--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "boo_lives" <boo_lives@> wrote: > > > > Maybe chopra was just looking for an excuse to leave and do his own > > thing at that point. Basically I think someone with a practical > > independent attitude will ultimately come into conflict with the tmo > > inner circle - whether you view it as being kicked out or voluntarily > > leaving in frustration doesn't matter much. > > It matters a great deal in one case -- when the person > leaves of his own accord and Maharishi or the TMO claim > he was "kicked out." I saw that happen quite a few times.
I call Barry's attention to this from the letter sent to the centers by National after Chopra left: "There have been many inquiries from Maharishi City Capitals asking what our policy should be regarding Dr. Deepak Chopra as they have heard he has left the Movement. This is to inform you that Dr. Chopra has confirmed with us that he has left the Movement to pursue his own career and desires to live a 'private and quiet life.' >From his side Dr. Chopra has said that Centers, Governors, Teachers, Sidhas and Meditators 'should ignore him and not try to contact him or promote him in any way.'" Whether or not this is what Chopra actually said, it's the way the TMO chose to portray the split. > It's a common cult technique. What the cult is trying to > do is reinforce the idea that no one would ever *want* > to leave of their own accord. So it's better for the > cult to claim that they were kicked out for "conduct > unbecoming." Or, if they really can't hide the fact > that the person left on their own, to portray them > as crazy. Oddly enough, the "cult" did neither in Chopra's case.
