(by Arinaya Khalsa)
Having been a member of the Auroconf email list for a good part of the last six years, I have both witnessed and been party to a number of attempts to raise the subject of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet, her yoga, her knowledge about the Matrimandir, etc. on that forum. At first, I was somewhat shocked by the vehement rejection and judgement of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet and her
work, however, recently I have been given the opportunity to see more clearly the force that lies behind this whole "controversy". Lori's brief tenure on Auroconf provided the conditions for this force to be brought to light for all to see.
Prem Sobel is one of the individuals who has helped the most in bringing this hostile and undermining force to light, because, while many are content to merely express their opinions, speculations or subjective impressions, he has chosen to take a very definite stance in regards to Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's work and speaks with an air of absolute authority and certainty. At the same time, he has chosen to leave many unanswered questions, unresolved contradictions and unsubstantiated accusations lingering in his account of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet and her contribution to the Supramental Descent, which calls to question the validity of his statements as well as his motivations for making them.
In writing this letter I am publicly calling Prem Sobel's accusations to light and holding him accountable for the specific claims that he has made.
Firstly, Prem Sobel stated in an email on April 20, 2006, that he has "spent hours describing [Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's] delusions on [Auroconf] years ago." In the interest of discovering the truth regarding the lineage of the Supramental Descent, it is more than reasonable to ask Prem Sobel to furnish:
A. His descriptions of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's "delusions" which he published to Auroconf.
B. Medical proof that Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet is "delusional". (Ms. Norelli-Bachelet has expressed her consent to any necessary psychiatric examinations to disprove this slanderous and unjustified 'diagnosis' that has been made by Prem Sobel and others whose authority is threatened by her yoga.)
Secondly, when questioned by Lori about his classification of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet as "delusional", Prem Sobel replied with an email, dated April 21, 2006, in which he made a number of very strong accusations, which, after repeated questionings, he has been unable to substantiate or clarify in any way. If these accusations represent anything other than a deliberate and malicious attempt to discredit Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet and damage her reputation, then I sincerely ask that Prem Sobel demonstrate this by providing the Integral Yoga community with substantial evidence or examples of his very specific and strongly voiced accusations, made on a public forum, which I will list here:
1. Prem Sobel has written that good deal of what PNB says is "not hers". He later claimed that Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet incorporated certain ideas of his into her work without acknowledging his contributions. However, he has yet to substantiate this claim with details or examples. Can Prem Sobel provide us with any specific examples of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's work that has been plagiarized or appropriated from another source without providing due credit?
2. Prem Sobel has written that a good deal of what PNB says is "not verifiable". Can Prem Sobel provide us with any specific examples of unverifiable statements in the published works of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet?
3. Prem Sobel has also stated that a good deal of what PNB says is "just plain wrong". Prem Sobel implies here that Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's errors are glaringly obvious, as plain as day, staring us in the face. Yet after repeated requests, he has not been able to provide us with a single example of this. Is Prem Sobel able to furnish any examples of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's work that is "just plain wrong"?
4. And most amazingly, Prem Sobel claimed that "[Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet] told me [...] that [the] Mother asked her not to publish her claims (about Matrimandir, about her family, about ...) until She gave permission. [Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet] disobeyed." As it stands, this statement is more or less incapable of being true, due to the fact that the Mother passed from the physical in 1973, while Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's knowledge of the Matrimandir, the identity of the Fourth, etc. only began to take form in 1974 and later. I would like to give Prem Sobel the opportunity to either publicly retract this statement, or indicate how it can possibly be true, especially given the fact that Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet does not recall having this conversation, which he claims took place in 1971 or 1972 (when her son would have been 8). Is Prem Sobel able to flesh out his story or prove in any way that the above represents anything other than the intentional defamation [1] of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet?
Taken together, along with his persistent refusal to provide any examples or details to substantiate these serious accusations, it would appear that Prem Sobel's statements are intentionally defamatory [1], and that they are part of a deliberate campaign to suppress and discredit Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet, her work and her contribution to the Supramental Descent. If this assessment is untrue, I invite Prem Sobel to take this opportunity to set the record straight once and for all.
Sincerely, Arinaya Khalsa
[1] Defamation is used here in its specific legal sense. For example, the following definition, taken from the Law.com website (http://dictionary.law.com):
Defamation: n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander.Public figures, including office holders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error.