|
|
|
Hi Arthur, I want to thank you for your concern about the Amazon postings and try to explain the dynamics of that kind of interchange. Premies had a forum that they used to personally attack us ex-premies by using our real names. They would, on a daily basis, post lies and defamming information about some of us. In particular, premies online waged a 3-year campaign to attack me personally every single day by posting the most vile and disgusting lies about me and my mental health status. I have always been open and out front about my life-long battle with major depression, MPD, anxiety disorder, etc. So premies used that information to try to break me down emotionally. I've said I've grown a thick skin, but not that thick. Reading that stuff every day definitely took it's toll on me emotionally, as well as other exes who were also being attacked. It hurt me badly. Worse, I think, was the glee and satisfaction those online premies expressed when they were personally attacking me and others. They really enjoyed doing it for their Maharaji. It was so sick. It still is. The personal attacks that are being posted on Amazon are designed to disrupt the real purpose of this forum. Those premies want you to post them here, Arthur. I believe they are counting on you to divert the subject of the forum from Rawat towards the personal attacks they issue over there about us individually. I've never been more convinced of that until today. They don't dare register and post here to have real discussions with us, so they are using you, Arthur as a sort of "proxy-troll" so they can get their words here on the forum without taking any responsibility for their libel. Concerning my post about Charanand. Without going into personal details again, my feelings about him stem from advice I received from him long ago that had a life-damaging effect on me as a woman. It's really between myself and Charanand and no one else. This is a good place to segue to your glossary.  The entry "bongo" is good, but you don't mention "bongo list" which is the official list on which DLM and EV security forces use(d) to spot the "bongos" and kick them out of Maharaji programs. I haven't taken the time to read the entire glossary yet, but will. Thanks again, Arthur.
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, Mar 22, 2007, 07:41:23
|
|
|
|
Thanks Cynthia, good points - feel free to talk to me offline in confidence at my e-mail addy on this if you wish - good point on the bongo list - I knew such lists exist but hadn't seen it called that before. At a Maharaji Program in Birmingham in 84, I was asked to follow a potential bongo around and not let him out of my sight to see what he got up to - I ended up following him round Birmingham shops for the two hours between him getting his seat tickets and Maharaji speaking - I was reduced to playing james bond with a chap who looked like he was no threat to anyone. i started wondering who might be following me in the same way over that one.
http://www.lulu.com/content/757452 My book on Maharaji - BRAINWASHED! A CULT SURVIVOR'S TALE
Arthur Chappell arthur@chappell7300.freeserve.co.uk
My Space. http://www.myspace.com/56954240
Web site www.arthurchappell.clara.net/
|
|
|
|
Hi Arthur,
I've found much of your writing very poorly presented and your web site terribly formatted, especially with your links header. I suggest you spend less time writing and more time proof-reading and think about the appearance of the site. But I was pretty impressed with your A-Z OF MAHARAJI so I am posting the first of my proof-reading results here. Assuming you don't get pissed off with my criticism I will post the rest later.
AMAROO: fyi, all of Australia was "sacred aborigine land", they didn't have a concept of non-sacredness. There is no hotel at IRCC and there is nothing there remotely comparable to his Malibu mansion. Tom Gubler was not a "premie" when he became a "whistleblower" and hadn't been since 1980ish. He did not try to recant his "submissions" but an affidavit written by IRCC and their solicitors which mainly was concerned with nonsense about belonging to a "hate-group" that he signed under duress. John MacGregor did not copy or download any data from any Premie computer. He was emailed the data. John's legal problems were mainly concerned with his initlal refusal to allow court empowered officers to inspect his computer and with perjury. The name is 'Gubler' not 'Gruber'.
Arti: the cult has never "committed itself to abandoning its Hindu roots" it has merely changed the external presentation while retaining the underlying concepts. 'Heaveny' should be '
Heavenly'
Ashram Closures: 'Light' is not capitalised, 9though should be (though
Avatars: 'Kryshna' is usually spelled 'Krishna'. Rawat did not "allow people to believe", he actively propagated the doctrine and the power did not move instantly but gradually or at least it took him a while to understand it.
BAL BAGHWAN JI: "BAL Bhagwan Ji" should be "Bal Bhagwan Ji". M is top dog might be better as something like "retained the loyalty of his Western followers".
BERAGON: "2cd techniques of mediation" should be "2nd techniques of meditation"; "mediate" should be "meditate"; I don't know what "one mod 1980’s programme" should be and it is a 'device' not 'devise'. I don't know if it is true but I was told that Rawat gave agya about not using beragons.
I understand the term is: Bhole Shri and it is not an 'appraisal'.
BLISS: It is 'meditation' not 'mediation' and the causes are not quite that straightforward. If that is all it took then all the premies would be easily "blissed out" but the reality was that bliss was not as often experienced as claimed.
BONGO LISTS: There is an extrenous ' at the start of Bongo files
CO-ORDINATORS: "will soon" not "will son" and at no time has "making sure everyone does Service" ever been successful. "due
tot heir duties" should be "due
to their duties"
DARSHAN is not confined to only the wealthiest premies and only in India is the number of premies a problem for darshan. There are far less Western premies now than 25 years ago.
DEDICATIONS did not only occur at Ashram Satsangs.
DLM "That The
Prem Rawat Foundation" should be "That the
Prem Rawat Foundation"
DIVINE UNDERSTNDING ORDER: "divine Light Mission should be "Divine Light Mission
In the entry on that pathetic Australian loser, Tom Gubler, the final ')' is an '0'
|
|
|
|
I have to second all of that Ocker, though the old pedant in me must point out that your..........There are far less Western premies now than 25 years ago.........should be ' far fewer ' 
Nonetheless, there's an important point here, which is that accuracy must be of prime importance to anyone who wishes to contribute to the historical record, if they want to be taken seriously.
I'm just an anecdotalist who wouldn't attempt such a venture, & those who do, I applaud.
I think it's particularly important to get it right, when, as in the case of 'Amaroo', the events happened only yesterday, & were clearly an attempt by a rich & powerful man to shut down criticism through the application of a great deal of money.
Maybe Arthur should check out Anton Pillar, meditate on his life & crimes, & speculate on the unlikely affinity between him, you, & John MacGregor, as conjured up by one of the most expensive lawyers in Australia, hired by Elan Vital.
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I have nearly always got that one wrong though I am getting the hang of one being the ****er of two rather then the ****est.
|
|
|
|
Am I the only one who feels some sympathy for Tom Gubler - he seems to have gained a lot of animosity from premies and ex-premies in near equal measure. He's referred to as 'loser' even in this thread. The Premies hate him for daring to support John MacGregor's investigations. Ex-premies hate him for signing himself off as part of a 'hate cult' - a signing that even the courts recognised as coming out under duress. The poor guy seems to be pressed between a rock and a hard place. He faced difficult choices - ones that my own stance on the cult could put me in myself one day - that the 'hate cult' tag generated from the Gubler case has been used ever since isn't his fault - the cult will use every mistake and failing any of us make to claim some kind of moral victory over us. It's bit like saying the Normandy Landings failed because the retreating germans saw one GI trip over his untied boot laces. I actually think poor Tom Gubler gets a bit of a raw deal all round.
http://www.lulu.com/content/757452 My book on Maharaji - BRAINWASHED! A CULT SURVIVOR'S TALE
Arthur Chappell arthur@chappell7300.freeserve.co.uk
My Space. http://www.myspace.com/56954240
Web site www.arthurchappell.clara.net/
|
|
|
|
I have a great deal of sympathy for TomG, even though I rattled his cage once or twice in the past.
He's referred to as 'loser' even in this thread.
I know.........who does that Ocker think he is. lol
|
|
|
|
I don't hate Tom Gubler at all. Actually, I like Tom a lot. We have our disagreements here from time to time, but overall, I think he's quite a good person, certainly very smart. Definitely honest. I don't feel sorry for most adults, Arthur. We make mistakes we want to kick ourselves in the ass for, and then we try to figure it all out and move on in life, hopefully learning something. That's how I see Gubler. The only people in the world I have true sympathy and empathy for are abused or neglected children who have no power or control over their lives. They really are the only ones truely deserving of such concern.
|
|
|
|
Gubler made a mistake under pressure as anyone could. Anyone. That's all water long under the bridge and I don't know of any exes who still bear any real resentment against him for it. No, Gubler's okay for sure. MacGregor, on the other hand ... what an unprincipled coward and liar he turned out to be!
|
|
|
|
Was it an act of cowardice when John made his various long posts on EPO?
Was it cowardice when he fought his court case against EV and got stuffed to some astronomical amount of debt?
No, he was a hero then.
Then later, under the duress of a near nervous breakdown, he made a complete renunciation of his former friends.
Personally, I would take a more charitable attitude to him.
Wasn't it really at end of day the fault of a vengeful organisation determined to crush any opposition at any cost?
|
|
|
|
Sure, John started off great. I don't know that he was ever a "hero" but he did rather strongly stand up for the truth. As one would expect of any good journalist. Eventually, though, he behaved like a dog. Now you say that he suffered a "near nervous breakdown". I think that's just a big, overplayed excuse. The fact is the guy stabbed his friends in the back and shockingly betrayed his professional principles in the grossest way imaginable. But he continues to work, doesn't he? I wonder what he tells his sources now for whatever great cause he's writing about. "You can trust me, I promise ...."
Modified by Jim at Sat, Mar 24, 2007, 15:52:33
|
|
|
|
Sure, John started off great. I don't know
that he was ever a "hero" but he did rather strongly stand up for the
truth. As one would expect of any good journalist. 'Rather strongly?'
His long posts were superlative in their analysis and courage.
Eventually, though, he behaved like a dog. Now
you say that he suffered a "near nervous breakdown". I think that's
just a big, overplayed excuse.
This was reported by nya at the time. An exaggeration?
The fact is the guy stabbed his friends
in the back and shockingly betrayed his professional principles in the
grossest way imaginable.
As I have said, I believe him to have been under unbelievable duress.
But he
continues to work, doesn't he? I wonder what he tells his sources now
for whatever great cause he's writing about. "You can trust me, I
promise ...."
Should his life end now? He didn't retract his previous statements regarding Prem (this is acknowledged). Nor, I believe, did he renege on his article Blinded by the Light for the Australian press.
I personally think he contributed massively to EPO, and also to many personal correspondents, who owe him much.
|
|
|
|
Below is a post of John's a couple of months ago. Despite the very questionable nature of his politics (which we could discuss on the other forum, although I know, you're not quite up to it), you can see he's obviously "recovered". No, I never suggested that John should "end his life now". What an idiotic thing to say! What John should do is take his tongue off Rawat's boots and tell the truth. He did it once, then he lied. He knows the difference. John Macgregor of Chiang Mai, Thailand (12 January at 03:32 AM) "Bush accused Iran of providing material assistance for attacks on US troops in Iraq. It is hard to imagine a more serious accusation.” Oh, I can imagine two: 1. An Australian media commissar* helps shape public opinion in support of a US invasion of an Islamic nation, in clear breach of international law. 2. The US President orders said invasion: an estimated 655,000 civilians die horrible deaths. That wasn’t hard to imagine. * “Commissar. n.: An official in any government whose duties include political indoctrination, detection of political deviation, etc.”
Modified by Jim at Sat, Mar 24, 2007, 16:33:14
|
|
|
|
I personally think he contributed massively to EPO, and also to many personal correspondents, who owe him much. Oh yeah, especially the affidavit he signed naming his fellow ex-premies as members of a hate-group and blaming exes for his own shortcomings. And in the affidavit, John definitely renegs on his article as if we exes coerced him into doing it and that is untrue. So what he wrote a couple of long, posts? Nobody said he isn't a decent writer, though not the best of all the exes, that's for sure. And to beat all, he apologized to Maharaji here on our forum while refusing to respond to anybody. The coward has no balls at all.
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Mar 24, 2007, 17:21:25
|
|
|
|
It was filed in my libel lawsuit, Anthony. I'm the one who had to deal with the fallout. He lied about me. What do you think about that?
|
|
|
|
I think it's awful, Marianne. How can he ever make that right.
It's all worse than awful. He came to see me in the middle of it all, scared to hell even to do that, he felt like typhoid mary.
And he could not talk about what was happening to him.
If reading his apology was like reading something out of hell, reading his affidavit was like reading something written in blood. His. Poor bastard.
I've known John for many years and I believe in the John I know.
|
|
|
|
Arthur, please see http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/5504.html Caving under pressure is understandable - however making other people expendable after you have specifically sought their help wihout providing them with the most basic explanation or apology is IMO - unforgivable. Further John presented himself to almost all of those who had involvement with him on the Rawat issue as a 'journalist' - there is therefore, as Jim has pointed, matters of professionalism and trust to consider. No one asked John to be a martyr - and neither collectively nor individually do Rawat's critics need any martyrs. Behaving intelligently and accepting advice will ensure that no-one need put themselves in such a preposterous situation. Nik
|
|
|
|
Hi Nik,
I cannot disagree with a word you say. But I will add a few.
He was ignoring sound advice from a long way back.
I will confess John the ruthless Journalist was a new one on me. Not that I didn't know he wrote articles for newspapers of course.
And it was understandable from the limited perspective I had for me to think that this apparition had been massaged into existence by other ex premies encouraging him to 'spill the beans'.
But now the picture emerges more clearly than ever that that was not the case. It was John the Crusading Journalist running around under his own steam.
Awful isn't it. Prior to that he was doing just fine. Running on the beach and decomposing nicely - like any sensible new ex should do.
Best regards, Lesley
|
|
|
|
Hi Lesley,
I'm not sure if you were still a premie when John started writing about Rawatism but the idea that someone would need some external source before attempting to spread this knowledge about the real Rawat and the actual Rawatism once they were enlightened and realised and liberated from their Rawatism concepts seems endemic in the premie community.
Maybe the only people left are ones who've forgotten the idealism they had back in the 70's when they "came to Knowledge". Surely people didn't join DLM because the little fat boy gave such interesting talks. Wasn't it about sat chit anand, truth, consciousness and bliss?
Why would you need external encouragement to spill the beans? Once you realise all the bullshit and lies can't be explained by 'lila' and the need to 'protect' the LOTU and that people are still being conned into accepting Rawat as their Master, what else should you do but 'spill the beans'?
|
|
|
|
Hi Tom,
No when I exed John was still in and trying to rescue his daughter from another cult - the course of miracles.
When you consider that I have kept a journey entry up on epo and on and off had a fair amount to say on the forums, not to mention a consistent willingness to speak out in person, you must conclude that I agree with you about there being an individually felt impetus to spilling the beans.
That is a different matter to morphing into some two dimensional crusader. In my view he was acting as if he were taking part in an operation during the second world war, rather than a man whos heart had just been crushed by the knowledge that Maharaji was not just a fake but a foul individual as well. And that by saying so friends that he had cared about, put himself out for time and again, plus his own sister, turned on him.
|
|
|
|
No criticism of you was intended.
The 'Course of Miracles' is a book not a cult, though cults have sprung up based on it.
Did he morph into a 2 dimensional crusader? The major difference between him and other ex-premies was that he had the expertise to be able to get media publicity about Rawat printed in major Australian newspapers. As far as I know he didn't make anything up, it all seemed factual to me. Did he state that Rawat was a foul individual? I'm not sure but if that's what the data shows ...
I only met John a few times, under mainly difficult times for him but I'm very glad to see that you have written "friends that he had cared about, put himself out for time and again, plus his own sister". Seems to me that the problem was not with John and I'm glad he wasn't acting as if his heart was crushed. Seems to me that while this is a matter of personal attitude you're overstating this "caped crusader" stuff especially as you're making it sound as if it's a negative.
|
|
|
|
was an excellent article. Oh if only he had stuck to that. Just doing a good job as a journalist.
In my view it is a mistake to use a pseudonym and post on a public forum in order to say things that you would not under your own name.
Bound to cross lines you would not otherwise.
If you need to use one for other reasons then it's probably worth the time to reread imagining saying it under your own name before posting.
I think it might have been me who called Rawat a foul individual, read my post more carefully Mr Ocker.
um haven't we been around the bush of colourful phraseology before?
Didn't I win?...damn.
Modified by lesley at Sun, Mar 25, 2007, 22:07:45
|
|
|
|
I didn't know John used a pseudonym to post. I thought he posted under his own name but I can understand him wanting to minimise the bad reactions of his friends, former at least. Especially once you point out how his truth-telling caused friends and family to turn on him. I find that very disquietting.
His sister isn't Jan MacGregor, is she?
Wasn't it someone else's colourful phraseology and wasn't there no loser? Isn't spilling the beans and all the debate therein a win-win situation?
|
|
|
|
Ocker, disquieting yes of course, but it's what happens, it's a cult I believe. I do not have contact with a single friend who remained a premie.
I know I was rubbished on the premie grapevine, and I know John was. It's called separating out the bad sheep from the flock.
No re sister.
I hoped I had won the right to use a modicum of colourful phraseology in the interests of brevity and my own ease of writing, that's all I meant
I'm beginning to suspect that if I don't answer the question you want me to you come up with seven more, so here goes.
Down the thread you might note my little sally forth on crusade against worm slavery. Dead serious as I am about it, it nonetheless tends to laughter and to hope. I have hope that somehow the idea of allowing worms to go about their lives in a peaceable way will get incorporated into the design of composting systems.
As I understand from a hydro engineer I discovered I was talking to about worm slavery, the contact with the earth would be an important improvement in terms of cleanliness anyway.
See what a crusader I am Three dimensional about it though. I'm not about to spend the next six months making a giant worm suit and parading down Pitt St with a petition for the governor general.
If I did that my life would suffer in ways that I would not like.
I tend to think that if the worms chewing their way through the earth were generally speaking in a contented frame of mind then that would probably be a nice thing.
They seem to be quite obliging creatures even prepared to put up with a fair bit of disruption, yet if we were to return the favour we'd have to stop pouring so much concrete and that's just for starters.....well at least we don't have to enslave them do we? let them run around on their own navigating systems I say .. I mean have you seen those writhing churning plastic buckets of slop water and worms -
What would I do if next time I went out into the garden in moonlight a distressed looking worm confronted me with the news that their entire community was going down for the count, showed me the sores forming on his skin, said a sickness was spreading from under the shed on the banana farm down the road, and then slumped dead to the ground.
Well see before I hire a bulldozer and go deal with the shed, it would be good to assess the situation including what I might do with the shed - just knocking it down is not enough.
So I would probably benefit from being able to listen even while under such an emotive chemistry as I would be under....even have as much of a brain going myself as I can.
But say I turned around to find my cat breathing her last ...
Potentially something in me could break, leaving me acting in ill considered and somehow two dimensional ways.
|
|
|
|
Lesley, I appreciate your comments in this thread and realize the John stuff must be particularly confusing and sad for you given your history and friendship with him. I don't know that I agree that "crusading" against Rawat and processing the disillusionment are necessarily mutually exclusive. John is -- or at least was -- a journalist and doing an expose on Rawat was a natural for him. I talked and emailed with him a fair bit and never got the impression that there was anything suppressed, forced or "two-dimensional" about him then. I guess my point is that you make it sound like there was something unbalanced about John's efforts. I don't think that's the case. The Age article was great. The IRCC documents thing was understandable. Mind you, in hindsight that's when he first showed he couldn't be trusted. He screwed Gubler there, no doubt about it, and thus precipitated all of his own future problems with the cult, not to mention Tom's. Anyway, do you think you'll ever see John again? What would you say to him? Tough, eh?
|
|
|
|
Yes, he is a good journalist in normal times. A considered person and a good friend. He always spoke very highly of you.
And I agree about those earlier days. Crusading and processing in good form. (tho I don't know the details of what happened with him and Tom and the docs so cannot comment on that.)
I did notice a change around that time (not related to Tom) which is when I think he lost his balance.
What would I say to him? Hi . And take it from there.
|
|
|
|
Lesley, John signed an affidavit which one can read online -- as some of my clients, friends and colleagues continue to remind me -- naming me as a prominent member of a a group making "unsupported allegations and rabid personal attacks" on people, defaming, intimidating and generally posting a bunch of lies "motivated in many instances by malice, ill-will and spite." But it's good to know that he always spoke very highly of me to you. I'll tell that to the next person who mentions the affidavit.
|
|
|
|
what can I say? glad I'm not John
Perhaps the only substantive thing I can add to the conversation is to corroborate, for what it's worth, my understanding that John acted off his own bat and was not part of some group.
And on a personal note to add that I believe he must feel the loss of your friendship.
|
|
|
|
Arthur,
I was not under immense pressure from the Guru-goon squad and I want you to stop talking about me if you do not know the facts of the situation.
|
|
|
|
Lesley, If you really think of it, John tried to write in our blood to save his own. I have no doubt that he would have stopped at nothing to save his sorry ass. It's just a good thing he didn't have more to offer the cult. If he had, he would have handed it up too.
|
|
|
|
Yes Jim, you are right, I thought it as I wrote, nonetheless said as I did.
John has been a good and loyal friend to me, (easier for me to say in that I was not personally in that affidavit, just part of the general collateral damage) but I have spent many an hour in conversation with him over the years - your blood was his blood - that is my understanding of him.
Modified by lesley at Sun, Mar 25, 2007, 15:24:01
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry but this is rather hilarious. Here's the wimpering coward wagging his finger at the Australian media for lacking integrity and courage: John Macgregor of Chiang Mai, Thailand (23 February at 03:38 PM) Regional radio, regional papers, TV licenses - worthwhile subjects and your cover them extremely well. And examining the media is vital in principle too. But surely the Australian media topic of the decade is how our media was gulled - and subsequently gulled us - into supporting an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, on the grounds - frequently propounded by the likes of Greg Sheridan and Paul Kelly - that that country had weapons of mass destruction, and would be returned to democracy by virtue of our occupation of it. What happens with regional radio, etc, has consequences, sure. But all the subjects you have covered in the last year put together have not had the consequences of that invasion. An estimated 655,000 people are dead for starters - and that’s just the Iraqis. The prestige of our strongest ally is damaged, perhaps fatally - to say nothing of out own. An unstable region has been made far more unstable; and a brand new factory for international terrorists has been established, with an already impressive production rate. The whole disaster could not have occurred without the media. This is not worthy of discussion? Can I politely suggest that examining that would a bit more central to things than regional radio licensing? If it cannot be discussed because some of The Australian’s own columnists would come out of it so badly, what happened to the notion of a free press?
Related link: http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/markday/index.php/theaustralian/comments/reforms_risk_hanging_regional_radio_out_to_dry
|
|
|
|
Er ? Is there anything to verify the identity of the author ? At the very least the name is very, very common amongst populaltions of Sottish descent - and there's loads of Aussies in Thailand these days - and it wouldn't be the first time someone had used one time ex premie John MacGregor's name as a pseudonym. Unless and until John makes some intelligible comment on his past writings about Rawat and/or his (John's) relationships with those from whom he sought help in his legal battle with the Rawat cult, my suggestion is that John be allowed to 'rest in peace'. Nik
|
|
|
|
Nik, I don't think there's much cause to doubt this is John. Several sources have said he's in Thailand and I think he's even written one or two articles from there. These are his politics too. Anyway, John has made some intelligible comment. Read his affidavit. Read his apology to Rawat (and slam on us). He's likely never going to say another word to us or on the subject publically and the last thing he deserves is a respectful pass in all this. Having said that, it's not like I'm on some big campaign against him or anything. It's yesterday's news. But John, if you're reading this, f**k you, you worm! There now. What else were we talking about? 
|
|
|
|
I read somewhere that they were responsible for creating the ozone layer, and that we share a common ancestry with them along with all the other backboned creatures.
I got quite cross after seeing a documentary about composting systems, I cannot see why they don't consider their dignity and simple pleasures of living - it's worm slavery! how hard would it be to make a system that is accessible to the earth so that the worms can come and go as they please, I ask.
I do realise you're insulting John however
Modified by lesley at Mon, Mar 26, 2007, 14:30:11
|
|
|
|
Worm Dignity Movement, and just when I thought there was nothing more worth believing in.
|
|
|
|
oh hooray. I never pass up the opportunity to speak on the subject.
|
|
|
|
The other myth was that ex-premies painted him as our "leader." It was Elan Vital and premies that started the myth that John MacGregor was an ex-premie leader or hero. Never happened. John MacGregor wasnt deferred to anymore than anyone else that spoke out publicly and has put their real name on the line to tell the truth. The fact is that John posted very little on the forum, never took the time to deconstruct his own personal involvement, and in the end John turned out to have very little, if any, integrity on all fronts. Not to mention he failed to protect Gubler from being found out by the cult as he had promised Tom. He left Tom twisting in the wind. And I don't count his nervous breakdown or depression as any kind of reasonable excuse for his screwing of ex-premies to save his own skin -- and as far as I know, he still owes a lot of money to some exes that was loaned to him for his defense.
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Mar 24, 2007, 17:12:06
|
|
|
|
Hi Anthony, I also support your conclussion. Then later, under the duress of a near nervous breakdown, he made a complete renunciation of his former friends.
He was cornered and crashed by Rawat's powerful lawyers paid by the money the guru robbed from us. Why did John abandoned his friends and stopped posting? He was fighting as he could and some of us attacked him; that is why he stopped posting here. He was not strong enough, his mental health had weakened. Our bad judgement further cornered him when we contributed to his full of stress life adding/causing more stress weakening his mental health. Who can say, yeah, I did that? I admit I did. I applied wrong judgement getting upset with him. He stopped posting because he saw MANY here were attacking him, and weakening him further. He was smart to stop posting. I bet the Thiland move was healing. It was a matter of survival, holding on to probably avoid suicide? Yes, an adult can feel very afraid too, as a child may feel in a bad predicament. Children develop all sort of coping emchanisms, adults kill themselves. This has happened so many times here; I was a "victim" of it also. When I left Rawat behind and began to post here, many were very kind but others? They were so crude, focusing in my spelling, making fun of me, calling me names, and not long ago, I was invited to go to another forum... because they think of themselves so superior intellectually, as if that really matter when it comes to life and death. Oh, some just want compassion for themselves, but cannot give it. Because you can spell and type big words doesn't make you a good, decent logical human being. Some seem to lack the basic goodness learned in kingdergarden. Be kind. We all have faults, we are just humans. John was attacked badly here and failing to evaluate the whole situation and buchering his character is wrong. Only the guru is guilty, the rest, victims, and some are still doing it? As JM said, the abused become abusers if they don't watch it. I straightened my acts, for my own good and for others. But some consciences are dormant. I understand. I have compassion for them and hope they can spare themselves personal hardship and wish them the best. Love your enemies; they don't know what they are doing otherwise, they would avoid it. We cannot ever judge by words the state of mind of the posters, and we cannot either know what they are witholding for personal reasons. Their right to do so; John did the best he could. If he would had expressed here openly he was close to a nervous breakdown, would have been of his best interest to show the adversary he was? I understand what happened, now. Yes, adults are responsible for their actions but as adults want for themselves understanding from others when experiencing hard times, they should give it to others too. But hey, everyone here is so different, unique, coming from their own roads. Judging 100% of the time well is impossible and John at least deserves the same compassion others asked for themselves so many times. I see people posting ridiculous stuff, as if after having left Rawat with time their hearts have harden, they have regressed, TO MAINTAIN their own sanity? Nobody can live well funcntioning only from their intellect. Mind, body and spirit, health in the three areas is what brings a fair balance. A healthy mind is a fair mind. Under extreme stress a person cannot reason properly. The exposse was good and all of us posting here regularly who read each moment of what happened should reconsider the situation. What would you have done is not important: You are not John McGregor. You can only imagine, and judging from your "shoes" is not enough to conclude properly. A person cornered as he was deserves understanding; he was a hero, he had the guts to do what he did. The end result was bad, but at least he tried to do something significant to exposse the sick practices of the immoral guru. John, if you read this, I wish you well brother and hope you have found the peace you need and deserve.
|
|
|
|
>He was fighting as he could and some of us attacked him; that is why he stopped posting here.< Axis - sorry but you are way off beam. John hardly ever posted on the forum at any time and his reasons (at least those that he explained to me in many e-mails)for not posting on the ex premie forums had nothing to do with what was said on the forums about him. If you feel you 'attacked' him or treated him unfairly - then speak for yourself if you want to make a public apology. Personally I think just about everybody (I even include Jim in this !) behaved with great restraint in the face of appalling bad faith on John's part. Nik
|
|
|
|
John did not stop posting here because exes were attacking him. Nothing of the sort. First, no one was attacking him and he wasn't posting then anyway. His post apologizing to Rawat and the cult and his affidavit came out of the blue. It's facile to say that only the guru can be guilty of things, only the guru has personal resposibility. John had his own personal responsibilities. He chose to ignore them.
|
|
|
|
Agree, Jim. John rarely posted on the forum, and in his 'apology to Rawat' post he stated that he wasn't going to respond to any ex-premies, so he made it clear he wasn't going to be posting any replies. I felt betrayed by him, especially because he was using our forum to stab us in the back, plus he had used me as a source in his article. And you're also right about the apology post coming out of the blue. John had been hiding out from the cult in Thailand and out of contact with everybody for a long time. Most people were very concerned for his mental health status and well-being and puzzled about what he was doing by apologizing to Maharaji. The final straw came when he lied on the affidavit that he signed for the cult naming ex-premies. MacGregor didn't have to do all of those things. It was his choice to do them. I wish people wouldn't post about things they obviously know very little about.
Modified by Cynthia at Tue, Mar 27, 2007, 16:19:53
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think John was burnt out and was doing anything just to keep the org off his back.
In that, he was reprehensible, certainly, but still deserves a measure of compassion IMO.
Can we be sure how we would have behaved in the same situation? Maybe we should be glad that we weren't, before we bash him so completely.
|
|
|
|
Anthony You probably have a good valid point - about being burnt out and the org being on his back. And if true then a measure of compassion is probably warranted. Notwithstanding this I would like to think that John would have in some way communicated with his friends and people who provided a great deal of help to communicate him being burnt out etc and ask for understanding of his predicament, as well as asking that such a communication being kept private. So far as I know he has not done so and that of itself speaks loudly. Like you, all imo T
|
|
|
|
Any compassion John once deserved for his entanglement with the cult was easily eclipsed by the despicable way he sold out his friends, his profession and what he supposedly believed in. I'm not surprised that you think you might have acted similarly but that's you, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Hi Arthur,
Look I thought you knew I was Tom Gubler so when I called myself a pathetic loser it was a sort of Australian bloke type of joke. Of course it is true as well so it works on many, many levels, it's like deep, like Rawat's satsang about time: "Time ...................................................................................."
Well I certainly was pressed between a rock and a hard place but as far as I'm concerned it's all water under the bridge now, the Tallebudgera Creek bridge actually, and as I've still got salt water in my hair right now I certainly can't complain.
As for John he ended up in a harder place and I'm not happy about what he ended up doing but he could have done a lot worse by me. I know that when I signed the phony affidavit I had one sort of exculpatory thought: Surely any reasonable person would realise what incredibly weird bullshit this was, who could take this nonsense seriously except premies? Anybody else would go, let me out of here away from these crazy cultists.
I certainly see Jim's point of view but my attitude is ambivalent. I confess that I have only read the affidavit I signed 2 or 3 times because I was so humiliated to have signed it and for all I know it might be as bad as John's . Mind you, I'm still pretty pissed off that his affidavit has my name on it as the respondent. I presume IRCC either planned to take legal action against me or wanted to frighten me.
There may be people who learn of a little of this whole imbroglio and decide they should become "students" of Prem Rawat but I doubt it. Anyone knowing a lot about it can only gain a negative viewpoint about Rawatism and it's adherents and its divine leader.
|
|
|
