--- In [email protected], "L_B_Shriver" <l_b_shri...@...> wrote: > > Dear Rick, > > Inspired by your exemplary self-disclosure here, I would like to > point out something that may help some individuals to > understand my own position on this matter. > > Let's take as an example your query (below) on the availability of > susbtantiated details. I have known, for many years, the same > types of substantiated details regarding Bevan as those referred > to in the MMY compendium. The principal difference is that the > Bevan controversy is actually more recent and more local, > despite that fact that it seems late in coming out. Therefore, I am > closer to the sources on a personal basis and have an even > better "feel" for the credibility. > > There is some process at work here, and we are now in the > initial stages of the process as it relates to the Bevan > disclosures. There will be many of the same kinds of objections > and rebuttals, and eventually it will be hashed over pretty > completely, except thatdue to the previously described > proximity in time and locationthere could be institutional > consequences in this salad. When the process is complete > there will be a certain kind of polarization in evidence: those who > believe and those who deny. And so it goes. > > You might ask why I had not exposed this information early on, > having had it for so long. Well, I have exposed it, but obliquely. To > take the discussion to a somewhat more general level: you are > probably aware that it has been suggested from time to time that > I am being aggressive or threatening in the stances I take with > respect to the TMO. Well, I admit it freely, to the extent that I > believe the following: > > I accept, based on an overwhelming preponderance of > experiential and circumstantial evidence, that the TMO regularly > employs threats and manipulation as standard operating > procedures at certain levels of the administration. As one of > many who has received their negative attention, I assure you that > they operate with the mentality of the jihadithey are holy > warriors, and the enemy is at the gate. I feel that the ethical > values they represent are way out of tune with any society I want > to live in or be a part of. > > Since that is my view of the reactionary core of the TMO, I would > have to be horribly naive and foolish to refrain from occasionally > employing threats and manipulation in self defence. I am an odd > sort of warrior in an odd sort of war, perhaps, but I am completely > dedicated to the principle that only the guilty should be punished. > And therein lies the problem: who decides WHO is guilty and > worthy of punishment? > > The fundamentalists decide. From my point of view, if we can say > that in some way I am at war, then I am at war with > fundamentalism. > > The soft underbelly of fundamentalism is hypocrisy, and when > that gets exposed people began to lose interestsometimes at > a catastrophic rate. > > Because the consequences of publishing controversial material > can be dramatic, when I go to the print media, I am careful to be > confident in all that I publish. I am reasonably well aware of the > legal implications of my work, and therefore I know what I can > say without running risk of legal repercussions. Once I become > confident of a piece of information, I take the position that truth is > the best defense. This might seem an odd explanation; if I know > more, why not expose details instead of making "purposefully > vague statements"? > > Among the faithful, this thing is not as easily understood as it is > among the fallen. It is indeed the case that a socially > responsible writer must carefully consider the collateral damage > that comes from unloading with the big gunsthere is no > argument about that. However, in societies such as ours, an > additional purpose of a public communication is that it can carry > a private message. This is a rich theme in certain film genres for > example. It's part of our culture. In this case, the message could > be something like, "Here's what I know. I wouldn't be mentioning > it unless the evidence were compelling." > > Last summer, in a Letter to the Editor of the Fairfield Ledger, I > made remarks about the TMO that many people could have > characterized as vague assertions: "Deception, > misrepresentation, threats, intimidation, and character > assassination have long marked the way the organization deals > with its internal problems, even as it has struggled to maintain a > facade of uncompromised excellence and integrity." > > Actually, they are vague in detail, but specific in category. In fact, > specific enough that astute and informed readers could just look > at the category and have a pretty good guess at one or two > specific episodes that they found credible or had affirmative > insider information about. In my mind, this is just a practical > application of the Word to the Wise approach. > > If you look at that letter to the editor in context, it was clearly a > response to the divisive atmosphere surrounding Amma's visit > last year. What was left unstated was that this was also my > personal response to the death threats against Amma and > others. > > I heard some people thought it was an "angry" letter. Duh. You > bet I was angry to find myself living in a community where saints > are threatened. So I sent a little private message, a kind of > "gentle reminder" that if things got out of hand, I would feel > comfortable in court. Is that the behavior of a perfectly > enlightened individual? I don't profess to know, but I am > confident that it represents the behavior of someone who is > aware of and willing to take responsibility for the ethical > problems in publishing. > > To restate the thing: I employed what some might regard as a > threatening tactic (although others might say I flatter myself here) > in response to actual and perceived threats made by the TMO > against members of the greater community. I knew I would take > some heat for it and I didn't mind. I was confident of my material. > > If any among the readers is finding this account hard to swallow, > I would ask you to reconsider from a different perspective. Here > is that perspective: > > Everyone has standards. Everyone makes judgements about the > reliability of information that comes into their life. If you truly > believe that the information you have is authentic and true, and if > you know that another party is associated with that information, > then under normal circumstances the other party is also privy to > the basic data set. So you send a public communication with a > private message inside: You know; they know; now they know > that you know too. If that basic data set is sufficiently damaging > to the other party, they may become willing to reconsider certain > aspects of their operational procedures. It may not even be > necessary to have further discussions about it. > > Many of you will be able to recount personal anecdotes of > situations where the movement backed down as soon as > someone gave them a little resistance (of a legal or monetary > nature, for example). Whether we are sorry it's come to this, or > whether it's just what is, the community is now so badly fractured > that in many cases there would be no communication at all > without the occasional threats and intimidation. > > Just as another aside, but not an insignificant one, there is yet > another kind of private communication commonly deployed > within the public communication: the friendly tip. Letting > someone know, through the same mechanics, that something is > up and they could benefit from paying attention. > > That was my motivation when I first began publishing Survival in > Paradise. That has also been my purpose in some of my > previous posts. For example, I started dropping hints about both > the sex scandal and the financial scandal well before the major > discussions of FFLife. People were annoyed about the "vague > aspersions" flavor of it, but I could take the heat because I was > confident of my material; however, I knew the material was > incendiary, and I hoped that it could be introduced gradually, or > at least with a little preparation. In any case, it was inevitable. > > But now my motivation is more in the other direction, because > the TMO has taken on such a peculiar structure. At the top, it's a > cut-throat Indian family mafia, but its grunt work is done by > jihadis, defenders of the faith. Could it get any stranger? It is not > the friendly thing it used to be, and I personally consider it a > threat to much that I hold dear in my culture and way of lifenot > in any cosmic, grandiose way, but right here where I live. > Therefore, I stand up to it when it seems to me that > circumstances demand it, and in order to protect myself I make > sure that I can be confident of my material. Now let's get back to > the Bevan issue. > > The accounts of Bevan's innappropriate behavior, if credible, are > part of a systematic pattern of abuse of authority in the TMO. I > believe they are credible, even though I have not authenticated > them to the degree that would be self-evidently compelling in > court. However, my "methods and sources" analysis tells me > that the likelihood of authenticity is extremely high. It is high > enough that I find the risk factor acceptable, particularly in > proportion to the potential benefit to the greater community in > knowing the truth. > > Despite the organization's well-known ability to threaten and > intimidate, it is more vulnerable than ever in many areas. I think > this is gradually becoming obvious to more and more people, > and that the cumulative weight of disclosure and other historic > forces bodes ill for the TMO. > > However, the last thing we want is to become the thing we > despise. The thing that disturbs many of us about the TMO is its > lack of regard for some of our previously cherished community > values, including the right of every individual to be treated fairly. > > The email that generated this controversy steps over the line, in > my opinion, and just as egregiously as we might expect the > movement to. I strongly support this discussion group as a > forum for truthtelling and disclosure, but I strongly oppose its > use to abuse the rights of anyone in the greater community. > > L B S > > > > --- In [email protected], Rick Archer <r...@s...> > wrote: > > Another point is that whatever the various women might want > or not want in > > terms of public exposure, a list of names means nothing. Most > of these women > > were probably just his friends. I had plenty of friends who > happened to be > > women when I was on Purusha. A couple of them were such > close friends that I > > used to stay at their house, take long journeys with them > (renting separate > > motel rooms), etc. To others, these friendships may have > appeared to be > > something they weren1t, so I1ll give Bevan the benefit of the > doubt unless > > someone provides substantiated details of inappropriate > behavior. > > > > on 6/8/03 12:18 AM, L_B_Shriver at l_b_shri...@y... wrote: > > > > > I'm holding my ground on the "stupid and shabby" > judgement. > > > > > > The anonymity of the poster does not entitle him/her to > subject > > > these women to the embarrassmentand in most cases, > > > probably extreme emotional painit is doubtless causing. > > > > > > You may ask: What is the difference that makes the MMY sex > > > scandal post OK and this one not OK. From my point of view, > two > > > things: > > > > > > 1) Several individuals have taken responsibility for the > > > information in the MMY posts by allowing their names to be > > > included. Thus, they have exposed themselves to potential > > > judicial actionnot to mention extrajudicial action. There is at > > > least some degree of accountability there. > > > > > > 2) Most of the women in the MMY posts have shown at least > > > some degree of willingness for their stories to be told. > Details on > > > this point would have to be sifted out, but there is a > widespread > > > sense of some redeeming social value to bringing out the > > > allegations and letting the chips fall. > > > > > > Deciding that Bevan doesn't deserve a fair shake, as far as > I'm > > > concerned, is dangerous to us all, because it's an erosion of > the > > > principle of fair play and justice. > > > > > > Let me be clear about this. I had heard credible allegations > > > regarding Bevan many years ago, long before the MMY > scandal > > > posts turned up. Yes, it bothered me a lot. But when I had to > > > finally admit to myself that the MMY scandals were > > > crediblewhen I finally had to admit to myself that it probably > > > happenedthen I understood the Bevan situation much > better. > > > > > > Maharishi's alleged misbehavior explains a lot of things > about > > > the movement, and Bevan's misbehavior is one of those > things > > > that makes a lot more sense in that light. But although it is > > > interesting (in an academic sense) and disgusting (in a > moral > > > sense), it is not as important as the rights of innocent people > to > > > not be subjected to this kind of unwanted exposure. > > > > > > I firmly believe that anyone who thinks it's OK to humiliate 17 > or > > > 18 women just to make a point about hypocrisy in the > movement > > > is a threat to society. What kind of animals are we if we just > don't > > > care what kind of harm we do to others, just to make a point? > > > > > > L B S > Anyone who would sleep with Bevan, would already be corrupted in so many ways... Funny, Maharishi never made Bevan where a crown or anything like that. Maharishi seemed to keep Bevan in his own seperate catagory, and I wonder why? It seems the TMO lost it's innocence a long, long time ago.. It's all so plastic fantastic, isn't it?
R.G.
