|
In 2001, Visions
International, the publications arm of Maharaji's
organization, produced and marketed a video entitled
"Passages, a Master's Journey," which purports to be a
historical documentary on Maharaji and his mission in the
West from 1971 to 2001. A number of ex-premies who have seen
the video have noticed obvious inaccuracies and a
revisionist slant in the story the video tells.
In an attempt to raise these concerns and get a response
from one of the main speakers in the video, Joe Whalen sent
the following letter to Dr. Ron Geaves, a senior lecturer in
Religious Studies at Chester College, UK. The letter was
originally sent to Dr. Geaves' published work email address,
which Dr. Geaves admitted receiving, but replied that he
would not respond to it at a work email account. Since Dr.
Geaves would not, even after repeated requests, provide his
home email address, (although he claims to have one), the
letter was then sent by paper mail to his home address. In
spite of repeated reminders, Dr. Geaves failed to respond to
the issues raised in the letter.
The webmaster of this site then sent the letter again,
inviting Dr. Geaves to respond before publishing. In spite
of a reminder being sent, no responses have been received.
We are publishing the letter here as the repeated attempts
by Maharaji to rewrite history need to be exposed, and those
who collude with Maharaji in this need to be called to
account.
Dr. Geaves is welcome to respond to the
webmaster,
and with his agreement, his response will be published here.
February 15th, 2002
Dear Dr. Geaves:
I hope you don’t mind this attempt to reach you by
mail, but I have been unable to get your home e-mail address
despite numerous attempts. I have had no luck in getting any
response on this subject from Visions International or
Maharaji, despite a number of emails to them. I have sent
questions to Mr. Tim Gallwey who has also not responded.
I would like to correspond with you regarding your comments
in a video put out in 2001 by Visions International,
entitled "Passages, A Master's Journey." I was surprised to
hear some of the points made in that video, and given that
you appear in the video, I wondered if you might respond to
my concerns. Can you tell me if you had any role in making
this video other than being one of the speakers?
Just as background, I was a devotee of Guru Maharaj Ji from
1973 until 1983, and lived in his ashrams for nine of those
10 years. I held various positions in Elan Vital, including
at International Headquarters in Miami Beach, Community and
Ashram Coordinator in four cities in the USA and at the DECA
Boeing 707 plane project.
Because of my history with Maharaji, I was interested to see
this video when I heard about it. The video is currently for
sale to the public on the Visions website, and is described
thereon as an "historical documentary." Obviously, no
opposing views are included in the video, and as you will
note from my comments, I found the video to be highly
revisionist and inaccurate. Other former followers of
Maharaji, and even some current followers, who have seen the
video, have told me they agree.
Specifically, early in the video, you state the
following:
Ron Geaves: [Asking Maharaji after the luxurious
residence in Chelsea was no longer available and Maharaji
had to stay in an ashram in North London.] Should I
get everyone to move, the 15 here [at the ashram],
we can turn the whole house over to you and he said no, as
long as he could have one room I'm fine. And I always think
about that when people sort of make these accusations that
Maharaji likes the high life and stays in, you know, always
for me there was this high life on one side that we couldn't
afford to keep up and then there was this house where a
bunch of people who loved practicing knowledge, and love
Maharaji and that's where he wanted to be, he was much
happier there.
Dr. Geaves, isn't this comment highly misrepresentative of
Maharaji's demonstrated love of the "high life" whenever it
has been available to him? I am informed, for example, that
Maharaji currently owns a $(US) 7,000,000 yacht, a number of
residences around the world, fleets of luxury cars, and many
other material possessions representative of the "high
life," thus making comments about that much more than mere
"accusations," and the overwhelming evidence of Maharaji's
material interests would not appear to be diminished by this
story about him at age 13. I have personally seen the way he
lived 18 years ago, and it was a material "high life" that
few people of my own means can even imagine. In that light,
isn't this statement you make in this video bordering on
intellectual dishonesty if it is used to fend off
"accusations" about Maharaji's opulent lifestyle?
In addition, I doubt Maharaji ever stayed in an ashram after
1971, at least not for any length of time, and Maharaji not
so much as ever set foot in any ashram I ever lived in and I
never heard of him ever doing so during the time I was his
devotee from 1973 until the ashrams were closed in 1983. It
may be that in London in 1971 Maharaji really didn't have
any other choice, but I note that a few weeks later when
Maharaji was in Los Angeles, he did not request to live in
an ashram, and instead remained in the upscale "residence"
the premies obtained for him. Nevertheless, I have no reason
to doubt that Maharaji was accepting of his living
conditions at that time, but clearly when he had such
choices, the record is clear that Maharaji has, indeed,
invariably chosen the "high life," and there can be no
rational doubt about that being the case, the evidence being
overwhelming. Perhaps it was the way the video was edited
that resulted in what appear to be highly deceptive
comments, or "proof by absurd anecdote" on your part. Can
you comment on this?
In addition, I hope you can comment on the following
statements made in the same video, which I can only describe
as curious if not absurd:
Narrator: By the end of the 1970s Maharaji had
successfully introduced knowledge to a number of
countries.... But he was becoming increasingly aware of the
need to separate knowledge from its Indian cultural
packaging. Too many things that are simply a part of Indian
culture were considered, incorrectly, by Westerners to be an
integral part of what Maharaji was offering.
Sandy Collier: We brought a lot of Indian
attachments with us, you know, we thought that because
knowledge came from India, that somehow we had to adapt some
of the Indian things, that somehow our Western way wasn't
good enough.
Bobby Hendry: The mahatmas came to give knowledge
and it was a way of spreading knowledge. The ashrams then, I
found, were a way of disciplining yourself, your life, to
practice knowledge. Unfortunately, we held on to the
Indianness (sic) of it instead of the real practice of
knowledge, you know, and incorporating that properly into
our lives
Glen Whittaker: [After telling a story about
giving satsang at a Young Conservatives meeting.]
..and they asked how they could go further and I told
them where the nearest ashram was and how there would be a
meeting the next Friday. They went there but very few people
turned up after that. The week after about three went and
the week after none went, because they came across the white
sari brigade.
Linda Pascotto: I wasn't fascinated with the whole
Indian culture. That's why when I first went to hear him
speak and I saw these women wearing saris, I though oh, I
don't want to wear a sari. Do I have to do that to listen to
him and to be in this company and receive knowledge? Because
I didn't want to do that.
Ron Geaves: But Maharaji always said from the very
beginning he had no intention of creating a religion and it
seems to me right from day one he's resisted attempts to try
and make a religion around him. It seems to me that
throughout his life whenever we have attempted to build any
box around him, he's always broken out of it and when he
does there are those who prefer to be in the box.
Narrator: For some people the changes that needed
to take place were confronting. They had become attached to
a lifestyle they associated with Maharaji and knowledge that
was based on Indian tradition.
Linda Pascotto: I had friends who lived in the
ashram who stopped practicing when the ashrams closed, they
felt betrayed, abandoned....(hard edit, cut off
mid-sentence)
Joan Apter: And it was difficult and challenging
for Maharaji. I'm sure it was difficult for
everyone...
Tim Gallwey: He undertook the challenge to get rid
of the fluff, the conceptions that might have attracted
people, that in fact some people loved, more than they loved
the real thing and that left people with a choice. Do I love
my quote "religion," my "Maharaji religion," or do I love my
actual recognition, my actual understanding of what I am
seeing and experiencing. And some people said "no, I'll take
my religion, thank you very much (laughs), and some said
this is real enough for me that I'm gonna stay with
it.
Dr. Geaves, don't you agree that the "sari" discussion is
absurd on its face, especially when the discussion refers to
"the end of the 1970s?" Clearly, by the end of the 1970s,
Western premies were not wearing saris, and, in fact, I
don't believe I ever saw a Westerner wear a sari (except for
Durga Ji (Marolyn Johnson) at a couple of programs and
presumably this was with Maharaji's approval), in my entire
time as a premie from 1973-1983. Isn't that just a bit
ridiculous as an example of "Indian culture" to which,
according to this video, so many Westerners loved and were
attached such that they had a difficult time parting with
them as part of their "lifestyle?"
Also, taken in the context of the historical fact that
Maharaji was dancing around on stages wearing Krishna garb
and crowns well into the 80s, the strange theory that it was
Maharaji's devotees who were "attached" to Indian and Hindu
traditions, and that Maharaji himself didn't promote them
extensively, that he had to work hard to eliminate them, and
that people stopped practicing knowledge because he did so,
all seems a bit incomprehensible, and quite frankly, a lie.
Can you comment on this as well?
Your comments in the video are also used with those of Linda
Pascotto, and especially Tim Gallwey, to support the
proposition that when the ashrams were closed in 1983 some
people so loved the ashram lifestyle that they left Maharaji
as a result. Do you agree with this? Do you know of even one
person for whom that was true? I have never even heard of
such a person and I know quite a number of former followers
of Maharaji. Do you know on what factual basis these
statements were made?
Moreover, this section of the video also presents an even
more generalized proposition, espoused by you and more
specifically by Tim Gallwey, that some people were more
interested in "the Maharaji religion" than in Maharaji or
the practice of knowledge, and as a result, when Maharaji
got rid of the "religion" element, or the "box," as you
describe it, they found they preferred the "religion"
(apparently ashrams, saris and other Indian traditions), and
they stopped practicing knowledge as a result.
Speaking as someone who left Maharaji around the time the
ashrams were closed, and who was by no means "attached" to
that lifestyle (nor do I know anyone else who was), this
simplistic generalization is not only false for the vast
majority of people, it also could be seen as insulting to
those people. Can you see that point of view?
And one other point: given that Maharaji has never
eliminated some of the most glaring "Indian traditions" in
his organization, darshan and Arti for example, isn't it a
bit disingenuous to suggest that Maharaji got rid of all the
Hindu trappings in the first place? As a reminder of this, I
noted with amazement that an instrumental version of Arti is
ironically played at the end of the Passages video.
I understand that you are a lecturer in religion, and I hope
coming from that perspective that you will see the problems
I am having with the historical inaccuracy in this video in
which you appear. Without some other explanation provided,
it appears that Maharaji and his organizations, as well as a
number of followers such as yourself, have engaged in
revisionism in order to explain away actual historical
events, and to deflect criticisms people have of him. I hope
that is not the case.
I look forward to your comments. Please feel free to respond
to the above address or email me at [Email address
provided].
Thank you,
Joe Whalen
San Francisco, CA, USA
|
