Traveler99,

thanks again for your very informative analysis or the Moo organization, via your friend and her inner circle contacts "Bob" and "Kathy".

It seems like these good people realize they are in a questionable organization, but that they feel it is no worse than any other fraudulent spiritual group, so they stay in the group anyway, just for kicks?

If you are indeed in email contact with Bob and Kathy, can you ask them these question for me, and for the rest of the public who have an interest in this topic?

1. They claim that Moo made a 'mistake' in forcing reluctant women to have their hair shaved off publicly. Did Moo ever admit to the group that this was a mistake? Did he show remorse and apologize to the traumatized women? Were they ever compensated in any way for the trauma they underwent? What were the details of the compensation? Did they have to sign confidential agreements in accepting any compensation?

2. They claim that the performance of 'exorcisms' on mentally ill followers was a 'mistake'. Did Moo himself ever admit publicly, in writing, or otherwise to this considerable error in judgement? Did he show any remorse? Did he, for example, visit the mentally ill followers in hospital after the failed exorcisms? Did they receive any compensation from the Moo charity under its insurance policy or any other compensation, material or otherwise?
Did the Moo organisation receive feedback from the medical professionals involved in the treatment of the exorcism victims? Where formal procedures put in place to ensure peoples health was not endangered again?

3. They claim that Moo had a series of girlfriends (who were also his devotees before, during and sometimes even after these failed relationships), culminating in his current relationship, which is no secret to anyone in the inner circle. (However, certainly it is still a secret as far as the world-wide sangha are aware.) Does Moo ever make reference to the teachings of Advaita Vedanta in regards to intimate relationships between men and women, and does he ever make comment of the validity of of taking a devotee as an intimate partner? Is this something his current followers could feel free to ask him during Satsung, for example? Why or why not would these questions be answered or even welcomed?

4. They claim that Moo ordered the heron to be shot dead. Did Moo ever expound on the teachings of Advaita Vedanta in regards to animal welfare and the taking of a life? Did he find justification in the scriptures? Can you please give us the relevant scripture quotes? Is there something along the lines of "All life is sacred. Unless of course you personally find a bird to be annoying you. Then be all means, kill that bird." Are Bob and Kathy even curious about how this incident can be explained? Or are they happy to turn a blind eye? Would they, themselves, shoot a bird if Moo ordered them to do it?

5. Just a very personal note for Kathy. Please do not feel you need to answer this, Kathy, if you don't want to.
When Moo upset you and caused you to run back to your seat crying, what was his attitude towards you afterwards? You say your were upset for three days, but that is was the 'best thing that could have happened' and that you interpreted the incident as being for your own good? Did Moo personally ever explain to you why he needed to yell at you, or make you cry, or put you in your place, or whatever? Was this ever explained to you in terms of Advaita and the teachings? Or were you left to figure it out for yourself?
Did the incident cause you to take a similar attitude towards less experienced devotees? Do you now feel that it's actually OK to cause someone to cry, to yell at them or upset them "if it is in their own best interests"? Can you see how this might lead to an abusive culture within the group?

Thank you Traveler99. Lets hope we get some answers!

Sahara71 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Traveler99,
>
> thanks again for your very informative analysis or
> the Moo organization, via your friend and her
> inner circle contacts "Bob" and
> "Kathy".
>

Namaste Traveler99,

Could you also request confirmation of a non-disclosure document imposed on visitors to MS? This would help to verify claims from the video below.

[www.youtube.com]

If a non-disclosure document is in place, it would instill fear in people and hinder them from make further revelations of the organisation in the future.


If this has been verified in an earlier posting, kindly refer me to it.

Thank you.

Hi Stefa,

there have been numerous accounts of confidentiality agreements issued by the Moo group, here on this forum. The purpose of such agreements is possibly to intimidate people into silence - if so, this is an inappropriate use of such agreements.

A confidentiality agreement cannot be used to prevent the reporting of a crime, or to prevent a victim speaking out against psychological or physical abuse. It cannot be used to prevent a victim giving evidence in a court of law, either.

Anyway, it looks like inner circle members Bob and Kathy have no hesitation is answering questions about this organisation, even if they have signed some kind of agreement! Or perhaps they refused to sign?

(Please note also that Henri Jolicoeur - a prominent documentary maker and ex-member of a different cult - was threatened with legal action by a lawyer for speaking out against alleged abuse within Moo's group.)

JUST TO BE CLEAR...
And to Answer the Questions

---Bob and Kathy are no longer "with Mooji" or his group. They haven't been for about two years, possibly longer. They never had a definitive split. They just gradually stopped going to the Ashram, and moved on when the time and person was right.

---They have no ill feelings towards Mooji or anyone in his group. (I believe they still check "how things are going" by watching an on-line satsang once in a while, but Mooji is no longer their primary 'teacher.')

---Mooji knows they've moved on and has made no complaint, though I would guess he misses the stable influence of such fine people in his organization, which seems to need more of this type of person (as opposed to zealots, pleasers, brown-nosers, and idolizers, seemingly with a touch of protective paranoia. Note--those are my conclusions, not something that Bob or Kathy voiced.)

---They are totally open about everything that happened to them and, that they know of, with and to others while they were there.

---They did not like the exorcisms. They didn't say so, but it seemed that two of the main reasons they left were so many followers going "overboard" (my word) with bhakta, and due to things like the exorcisms.

---They have no illusion that Mooji is some "perfect" being, some "Christ" or "God"-like being. To put their thoughts into my words--always a risky thing to do-- he is a good person, a generally loving, friendly, and caring man, who has 'experienced' Awakening(s) and has a good, if not encyclopedic, spiritual knowledge, and in general his satsangs are good for people. They fully believe that when someone is ready to move on--if this happens, and as occurred with them--that the person should do so. Mooji is definitely not everybody's "final teacher." (This should be no surprise. Even Ramana Maharshi was not the "final teacher" for everybody. One luminary, Yogi Ram Suratkumar, met Ramana but was directed, with Ramana's blessings, to Papa Ram Dass with that 'in mind.')

---Mooji did agree, with regret, to the heron being shot, according to them. There was no scriptural reference mentioned by them. Everybody in the group knew it was not a desirable thing to do, was the message, but they didn't know how else to save the fish. (The "Fox or the Chickens" comparison was mine, not theirs, but it was in line with what they said transpired.) (From a different source, I heard the "killer" of the heron was a local farmer with a gun that they recruited. The ashram didn't have one, and the feeling Bob and Kathy gave is that no sangha member wanted to pull the trigger, anyway. The farmer had no qualms, apparently.)

---Another source told me about Mooji's apparent regret about the hair-cutting. That was before their time with him, and they weren't asked about that.

---At the time Kathy told her story of being "hurt" she answered the question about how Mooji responded when he saw how upset she was by his "hard words." Even as she was in her seat, crying, he said a few more things. She said that she knew he was speaking then to help her to feel better; that he was further communicating with her due to his empathy for her. (This was taken to mean that Mooji realized he'd made his point, and that he wanted as little pain to come with it as possible.) Kathy never felt, it seemed, like if she really needed to talk to Mooji about what had happened, or the issues his words had brought up, that he wouldn't be available for her.

---Bob and Kathy both agreed that they never saw Mooji act in a sadistic or malicious way, though sometimes he wasn't cheery and bright, that's for sure.

---As goes "non-disclosure agreements," they never mentioned them. They certainly never signed one. They spoke openly and freely, and they share the belief that Mooji has (I paraphrase) "nothing to hide." This was one issue where they expressed a bit of "Oh, My God. Is that really going on now?" (As mentioned, they haven't been full-time members for a couple years, and maintain only distant but friendly relations.)

---I must admit confusion over the whole "Mooji and sex" issue. Bob and Kathy know all about Mooji and his last two girlfriends, including the present one. There is no secret at all, according to them. "Everybody knows about that, and it's no big deal," was their general consensus (again, a paraphrase).

Okay. I hope I've answered all the questions to your satisfaction. Please let me know if I can help in any other ways.

*******

MEANWHILE,
I've heard no response to my OPEN LETTER asking Mooji to go public
with his responses to the "accusations."

Hi Traveler99,

instead of speaking for Bob and Kathy, maybe just go ahead and email my specific set of questions to them and let them answer for themselves?

If they can't answer my questions, then perhaps they weren't really inner circle members as they claim?

Perhaps they don't really know much at all?

It seems that you have just paraphrased your friend's recent email to you and not actually put my questions to Bob and Kathy, who you have assured us welcome all questions!

Have they gone shy?

For example, was there ever an insurance claim made by the Moo charity in order to compensate those who underwent exorcisms and then ended up hospitalized due to untreated mental illness?

Did you actually ask this? The public would be interested to know!

Sahara71 Wrote: Date: June 19, 2019 08:54AM [Mooji a cult? forum page 169]
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Also:
>
> A very interesting article about Osho (Rajneesh)
> that includes references to hypnosis:
> [newrepublic.com]
>
> Quote:
> 'Hilly Zeitlin, a clinical social worker who was
> co-director of Options for Personal Transition in
> Berkeley, an organization dealing with cult
> involvement and related religious issues, said
> that Rajneesh had made a study of techniques of
> hypnotic induction used by cults, and told me that
> he believed Rajneesh to be a “one of the best
> hypnotists I have ever encountered. The way he
> uses language, his tone of voice, the way he
> sequences ideas ... all are essentially hypnotic.”
> He went on to say that “the art of hypnosis is
> the art of being vague, while pretending you are
> being profound.”'

Namaste Sahara71, allow me to surface your previous posting. While doing research on Hilly, I found something about Dr. Milton Erickson, a prominent American psychiatrist and psychologist, widely acknowledged as being the father of modern hypnosis. The article (links included below) talks about indirect hypnosis.

[britishhypnosisresearch.com]

According to the research institute, "A frequent jokester, Erickson was able to use humor in his conversations with patients as well. In fact his books are scattered with puns and subtle jokes. But this was not just to lighten the situation of patient affected by serious addiction and mental condition– it was deeply strategic.

By catching them off guard he was able to open the unconscious mind for change. This ties into his confusion technique."

According to professional Clinical Hypnotherapist, Brett Cameron, "When I work with a client I don’t like to ‘tell’ them what to do, ... I like to tell stories, entwining metaphor after metaphor, knowing that the client’s ever-present unconscious mind will latch onto the principle of the story … embracing change as if they were a part of the story."

[cameronhypnotics.com.au]


Sahara71 Wrote:June 25, 2019 08:13AM [Mooji a cult? forum page 169]
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've just been watching the latest video released
> by the Moo group.
>
> [www.youtube.com]
>
> At 5.40 we see the first woman up to the
> microphone- and she looks so earnest, so naive! I
> actually think she is genuine.

When she did not follow his suggested flow',at time 18:40, he pressured her by saying, "you want to do today, I tell you the answer today. Can you grasp it now, I will tell you now, and see if you can grasp it now...". He appeared impatient.

He doesn't seem to be teaching at all.

It seems that his answering method can be summed up with the following:

1. Take a personal question, widen the the scope of the question.
2. Use profound language to be describe the process of gaining liberation
3. tell stories, jokes, and used metaphors to make suggestions.
4. Confuse if cannot convince
5. If appropriate, subtly apply psychological pressure to shut the subject up.
6. Assess if awe and wow effect is induced. If not, repeat steps 2 to 5 interchangeably, individually or in a combination.

stefa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> He doesn't seem to be teaching at all.
>
> It seems that his answering method can be summed
> up with the following:
>
> 1. Take a personal question, widen the the scope
> of the question.
> 2. Use profound language to be describe the
> process of gaining liberation
> 3. tell stories, jokes, and used metaphors to make
> suggestions.
> 4. Confuse if cannot convince
> 5. If appropriate, subtly apply psychological
> pressure to shut the subject up.
> 6. Assess if awe and wow effect is induced. If
> not, repeat steps 2 to 5 interchangeably,
> individually or in a combination.


Yes, yes and Yes! I agree with you entirely, Stefa.

REMINDER for everyone:



Levels of closeness in Moojis cult:

Always have in mind that there are many levels of closeness. And it might be very well so that if you are in level 1-5 that you will not see the abuse, manipulation and dark side of M. It starts to happen when you get dependant on him, level 6 to 8.


1. people who know M via internet or books
2. people who came to one or more retreats but do not make it to sahaja
3. people who have spent short time in sahaja and then go home and have a job etc
4. people who have been coming for seva more often and longer periods but still have a job and a home somewhere else
5. people who have been living around sahaja for years, have houses there, go to sahaja regularly (working, satsangs) but have money to support themselves (retirement, making money from renting to other devotees etc)
6. people who have left everything (job, home, family) and live in sahaja and are totally dependant on M
7. from the people of category 6 some get closer, have more important jobs, spend more time with M in very small gatherings
8. the close circle: his entourage, the bodyguards, those who know about the finances of the organization and about everything M is doing day and night

Just to be More Clear...


Bob and Kathy answered questions that evening over dinner. At the time they were very open about everything. They never committed to being asked questions at any time.

As goes their closeness to Mooji, they seem to have been from 4.,5., and 7. in Ananas' list above. That is:

4. people who have been coming for seva more often and longer periods but still have a job and a home somewhere else
5. people who have been living around sahaja for years, have houses there, go to sahaja regularly (working, satsangs) but have money to support themselves (retirement, making money from renting to other devotees etc)
7. from the people of category 6 (In this case, also 5.) some get closer, have more important jobs, spend more time with M in very small gatherings.

They never claimed to be "Inner Circle." That part seemed obvious to me since only trusted insiders would be "in" on the decision-making process regarding the heron, or be invited to a small dinner with Mooji, his girlfriend, and a few others.

To them, being that close to Mooji was no big deal. They are honest, intelligent, competent, and sincere, and trust and responsibility just comes to them wherever they go. (Their experiences in other areas and with other teachers reflects this.)

They like Mooji, had nothing bad to say about him or anybody in Mooji's "sangha," but for their own reasons had "moved on."

I won't contact them with questions I feel are ones they've already answered, that the answer is already known to, or about matters that happened before they were there (i.e. hair-cutting) or after they'd left (i.e. confidentiality agreements, videos, and such). In other words, I'm leaving them alone regarding things about Mooji, which is a subject they've left behind.

They are in a good place. They're at peace with who they are, where they're at, and with the new "path" they've chosen "spiritually."

They're not "going shy," Sahara71, because they never said they'd do anything at all besides talk about things that one evening.

If anyone is going "shy," Sahara71, it is me.

I protect my sources. When in doubt, I perhaps overprotect. So be it.

Well, Traveler99,

I do find it interesting how this "Bob" person has gone from someone who might not mind his real name being used to being someone who needs "protection".

What do you believe he might need protecting from?

The reason I ask is that people have reported being the target of verbal abuse after leaving Moo. One subject was the target of racist abuse. One person even had a phone call for Moo himself, demanding to know who spoke to Be Scofield, for her widely-read article.

People have been ostracized from the Monte Sahaja community once they leave and their names have been slurred.

I have seen an confidant of Moo's try to discredit people who speak out online repeatedly, calling their posts "fake news" and trying to silence them.

It's interesting that one hand Bob and Kathy remain on friendly terms with Old Moo and yet they require "protection". Would Moo mind people knowing that he really did perform exorcisms, have the heron shot, force women to have there heads shaved under duress and sleep with a succession of his female followers?

Bob and Kathy think that Moo wouldn't mind people knowing this at all, and yet they need to be protected?

Sorry to go on about this Trav, but I guess I feel that the public have a right to know what this organization is really like.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2020 05:01AM by Sahara71.