No new posts since Sept 12, 2010......what is the current situation with the RW? With Michael gone, who has assumed the reins?

Someone always takes over. They use the former Guru in image and their writings, and Guru II takes over the system, and its business as usual, to a certain extent.
Unless there is a power struggle between two people, then it usually splits into 2 groups, with one being the Righteous, the other the enemy.

Deceased leader, grieving followers.

Expect to see recruiters from other groups to come around.

After Ouspensky died, the group splintered. Later, a young Maharishi Mahesh Yogi approached the best endowed group and suggested he had access to the original sources of 'the system'. MMY was checkmated by an alert leader of the group, and took some of the students with him.

His time with the Beatles came later, but its an example of what happens when a group loses its leader.

(See Colin-Smiths memoir Call No Man Master)

Jeff,

There is a group I heard was from Semi Valley who went to New Mexico to endoctrinate my son 9 years ago....Their name is "What's Next". I don't know of the Desert group but perhaps they have migrated that direction and changed names as they so often do.

Sheri

--

Routine system check

Moderator



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2011 08:30AM by corboy.

now that I have actually made a positive comment about Royal Way, why has it not been posted?

A lot has been said about Royal Way and Michael. A few Years ago, I rushed to certain judgments myself. After discussing comments with a friend that is a member of Royal Way, I have to say that most of my comments were as much projections of my mind as anything else.

The facts are:

• No one harmed or threatened me at Royal Way
• It would never work for me.
• I, personally, had no resonance with any of Michael’s teachings
• The people that I have actually come into contact with who are Royal Way members are all very prosperous , happy and feel that Michael has helped them in many ways

I rushed to judgment without a great deal of wisdom. It should not have mattered to me that I felt that Michael was ineffective. At that point, I should have quietly moved on. My style is so individualistic that it is doubtful that he would have worked for me anyway. I would categorize Royal Way as a “nice church”; nothing more, nothing less. Obviously, many feel that it is much more than that.

Michael had an interesting series of interesting psychological exercises and they could be effective for some and apparently have been. The friend that steered me toward Royal Way is today noticeably freer of anger and is at peace. That person is in fact, a centered and beautiful person. The Royal Way has obviously worked. I am also more peaceful these days and the Royal Way was, obviously, not my way. PERSUE WHAT WORKS FOR YOU!

space cowboy:

"Obviously worked"?

Maybe you think the results are "obvious", but others seem to think its obvious that the group is a "cult".

In my experience communicating with Royal Way members over the past few years, they seem rather "cult-like" in their devotion to the group, its founder and his teachings.

"Projections"?

Blaming yourself for the failure of the group is a fairly typical response within groups called "cults". i.e. the group and its leader refuse to accept responsibility for what they do wrong and blame others instead.

The more obvious conclusion might be that Michael Gottlieb was wrong and Gottlieb's teachings were generally ineffective.

Now that the Michael Gottlieb is dead, the group will probably gradually crumble and disintegrate, as most "cults" do without the individual personality that essentially defined them.

Substantial assets apparently have been accumulated by the Royal Way, which may hold the group together for some time.

But personality-driven groups like the Royal Way typically run out of gas when the leader dies.

Spacecowboy wrote:

Quote

The people that I have actually come into contact with who are Royal Way members are all very prosperous

It may be that these persons were prosperous or had social and economic potential to become prosperous before they ever encountered Michael G.

People like Michael G fall under the heading of luxury spending. .

* People who are poor or struggling to maintain their position, support their children, get out of debt and pay outstanding bills will not have the time or energy to go on long retreats, or concern themselves with pleasing a guru. They will be busy enough trying to please their supervisors at work.

If you have kids and are juggling jobs and short on liquid funds, you dont have the funds for a nanny or for childcare so that you can go on long retreats or guru birthday parties that have been described here as part of the gig for RW.

They may have been selectively recruited because they were already prosperous or had the social and economic potential to become that way.

The people in RW would have been prosperous or already been set up to earn wealth had they never met the guru.

This boils down to a process that statisticians would term selection bias.

It takes leisure and economic resources to be able to take time out for any kind of involvement that entails frequent retreats or attendance at lectures. One has to have time subtracted from work and from family obligations to do this sort of thing.

Most persons are too busy paying bills and being available to family members--stretched for time, stretched for money.

Even if you are reasonably well off and have some leisure time, if you are married or long- term-partnered, your significant other would have to be compliant at least, supportive at best to allow you to give lots of time for retreats or work projects that take you away from home.

An SO who gets annoyed with you for constantly going off on retreats will lead you to these two outcomes:

*You will decide the relationship with your partner matters more than the guru and you will opt for your patner

*You will decide the guru matters more than your relationship and you and your patner will go Splitsville. If you opt for the guru at the expense of your relationship, you will feel all the more committed to the guru or group and attribute your prosperity to the guru, forgetting you were doing just fine before ever having met the guru. You may also be more likely to partner up with some other group member who has already made a similar commitment to the guru.

Again, people busy trying to keep their heads above water economically and family wise dont have the time, financial back up or energy for an LTR with a guru or retreat center.

My bet is others will find ways to recruit the MG followers into new franchises.

Elizabeth Tudor stated that there was no need to worry about who would succeed her; she allegedly stated:

'A Throne does not stay vacant for want of an occupant'.

Quote
rrmoderator
space cowboy:

"Obviously worked"?

Maybe you think the results are "obvious", but others seem to think its obvious that the group is a "cult".

In my experience communicating with Royal Way members over the past few years, they seem rather "cult-like" in their devotion to the group, its founder and his teachings.

"Projections"?

Blaming yourself for the failure of the group is a fairly typical response within groups called "cults". i.e. the group and its leader refuse to accept responsibility for what they do wrong and blame others instead.

The more obvious conclusion might be that Michael Gottlieb was wrong and Gottlieb's teachings were generally ineffective.

Now that the Michael Gottlieb is dead, the group will probably gradually crumble and disintegrate, as most "cults" do without the individual personality that essentially defined them.

Substantial assets apparently have been accumulated by the Royal Way, which may hold the group together for some time.

But personality-driven groups like the Royal Way typically run out of gas when the leader dies.

When I see people doggedly devoted to a leader, a leader that I have zero resonance with, I have to wonder about what is it that I am not seeing. If I come to the conclusion that because I see no redeeming value in this leader and he must be running a cult, then that has to be a projection. Because I can’t see it from my egoic perspective, does not mean that there is not something of value there.

I suspect that the devotion to Michael is centered on the fact that he was primarily dealing with the mind. He quite possibly showed many a way to the other side of thought. If that is what he accomplished, he probably led quite a few to a relative peace that they had not experienced before. If that did occur, then you can see easily why these people would be endlessly devoted to him. I’m not in a position to speculate about if that devotion was exploited. All I can tell you is that he genuinely helped some people.