Ananas,

I see you are new to posting on this forum. I often get emailed questions for specifics like what you have asked. I never feel any desire to share more that what I already have. Partly because we don’t know each other at all. Partly because Mooji attorneys are said to be always watching. So you want a name of a shooter? That’s pretty bold for the second post on here.

I will leave you to infer what you will from my previous comment. I would infer that someone at Sahaja has access to a gun of a bird can be shot.

PapajisaysNo, thank you for your answer, I understand!



Sahara: thank you, oh no, I am not a good writer and what I want to say is not special or anything.

Horowitz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The killing of a holy heron in Monte Sahaja
> ashram is very bad thing....


I heart, that they have fish ponds in Monte Sahaja. Maybe it was a decision between fish and heron. But there must have been another solution for this.

Yes JDCosta

My understanding is the heron had been there before and they had managed to scare it off. I don’t know how they knew it was the same heron though. Maybe it was a different one. After they tried again. It was seen as a pest and killed. Mooji loves fish more than birds, apparently or he didn’t want to have to keep restocking the pond with fish. Although a millionaire several times over.

I agree with 2cents assessment. He was not fond of the cats that were there either but tolerated them and said they were pets for his two assistants at the time when I was there. I read 2cents words and concurred with them.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2019 08:36PM by PapajisaysNO.

If Henry Jolicoeur is reading this forum. I have a message for him:

Henry, I am a big fan of your film series with David Godman. Those videos are very inspiring! (just incredible) I also appreciate the recent videos you have made about Mooji. You are indeed playing an important part in exposing Mooji and his cult.

I just have a request for you Henry. Recently, I noticed Annette Chappelle wrote on the Questioning Mooji page, going into detail with her experiences there. She revealed that she was one of the anonymous sources in Be Scofield's article.

Surely this took a lot of courage, and is exactly the kind of thing that really helps the cause of exposing Mooji's abuse!

I noticed, that you replied to her post asking her to contact you as you wanted to do a video about her post. Then, I noticed she took the post down altogether!

I don't know if she contacted you, or if so what you said, but I've noticed in a few places I've seen you write, that your tone has been somewhat aggressive, demanding people to come forward etc.

I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, but would like to just say that there's no doubt it is a very difficult thing for people to come forward. There are the legal threats you know well, non-disclosure agreements, plus knowing one would be facing the online retaliation of thousands of Mooji-lovers.

So, I'd just like to thank you for all your hard work, and kindly request that you deal with those who come forward in a gentle way... let them come to you on their own terms. It feels like you may have scared off Annette, and now she may be less willing to tell even more. I don't know if that's the case, but it looks that way.

Annette was very brave in coming forward, and I feel we should support her in a gentle, and patient way. Thanking her for her courage, and letting HER call the shots as to whether she wants to say more. It's up to her how and when that will happen. Many of these women are coming out of an experience of abdicating their power to a male figure. We need to understand and remember this, and respect and empower them as women on their terms.

We don't want to spook these brave souls with aggressive demands for more information etc. We need them to feel safe, and that we have their back.

OK, I hope you see this Henry! If anyone here knows him, feel free to forward this to him.

Namaste

Oh wow! That’s really too bad about Annette deleting her statement. I saw a few people from Sahaja we’re thinking of coming out in there own names as well with statements.

I don’t think many people have the kind of vendetta Henri seems to. I don’t trust them if they do because then they are speaking from a space of rage and that is not balanced.

Those that I know feel that they abdicated responsibility to Mooji and so they feel partly responsible for what happened to them and they don’t really see Mooji as a monster.

I found Annette’s comments to be authentic. I hope she will still share though whatever exchange took place may have ended that. If so I think it’s a win for Mooji. Got rid of another pest, just like the heron. Perhaps Henri will re-evaluate his approach to those who come forward. If he puts something out that people don’t want him to and they can show how it harmed them, he might be in real legal trouble.

I can confirm Annette is totally authentic, I have had some contact with her myself and I know that she spoke to Be Scofield for her article.

Annette is a very brave, intelligent, perceptive and resourceful woman who does not deserve to be harassed by anyone.

Henri - Your intentions are very good, and I admire your tenacity. You have done so much to expose Moo and his transgressions. Very few people would maintain such dedication!

But people have been very traumatized by Moo and they need their space. They will reveal things in their own time. Maybe wait for people to contact you?

Persons who step forward to give harm reports under their own names have basic human rights.

1)The information you have provided is enough. You do not have to satisfy anyone. Some persons cannot be satisfied. That is their problem, not yours.

2)You have the right to stay inside your comfort zone and ignore anyone who demands more information than you've already provided

3) You have the right to ignore messages, requests and demands from your audience.

4) You have the right to say No to further requests or demands for information.

5) You have the right to pick and choose whose messages you respond to and which to ignore.

6) You have the right to stop confiding in anyone whose demands for information or personal contact get more and more extreme.

7) You have the right to do background checks on anyone saying they are a journalist and not reply to their repeated requests.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2019 08:02PM by corboy.

I am so sorry for Annette, I can imagine what she is going through. Everyone who speaks up, if they know exactly who this person is (and M always tries very hard to find out who exactly said what on internet), is attacked heavily by M’s army. Yes, we know YOU are reading this, you are part of an army! And I think she is bombarded with messages, calls, visits in person (if possible), energetically and she will receive so much hate from them. I really hope she is doing well and having lots of support.



Thats why this forum is so important, as we can speak relatively freely here! I started reading here a few weeks ago, but yesterday I went back to earlier pages from months ago and OMG, there is so much great information and content to be found here! I feel that anyone who is in doubt about M. can find clarity here and already many people have shared their authentic experiences with M and sangha.

What we are learning is that anyone who dares to offer, under his or her own name, first hand reports of guru misbehavior, needs to take a multitude of precautions before going public.

Expect trouble. Trouble from the guru's minions and -- sad to say -- expect to
trouble from people who claim to be on your side.

Some might say that Annette should change her phone number or internet contact information to avoid harassment.

Problem is that this is very inconvenient. The persecuted individual has to open new accounts, update their contact information with banks physicians, credit card, insurance carriers, friends, etc.

Many of us work as freelancers in the gig economy, making this yet more inconvenient.

If a specific person is using social media, the internet, the telephone, mail or personal contact to invade your privacy, investigate whether its possible to get a restraining order.

Jackie Kennedy Onassis was especially harassed by one persistent photographer/paparazzo.

She won a restraining order against him.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2019 08:23PM by corboy.