practice in their personal lives. It was a summer of
confusion as the organizers were pushing aside the one to whom they had
originally come to for guidance. Marolyn, pregnant for the second time, called Judy Osborne
in Denver and asked her to come to Malibu
once again as her midwife. Judy says, “I was happy and touched to be asked to
go to Malibu again After being in
the thick of things an Denver, Maharap
and Marolyn’s home in Malibu felt
like a haven for me.” At the time, Judy was very close to Bob Mishler and Eileen,
as they had lived in the same house since 1975. She describes Bob as “a warm
and charismatic person” who “cared about people.” However, he had his own
vision of how Maharaji could best help the world. According to Judy, Bob saw
Maharaji as a “humanitarian world leader,” a phrase she heard him begin using
in 1976. “Maharaji, on the other hand,” Judy says, “doesn’t describe himself
as a world leader. He has a deep recognition of the potential of the human
heart and the experience of fulfillment that it brings, and he offers a way for
a person to be able to connect with the experience within themselves. The
vision he expresses is to help individuals, one person at a time.” In the spring of 1976, Judy saw the difference in these two
visions rise to the surface in confrontation. Eileen expressed concern to her
on several occasions because Bob had stopped practicing the techniques that
Maharaji taught. She felt that if Bob would practice and experience Knowledge
for himself, he would better understand and value Maharaji’s role. Judy saw
Eileen get caught in the middle, loving Bob very much but disagreeing with him
on this issue and trying to help resolve the conflict that it created between
Maharaji and Bob. By August of 1976, Bob had severed his ties with Maharaji
and had become hostile, at times making bitter statements about him. This was
not the case for Eileen. She remained close to Maharaji and his family for over
a year and then eventually drifted away. Judy lost touch with her, and the next
thing she heard was that Bob and Eileen had died in a tragic helicopter
accident in 1979. In the meantime, in June 1976, Maharaji nearly drowned in
a boating accident at Riva del Garda in northern Italy.
“I was in a small Zodiac,” he says, “a little rubber boat, and I was
going really fast. I had insisted on taking the boat out by
myself, and
|
|
|
|
The gross revisionism of Judy Osborne saying this: “Maharaji, on the other hand,” Judy says, “doesn’t describe himself as a world leader. He has a deep recognition of the potential of the human heart and the experience of fulfillment that it brings, and he offers a way for a person to be able to connect with the experience within themselves. The vision he expresses is to help individuals, one person at a time.”
instead of what we really said then, Judy too, that Maharaji was God. Then the ugly suggestion that Eileen's heart was really with Rawat, not her husband, Bob. Finally, the gross audacity to draw some sort of equivalency between Mishler's death and Rawat's boating accident. Hell, we all have close calls in life. So what? What's the point here? The mind boggles ....
|
|
|
|
The hypocrisy of saying he helps people one at a time when I would imagine that she knows that he did not help those individuals that suffered at the hands of Jagdeo.
Modified by lesley at Sat, Feb 24, 2007, 22:53:26
|
|
|
|
Did Cagan write any acknowledgements, author's notes, or anything like that, such as a bibliography, to show where she obtained any of athe information in the book? I'm curious about this because it's a standard practice for non-fiction writers, especially biographers. If she hasn't provided sources, then where did she get any of this info?
|
|
|
|
as far as I can tell by the quotes that have been posted here, she writes the biography like fiction – rather appropriately I suppose – from the voice of the anonymous semi-omniscient third person narrator. Something that you might see in a fictionalized account of George Washington written for 4th graders but not exactly appropriate for a supposed authoritative grown-up biography (and not an approach I would want for my kids either by the way).
A couple of examples of this are when she, as a dramatic device, talks about how Bihari was mulling over something during the whole ride to pick up Maharaji and his brother at school. How the hell does she know what Bihari was thinking, unless he tells her and really that has to be explicitely stated. She does the same thing with Mata when she says that she did something as standard Hindu practice but her real reason was .... Indeed she does that as well as drawing unsupported conclusions in just about every excerpt I've read here. Well I guess "writing for young readers" is about the level that the remaining followers are at these days.
This retardo way of writing and the obsessive trashing of ex-premies is, well I agree with you that this is the dumbest thing the cult has done in my memory. Other things can kind of just get brushed under the carpet, but this obviously not so easily. That is why I posed the question earlier, about whether the cult
leaders really believe in their recent propagation efforts. It seems more like pretend and directed toward current followers with perhaps the hope of picking up a few strays along the way. But with that weird Grammy/Oscar action, well you kind of have to wonder whether they really mean it, which is pretty scary and shows the degree of perspective-loss that they are suffering from. That is one of the marks of cults though.
|
|
|
|
if she referenced her sources, that would make her statements accountable in a way that the cult surely doesn't want. So they take their typical approach, which is to treat their intended consumer like children or idiots.
Really there would have been another approach for them to sort of save face and still maintain some semblance of respectability. His Malibuness would have never gone for it though.
Finally, I have to wonder what the repercusions might be in terms of Satpal. Is he just going to ignore this?
|
|
|
|
This retardo way of writing and the obsessive trashing of ex-premies is, well I agree with you that this is the dumbest thing the cult has done in my memory. Other things can kind of just get brushed under the carpet, but this obviously not so easily. That is why I posed the question earlier, about whether the cult leaders really believe in their recent propagation efforts. It seems more like pretend and directed toward current followers with perhaps the hope of picking up a few strays along the way. But with that weird Grammy/Oscar action, well you kind of have to wonder whether they really mean it, which is pretty scary and shows the degree of perspective-loss that they are suffering from. That is one of the marks of cults though. I've been wondering the same thing. Those grammy/oscar things are swag bags for God's sake. The list of items include wonderbras, hair color, etc. And besides that, every recipient has to pay gift taxes on the stated value of those swag bag contents. Also, if the premie mentality is that propagation is "taking off" because of the book and the swag bags, then it's just more evidence of their delusion. This is just more fishing for a few rich people to support Rawat, nothing more.
Modified by Cynthia at Sun, Feb 25, 2007, 06:29:50
|
|
|
|
It is in the Author's note. " decided to interview those who knew him well, and I met with everyone from his cook to his photographer" - isn't she his mistress? She also claims to have "reviewed thousands of pages of interviews and media clippings" but none of these ended up in the book obviously. No bibiolgraphy.
|
|
|
|
Well, Michael Wood is also his photographer, he doesn't just have one. Peace is Possible is not a biography. Anyone who writes a reputable biography provides chapter notes, bibliography, source notes, etc.
|
|
|
|
When I worked for Visions International, Michael was the videographer, Monica (the mistress) was the photographer, and Ray Belcher was the director of the programs.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. So, Andrea talked to the Monica, the photographer/mistress. How quaint! 
|
|
|
|
Interesting blurb about Michael Dettmers. I know some people who were also close followers of Fernando Flores in the 1980s. Two were a married couple who were my employers here in Vermont for five years when I managed their architectural firm. I even went to one of the Flores workshops in Boston (he wasn't there). I wasn't impressed and it wasn't for me -- they were kind of cult-like in the way they admired Flores and they also had their own group language. It was similar to EST in the group dynamics and group/team workshop management. Kind of yucky. What's interesting is how Cagan tries to eschew a group of people like the Flores group, who are highly educated, smart and successful professional people, who have a large network of others like them by comparing it to Maharaji's "message of the heart." People have to wonder how so many of Maharaji's former followers all end up desribed as such bad people in his estimation. Doesn't he wish anyone well?
Modified by Cynthia at Sun, Feb 25, 2007, 06:42:15
|
|
|
|
One has to wonder what the need was to slam Dettmers in the book. Or Mishler. And considering the weird role Judy Osborne played in not remembering my asking her for help in the Jagdeo situation, and then not remembering that she told me she had spoken to Rawat and it was not a new incident....its freaky. The need to insult Mishler is also just really bizarre. My gut feeling is that a small group or even just one premie who has really been upset by ex-premie org had a lot to do with this book. The gratuitous insults toward Rawat's critics are very telling. They go after Mishler and Dettmers because they both had a huge impact by telling the truth about life in Rawat's inner circle and they both did it eloguently. It's threatening.
|
|
|
|
Rawat is the top dog, the toppest dog there can be in the cult. The top dog usually defines the mood of the pack and in the case of the DAMS and the BAMS the top dog is even more important in determining what is said and done.
I'll leave the pack metaphor now. It seems to me that the insults, demeaning stories and nastiness stem straight from Rawat, he's paranoid, hes insecure and he's very,very short. If he really was whatever PIP said he was to his critics then so would his followers be. As they're rancid and snarling I'm pretty sure he is too.
Someone asked me if PIP could be used a reputable source on the life of Rawat. I am sure that every single criticism of Rawat in the book, every failure of his noted in the book, every mistake of his and every character and personality defect detailed in the book are true.
|
|
|
|
but, as we know, Rawat always has some premie postioned to take the blame for any bad idea if it goes wrong...and he'll take the credit if things go well. I have no doubt that the book, and its contents, were approved by him. Interesting that they decided he would not be interviewed...plausible deniability if something went wrong..like a lawsuit?
|
|
|
|
But the way of phrasing things keeps reminding me of Glen.
|
|
|
|
Had EPO and other ex-premie sites not existed there is not a chance in hell that this book would have mentioned Mishler, Dettmers and ex-premies generally. So yes, those parts of the book were written because of us, and it may be that the book itself was only written to provide current premies with rationalisations to defend their belief system from ex-premies.Anyway, does the book correct any errors on EPO? John.
|
|
|
