Misplaced Pages

Criticism of Prem Rawat: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:41, 7 September 2005 editAndries (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers27,090 editsm attributing to Brauns, tweak← Previous edit Revision as of 03:43, 7 September 2005 edit undoAndries (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers27,090 editsm spNext edit →
Line 23: Line 23:
The ex-premies characterize their activities as a public service of warning people about what they allege is the possible harm of Rawat's movement, which they contend to be a ]. They say some of their number, however, still practice Rawat's "]." They consider a primary focus of their activities to be providing information about Rawat not available from his official websites, so that those wishing to follow him can make a more informed choice. Rawat's supporters charge that the ex-premies' actual goals are to harass students and to spread misinformation and negative bias against Rawat and his students. The ex-premies characterize their activities as a public service of warning people about what they allege is the possible harm of Rawat's movement, which they contend to be a ]. They say some of their number, however, still practice Rawat's "]." They consider a primary focus of their activities to be providing information about Rawat not available from his official websites, so that those wishing to follow him can make a more informed choice. Rawat's supporters charge that the ex-premies' actual goals are to harass students and to spread misinformation and negative bias against Rawat and his students.


Elan Vital and Rawat's supporters active on the Internet have labeled the ex-premies an insignificantly small ] of no more than a few dozen people who speak for no one but themselves but who use the Internet to magnify their importance by techniques such as spamming search engines. The organization accuses the ex-premies of manipulating the media to shed negative light on Rawat and of harassing them and Rawat . Supporters speak of ex-premies waging a campaign of ] and harassment against them. Ex-premie Bruans contend in response that Elan Vital has not been able to discredit the critical testimonies of former senior staff within the organizations. Ex-premie Mike Finch answers Elan Vital's reponse by writing that the ex-premies' position is supported by outside journalists, that there has been no harassment in the legal sense of the word, and that he has observed very little hate among ex-premies he knows, characterizing the variety of their emotions instead as including grief, embarrassment, and anger. Supporters say that this alleged support from journalists is a figment of Finch's imagination, and that Rawat continues to be welcome to speak at public forums and his message being hailed as unique and noble by academy and business forums throughout the world ('']''). Elan Vital and Rawat's supporters active on the Internet have labeled the ex-premies an insignificantly small ] of no more than a few dozen people who speak for no one but themselves but who use the Internet to magnify their importance by techniques such as spamming search engines. The organization accuses the ex-premies of manipulating the media to shed negative light on Rawat and of harassing them and Rawat . Supporters speak of ex-premies waging a campaign of ] and harassment against them. Ex-premie Brauns contends in response that Elan Vital has not been able to discredit the critical testimonies of former senior staff within the organizations. Ex-premie Mike Finch answers Elan Vital's reponse by writing that the ex-premies' position is supported by outside journalists, that there has been no harassment in the legal sense of the word, and that he has observed very little hate among ex-premies he knows, characterizing the variety of their emotions instead as including grief, embarrassment, and anger. Supporters say that this alleged support from journalists is a figment of Finch's imagination, and that Rawat continues to be welcome to speak at public forums and his message being hailed as unique and noble by academy and business forums throughout the world ('']'').


==Alleged claims of personal divinity== ==Alleged claims of personal divinity==

Revision as of 03:43, 7 September 2005

Prem Rawat, also called Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji (see main article: Prem Rawat), along with the enthusiasm he inspires in his students, has been the subjects of controversy and criticism to some degree since his early beginnings.

The sources of the criticisms of Rawat, the Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital include anti-cult activists, some media articles in the 1970s and 1980s, articles about cults and new religious movements from the 1970s and 1980s by several scholars, and from former members that call themselves ex-premies, who have an active presence on the internet.

Criticisms include that Rawat made claims of personal divinity, the cricis' former belief in his personal divinity and consequent dissonance with his newer image as human teacher, historical revisionism, financial exploitation (though without breaking the law), hypocrisy, encouragement of uncritical acceptance, and more.

The organizations that support Prem Rawat's work as well as current students categorically deny these and other accusations, labeling the ex-premies an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a handful of individuals who constantly harass Rawat and his students and impinge on freedom of belief with their intolerance.

Two Ex-premies, Tom Gubler and John MacGregor, have filed affidavits admitting under oath that the underlying purpose of the Ex-premie group is to harass, defame and annoy Rawat and his students, and to purposefully interfere with their right to peacefully assemble and discuss Knowledge. , . Ex-premies claim that both of these affidavits were obtained under duress. A website has appeared that claims to be authored by Gubler in which the author ridicules and criticized the affidavit that he signed. Most of the ex-premies responded with sympathy upon the appearance of MacGregor's affidavit for the difficult personal situation in which he is, as of 2005 and which they asserted is responsible for the fact that he signed the affidavit.

The organizations also categorize the criticisms by the ex-premies as allegations that apostates typically make and challenge their character and motives.

Sources of criticism

After Prem Rawat's first arrival in the UK and United States in 1971 at the age of thirteen and through the 1970s, he, his followers, and his organizations attracted a fair amount of media scrutiny and attention, some positive and some negative. Examples of articles appearing in the mainstream press in that decade include 1974 articles from Rolling Stone magazine and the New York Review of Books . In 1979, Bob Mishler, President of Rawat's Divine Light Mission (DLM) organization from 1972 to 1977, gave a radio interview critical of Rawat, after Mishler had left the organization.

In the early 1980s the late Dr. Margaret Singer, a controversial anti-cult activist, included the DLM (since renamed Elan Vital) in her list of cults. Criticism by the anti-cult movement has diminished over the course of time but has not disappeared. The Christian countercult activist Anton Hein and controversial anti-cult activists and former deprogrammers Rick Ross and Steven Hassan list links about the Elan Vital organization, although Hassan says that he does not consider Elan Vital a cult: "The fact that a person’s name or group appears on our website does not necessarily mean they are a destructive mind control cult. They appear because we have received inquiries and have established a file on the group." . During the 1980s and until the late 1990s, there was very little media coverage of Prem Rawat and his organizations, either positive or negative.

Apart from the anti-cult criticisms, several scholarly articles from the 1970s and 1980s about the DLM, or Rawat contained various critical comments and observations. One of these articles was written by the psychiatrist Saul V. Levine, who published several articles about cults and new religious movements. He writes in a undated article titled Life in Cults that appeared in a 1989 book that he believed that there appeared to be considerable unanimity that the Divine Light Mission was seen, together with the Hare Krishna, Unification Church, Children of God as a cult, and that in his view, these four groups were probably been held in less esteem by more people than most of the other groups combined. Levine uses 17 references for his article but he did not make it clear which ones he used for this statement. Levine's analysis was based on practices, such as the monastic life in ashrams, that were abandoned in the 1980's when Prem Rawat threw off anachronistic Hindu religious and cultural trappings previously associated with his message. See Prem Rawat: Transition in the 1908s.

Since the late 1990s, with the arrival of the Internet, the main criticism against Rawat, his followers, and the affiliated groups The Prem Rawat Foundation and Elan Vital has been focused through a small number of critical former followers with an active Internet presence. The critical former members call themselves "Ex-Premies," based on the practice, discontinued in the West but ongoing in India. Some of these ex-premies, for example Michael Dettmers, Michael Donner, and Jean-Michel Kahn, are former senior staff within the organizations and former instructors appointed by Rawat. Some have rejected Rawat and his teachings after years of practicing his techniques. They deny they are an organized group, asserting instead they are a small number of internationally dispersed individuals tied together only by their common protest of Rawat. Nonetheless, many of the webpages utilized by the Ex-Premies are ostensibly registered with ICANN as organizations.Its main chat room "forum8" is registered as an organization. .In December 2004, John Brauns, owner of the ex-premie website, changed the registration of the domain name to his own name after more than seven years during which it had been registered to the "Ex-premie Organization". Brauns asserts that ownership of the website has always been in the hands of individuals. John Brauns, a Latvia-based person is according to Elan Vital the legal operator of all three anti-Maharaji websites.. The size and true influence of the ex-premies are in dispute; there are something over one hundred purported testimonials on an ex-premie website, and apparently some multiple of that number have contributed to Internet chat rooms maintained by ex-premies. There is no active open discussion group by and for current students of Rawat on the internet, but current students occasionally defend Rawat and the organizations that support his work on the discussion forum moderated by ex-premies. Ex-premies assert that their views may be shared by a larger group of Rawat's former followers and that the number of people who no longer follow the techniques Rawat teaches must be larger than the number who currently practice them, but as there has been no known attempt to canvass the views or practices of that larger group these claims have not been verified. In an article published in 1986, Lucy DuPertuis asserts that many of the people that decided that they had little further need of Rawat as as a spiritual interpreter or guide, "...drifted away not in disillusionment but in fulfillment." Professor Eileen Barker wrote in her book Introduction to new religious movements that the concern of harm done to members of new religious movements concerns the relatively few dedicated members, not the many members who are only involved peripherally or for a short term.

The ex-premies characterize their activities as a public service of warning people about what they allege is the possible harm of Rawat's movement, which they contend to be a cult. They say some of their number, however, still practice Rawat's "techniques of Knowledge." They consider a primary focus of their activities to be providing information about Rawat not available from his official websites, so that those wishing to follow him can make a more informed choice. Rawat's supporters charge that the ex-premies' actual goals are to harass students and to spread misinformation and negative bias against Rawat and his students.

Elan Vital and Rawat's supporters active on the Internet have labeled the ex-premies an insignificantly small hate group of no more than a few dozen people who speak for no one but themselves but who use the Internet to magnify their importance by techniques such as spamming search engines. The organization accuses the ex-premies of manipulating the media to shed negative light on Rawat and of harassing them and Rawat . Supporters speak of ex-premies waging a campaign of intolerance and harassment against them. Ex-premie Brauns contends in response that Elan Vital has not been able to discredit the critical testimonies of former senior staff within the organizations. Ex-premie Mike Finch answers Elan Vital's reponse by writing that the ex-premies' position is supported by outside journalists, that there has been no harassment in the legal sense of the word, and that he has observed very little hate among ex-premies he knows, characterizing the variety of their emotions instead as including grief, embarrassment, and anger. Supporters say that this alleged support from journalists is a figment of Finch's imagination, and that Rawat continues to be welcome to speak at public forums and his message being hailed as unique and noble by academy and business forums throughout the world (See Wikiquote).

Alleged claims of personal divinity

One of the Ex-Premies' central criticisms is that from the age of eight until his mid-twenties Prem Rawat made public claims of personal divinity and that he and his followers continue to make such claims in private while denying them in public.

In the 1970s after Rawat arrived from India, followers addressed him with greetings such as "Master" or "Lord" and with songs of adoration, or performed rituals that critics categorize as affirmations of his personal divinity. They note that one of these rituals, darshan, is generally reserved in Hinduism for the worship of holy persons or deities, as is the devotional song, arti or arathi. Certain DLM publications contained material that ex-premies contend were meant to be interpreted by Rawat's followers as claims of divinity. (see quotes) They note he used to dress up as Krishna, and at the age of twelve promised to personally establish peace in the world. They demand that Rawat and/or Elan Vital explicitly disabuse all his current followers of such claims. Supporters say these demands lack merit, as they are based on erroneous interpretations and made by people who's credibility is dubious.

Supporters and Elan Vital characterize the expressions of veneration as trappings of Hindu culture that are not personal claims of divinity when understood in their original cultural context. They assert that in Indian culture it is routine to declare that a guru is as God or even greater than God. To the average person in India, they say, "Guru is greater than God" is a common statement, talk of lords and masters is commonplace, and the title "Lord" simply denotes affection or admiration (See also Guru: Devotees views on guru and God). They contend the specific quotes from the 1970s claiming personal power and divinity are taken out of context, and they point to several statements by Rawat over the years as being inconsistent with claims of personal divinity, such as in a proclamation published in 1975, "I do not claim to be God, but do claim I can establish peace on this Earth by our Lord's Grace, and everyone's joint effort", in 1985, "I am not sitting here saying, 'I am the messiah, I am the prophet,' " in 1999, "When people asked, 'What is your qualification?', I said, 'Judge me by what I offer,' " and in 2001, "I’m me. I am a human being. ... I’m proud to be a human being. ... I am also happy that I can feel joy and pain like everyone else." According to a 1982 article by the Dutch religious scholar Dr. Reender Kranenborg (see References) the person of Maharaj ji became more central in the course of years and the assertions by Maharaj ji about himself and his vocation seem to go further: he becomes more and more aware of the extent of his divinity.

In their discourse, most critics assert that in many of his early addresses he was referring to himself when speaking about Guru Maharaj Ji. Others say that he was referring to his father and teacher, also called by the same title. In a famous discourse nicknamed Peace Bomb in 1970 Prem Rawat said, "Now Guru Maharaj Ji has come. Whenever He came before, you did not accept Him. Now I have come again to reveal the Knowledge, and still you do not understand me." In the magazine And It Is Divine, (January 1973, v 1, i3) he was quoted as saying "...when I was born, God existed. But I never knew Him. I just never knew Him until Guru Maharaj Ji came into my life, till Guru Maharaj Ji came in my way, and showed me and revealed me that secret. And the day he did that, there it was, I knew God", referring to receiving Knowledge from his father. .The Dutch religious scholar and reverend, who specialized in new religious movements, Reender Kranenborg, wrote in a 1982 article about the DLM, that "in Maharaj ji's satsangs one can notice a speaking style that resembles very much some Christian evangelization campaigns: a pressing request, an emphasis on the last possibility to choose before it is too late and a terminology in which one is requested to surrender to the Lord, in this case Maharaj ji himself. The contents of the message is not Christian, though." In 1973 the DLM published a book about Prem Rawat with the title Who is Guru Maharaji? that was presented as Rawat’s authorized biography, which contained an introduction by follower Rennie Davis who wrote, referring to Rawat, that "Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of the Universe ". . In the same book, Prem Rawat was asked: "Guru Maharaj Ji, are you God?" to which he replied "No. My Knowledge is God." . One of the DLM magazines contained a picture of Rawat with the caption "Guru Maharaji Ji" with an excerpt from one of Rawat's speeches, stating "Guru Maharaj Ji gives us the essence of everything. The essence of all galaxies, essence of all universe. Essence of Himself. " See also quotes by and about Prem Rawat.

Supporters assert the presentation of Knowledge and the young Rawat's public persona were originally handled by Indian adults steeped in traditional Indian ways, which were acceptable to people of the hippie generation who tended to be more open to such Eastern rituals. They praise Rawat for leadership in leaving behind anachronistic cultural forms and in the 1980s dismantling the remnants of Indian culture to adopt a more egalitarian Western approach, as part of which he asked the title "guru" be dropped from his name and he be referred to simply as "Maharaji". They characterize Rawat in the last decade as replacing all the old forms with a presentation of himself simply as a teacher, guide, and friend, being human rather than godlike.

In his 1979 radio interview, Mishler said he had persuaded the nineteen-year-old Prem Rawat to retract any claims of divinity in 1976 but that Rawat had hesitated because it would mean less control over his followers and as a result less income from them. Mishler said he resigned from the DLM in January 1977 because of Rawat's refusal to change his luxurious life style and retract his claim to be God . Supporters dismiss his charges as coming from a disgruntled ex-employee after being fired.

Rawat's shedding of Indian trappings has itself generated controversy. Ex-premies criticize Elan Vital for revisionism. For example, in 1980, Rawat or Elan Vital asked his students to throw away old books, magazine and videos that included forms of veneration—the ex-premie group considers this an example of cover-up, while supporters describe it as part of an honest evolution from child guru within the Indian tradition to a more universally understood teaching of inner peace. Rawat's closure of the ashrams in 1983, which ex-premies contend was done without an explanation, was taken hard by some ashram residents who experienced problems with the transition to life outside.

Ex-premies charge that claims of Rawat's personal divinity are still being made in India, pointing to excerpts from some of his addresses given there in the early 1990s. Critics also say that these same claims are still being made in the West secretly, and are only slowly revealed to those who progress as students. One ex-premie alleges a darshan line took place in September 2001 in Scottsdale, Arizona in the U.S. at a program for major Western donors. Supporters say that these conspiracy theories are baseless and a result of paranoid imaginations commonly associated with ex-followers.

Allegations of financial exploitation

Ex-premies complain that Prem Rawat exploited them to build a luxurious lifestyle for himself, and blame themselves for being gullible and naive in giving donations. They characterize Rawat's lifestyle as filled with luxuries average American citizens do not enjoy: For example, he lives in Malibu, a city with a median family income of $125,000, in a mansion of approximately 25,000 square feet (2,300 m²) on an almost five-acre (20,000 m²) mountain ridge top, ocean-view parcel purchased in the 1970s, whose value today critics estimate at $20-25 million, also uses at least one other house, in Queensland, Australia, flies a Gulfstream V jet worth approximately $40 million, and up until recently sailed a $7 million yacht and flew a Bell helicopter worth approximately $4.5 million. They note that in the 1970s he made use of a group of luxury vehicles including Rolls Royces.

Bob Mishler, ex-president of the Divine Light Mission said in a 1979 radio interview that, " A lot of the professional people that you were mentioning before had to give up their professions, simply because part of their calling now is that they must attend these festivals that the guru has all the time. They have to travel all over the country and to other parts of the world to attend these on average of every three or four months. Consequently, they can't hold a job. They can't maintain a profession. They get very impoverished as a result of this. They have to not only pay to get into these festivals, but they are also expected to make a cash contribution to the guru, when they go through the ritual of kissing his feet. "

On 14 February 1981 an article appeared in the Dutch magazine Haagse Post in which ex-premie Jos Lammers complained about Maharaji's behavior when visiting the Netherlands. His complaints are that Rawat surrounded himself with "security premies" and refrained to associate with local premie leaders and having the local DLM center having to pay for his shoppings, while at the same time, according to Lammers, Rawat received huge amounts of financial donations during his programs.

The organizations report that Rawat and his family are entirely supported by personal business investments with no money flowing to them from Elan Vital or The Prem Rawat Foundation. Critics contend all the wealth at Rawat's personal disposal as well as the money used for any such investments could not have come from any source other than gifts from his followers, since he came from India with little or no money, has never had a job outside of his religious work, and was disinherited by his mother after a family rift in the mid-1970s. In sourcing the money used for Rawat's investments, they note Mishler alleged he had devised and presented to Rawat after the rift and the family's departure a plan for Rawat to begin investing money gifts in order to establish personal financial independence; however, Mishler also said this plan was never implemented before he left the organization.

Levine wrote in aforementioned article that " in the Divine Light Mission, members are expected to turn over all material possessions and earnings to the religion and to abstain from alcohol, tobacco meat, and sex" and further that "from the perspective of outsiders, especially parents, the perception that their children are being financially exploited is seen as one of the most pernicious and malevolent aspects of the group. This is particularly of concern when the leader (Moon, Maharaj ji, Bhagwan Rajneesh, Hubbard, and so on) live in ostentation and offensive opulence, while the members may be at subsistence level. In the state of ultimate commitment, a true believer feels better for having raised or given money to the cause. It also aids in overcoming cognitive dissonance (the cause "must be" worthwhile to have attracted these funds). All kinds of rationales are given and accepted, but it is fascinating to see the blind acceptance being replaced by questioning and scorn as the hypocrisies and double standards begin to make themselves felt. "

The Dutch religious scholar and reverend Dr. Reender Kranenborg wrote in his 1982 article about the DLM that when Christians get into dialogue with premies that the life style of the guru is of great importance. He argued that a satguru, who drives in expensive cars, who owns a big yacht may not be a problem for premies, but it is a problem for Christians and that they should ask premies why Maharaj ji does not live a normal and simple life.

Supporters assert the aircraft and many of the other assets are simply tools for conducting Rawat's work, noting Rawat is a pilot who flies the aircraft to events at which he speaks; by way of example, they contend these aircraft were what enabled Rawat to reach one million people in India in 2004 . They argue that the value of the houses, aircraft, and other assets cannot in any event be attributed to Rawat, since he does not own any of them, but merely uses them through arrangement with various organizations. Critics respond with the contention that Rawat does indeed control and for all practical purposes owns all the assets he uses since those assets are all owned by holding corporations run by Rawat's personal advisers, and the organizations nominally owning these assets would never interfere with Rawat's exclusive personal control, enjoyment or disposal of any asset.

Supporters point to the variety of charitable work overseen by The Prem Rawat Foundation as inconsistent with a goal of personal enrichment . They note Rawat's lifestyle is not a secret, and that he has never been charged with breaking the law in accepting money gifts. Members of the ex-premie group have filed complaints with tax and charity authorities, but none of these have resulted in Rawat or related entities being charged with wrongdoing .

Personal lifestyle and choices

Ex-premies contend Prem Rawat has no credibility in his teachings because of a large gap they assert exists between what he once prescribed for his personnel and followers and what he practiced himself, a gap they characterize as hypocrisy. This criticism is based largely on a 2000 account related by group member Michael Dettmers, who was Rawat's finance manager in the 1970s and early 1980s. Dettmers first made this account on the ex-premie discussion forum at least 10 years after he left Rawat and the account was later copied to the ex-premie website. Dettmers identity was verified according to ex-premie Jim Heller.

According to Dettmers, he was in Rawat's inner circle in 1974, responsible for organizing Rawat's touring arrangements. He claims that during a 15 year period beginning in 1974 he witnessed Rawat drink every day and often get drunk, that he and Rawat smoked marijuana together, that he ingested hashish with Rawat in India, and that Rawat had affairs with various women. Contrary to a characterization of hypocrisy, however, Dettmers opined that the behaviors of Rawat he claimed to have witnessed were not cynical, but that Rawat truly believed he was a satguru who had transcended the need for the disciplines and restrictions he required of his followers. Michael Donner, who also claims to have been part of Rawat's inner circle and who held, according to the ex-premie website and the Canadian sociologist Stephen A. Kent an important function in the DLM, made similar allegations.

In his 1979 interview, Mishler similarly asserted that the teenaged Rawat had suffered from anxiety he attempted to alleviate with alcohol rather than through the Knowledge techniques. He further contended that this unrelieved anxiety eventually precipitated into a high blood pressure condition. It is known that in early 1973 Rawat was hospitalized for a bleeding duodenal ulcer.

Dettmers further wrote that in the early 1980s in India he once witnessed the Rawat accidentally run over and kill a cyclist with his car. Dettmers does not fault Rawat for that, noting that it could have happened to anyone. However, he alleges that Rawat, aided by his assistants, immediately fled the scene of the accident and his group later arranged for another person take the blame, decisions and actions he characterizes as inconsistent with being a trustworthy spiritual teacher. It must be noted that, as regards this alleged automobile incident, the Indian courts resolved this matter to their full satisfaction when they officially recognized that another person (not Rawat) was driving the car. Additionally, this other person was deemed innocent, since the pedestrian was found to have been at fault. Supporters assert that on the basis of the courts' resolution, the critics' claims are gratuitous and baseless.

Supporters dismiss many of these claims as utter fabrications and as coming from disgruntled ex-employees. They categorize these remarks as outrageous allegations that apostates typically make, pointing to an explanation advanced by CESNUR’s president, sociologist Massimo Introvigne, regarding such behaviour . They say these allegations are maliciously designed solely to assassinate Rawat's character and discredit him, and thus miss the important central question which for them is whether or not Rawat's message has the potential to bring individuals an experience of inner peace.

The late Jan van der Lans, a professor in psychology of religion at the Catholic University of Nijmegen, wrote in a book about followers of gurus commissioned by the Netherlands based Catholic Study Center for Mental Health, published in 1981, that Maharaji is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life: on the one hand, he tried to remain loyal to the role in which he was forced and to the expectations of his followers, on the other hand, his private life was one of idleness and pleasure, which was only known to small circle of insiders. According to van der Lans, one could consider him either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings. Van der Lans treated several gurus but was only critical about Rawat. His book is cited as one of the hundreds of sources in one Ph.D. thesis about new religious movements (Schnabel 1982.) Van der Lans did not provide citations for his very critical assessment of Prem Rawat, and supporters assert that he may have based it on the magazine articles about Rawat from the 1970s.

Allegations of encouraging uncritical acceptance

Critics claim Prem Rawat discouraged critical thinking in order to maintain followers' unquestioning loyalty and devotion to him, warning them that the mind was dangerous and an enemy, and emphasizing faith in him and surrender to him. For example in 1978 he was quoted as saying, "But there is nothing to understand! And if there is something to understand, there is only one thing to understand, and that is to surrender!". Students clarify that Maharaji always made the distinction between "brain" and "mind", referring to the mind as the thing that makes man go crazier every day'. See also Past teachings of Prem Rawat, "Allegiance to the teacher".

Dr. Paul Schnabel, a sociologist at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, wrote in his 1982 Ph.D. thesis, written in Dutch language on the subject of new religious movements and mental health, that the message of the Divine Light Mission could be summarized on the person of Guru Maharaj Ji, in which divine love and truth are manifested, and that by completely surrendering oneself to the guru or perfect master (the revealer of that truth and love), one can be a part of it. His thesis comments on certain dangers presented in Van der Lans book (see above) that in his view happen when in a western context the personal contact between the guru and disciple is missing. He also presents the case that in his opinion, Maharaj Ji stimulates an uncritical attitude of the student towards him and towards the student's mystical interpretations of his own experiences, as well as the student's own projections of fantasies of grandeur on the guru. In response to Schnabel's thesis, Jossi Fresco, an American student of Rawat, points to the fact that Maharaji's words when taken in the appropriate historical context speak for themselves, are easy to understand, and thus require no third-party interpretations. (see quotes).

Professor Eileen Barker refers for more information about the DLM to an article written by Wim Haan that was published in the official magazine about religious movements of the Free University in 1981. He wrote in that article based on his involvement with the DLM during two years in the Netherlands, that Rawat’s battle against the mind sometimes degenerated in complete irrationality, that sometimes premies branded every criticism and objective approach as "mind", and that they often avoided discussions with outsiders because these discussions could possibly stimulate the mind.

Students say that Rawat makes a strong case about the dangers of the mind, and by that it means not the reasoning ability of a person, but the possibly self-destructive aspects of the psyche. In speaking about the mind, Rawat was making a distinction between the dark or negative thoughts that a person may have; and "heart", the place within each person where peace can be found. Fresco also highlights the fact that Haan was part of a critical movement within the Catholic Church and that Haan wrote this article while he was a student of theology at a Pastoral and Theology school in a small town in the Netherlands. They deny Haan's claims and Fresco says that his credentials make his article hardly worthy of interest. They also point out the fact that Rawat inspires them to think for themselves and encourages them to "stand on their own feet".

See also Past teachings of Prem Rawat, "Mind and Heart".

Miscellaneous criticism

  • Public relations and media - Ex-premies allege Rawat and his organizations engage in various practices to magnify his perceived significance and prestige. They claim his organizations intentionally inflate the estimates of the numbers attending his meetings. They also charge that Rawat arranges speaking engagements that falsely imply association with prestigious institutions such as the United Nations. They further accuse Rawat of buying media attention and uncritical magazine interviews, then passing these off as bona fide journalism, noting such interviews contain no questions about controversial topics such as past claims of divinity. Video broadcasts of Rawat’s message have won awards from entities not related to him or any of the organizations that distribute his message. . Supporters and the organizations point out that the audiences of Rawat's meetings include dignitaries, university students, educators, and staff from the host institutions, noting that representatives from these institutions have introduced Rawat at these events and praised his work. The organizations say no official figures are kept of meeting attendance, and supporters note no documentation of attendance inflation has been offered by critics.
  • Uniqueness of Knowledge techniques - Ex-premies say the techniques of Knowledge Rawat teaches have been taught for hundreds of years and are not unique. Supporters contend this allegation is pointless, acknowledging that these techniques are referred to throughout history in writings and poems. Students maintain that the important point is that the techniques, to be effective, require preparation and the help of a skilled teacher, and Rawat is one such teacher. See also Techniques of Knowledge, References to the Kriyas and the Teacher.
  • Claims to being the only Perfect Master - Ex-premies say that Rawat's credibility is further undermined by his claim to be the only Perfect Master. They point to an interview conducted in August 1973 with the Boston Globe in which Rawat expressed the opinion that there was only one Perfect Mater. (See quotes). Supporters say that indeed Maharaji expressed his understanding that there is only one perfect master, but that he never said he was one. That is up to the student to ascertain. Throughout the years his claim has always been that It is up to each human being to “find the one you can trust to help you get where you want to go and stick with him.” See also Importance of the living teacher.
  • Lack of substance in teachings and contradictions Ex-premie Dr. Mike Finch who became an ex-premie after 30 years wrote on his personal website that Maharaji teaches platitudes and fluff. The sociologists Foss and Larkin wrote in 1978 that the DLM "emphasized formal structure without substantive content." The religious scholar Dr. Ron Geaves who is a student of Rawat accused them in response of bias, pointing to the number of students that were attracted to the DLM. Ex-premie Jim Heller has compiled a list of what he sees as contradictions in the teaching of the DLM and Rawat.

Critics' methods, character and motives questioned by Elan Vital

Elan Vital Australia has published a long list of the alleged activites of the Ex-Premie group, stating that "using the anonymity of the Internet, they have discussed various plans and threats" including inciting people via the Internet to drug and kidnap members of Maharaji's family, conducting physical assaults, mounting campaigns of telephone calls and letter writing to the employers of Maharaji's students "warning" them that they employ "a member of a dangerous cult.", and more Supporters say that the ex-premie group harbors the hatred and ill-will typical of a hate group in, for example, maintaining what they characterize as an anonymous web page and hate speech chat room that exhorts violent acts such as planning to drug and kidnap members of Rawat's family. They complain that ex-premies have engaged in cyber-harassment, for example by publishing on the Internet the floor plans of the house where Rawat and his family reside, and in cyber-terrorism through computer and email attacks intended to discourage third parties from doing business with students. Although critics concede the posts in question were made by ex-premies, they argue the majority of ex-premies condemned the posts and claim to have had them deleted, though many of these postings still remain on-line. The webmaster of the website where the house plans were posted asserts they refer to a previous design of Rawat's house rather than the current one, and were posted simply to demonstrate the size of Rawat's Malibu home.

In a 2005 affidavit filed under oath, former ex-premie John Macgregor, who had previously been successfully sued by a student of Rawat and had to leave his country because of this, confirms many of these allegations. He names as the most prominent members and central organizers of this group John Brauns, Jim Heller, Marianne Bachers, Nick Wright and Jean-Michel Kahn. Macgregor says that in his personal experience many of the people in the ex-premie group are "irrational, obsessed, and motivated by ill-directed anger and that when they purport to report on factual matters they are frequently false and defamatory, unsupported by actual fact basis, and motivated in many instances by hatred, ill will and spite." Macgregor also admitted that with the support and encouragement of the ex-premies, he filed several frivolous complaints to tax and regulatory bodies around the world, "hoping to initiate expensive and burdensome investigation of Rawat and related volunteer entities". Macgregor also admitted that he "had no factual basis upon which to make such allegations" and that the complaints were supported by "unauthenticated, incomplete or out-of-context documents designed to paint a sinister picture."

Elan Vital characterizes the ex-premie group as unreliable in their allegations because of members' personal credibility problems such as obsessive Internet postings, illegal drug dealing, criminal history, mental illness, and involvement in manufacturing pornography. It points to the conviction of one group member, Neville Ackland, for possession of $2.5 million worth of drugs and illegal weapons. It characterizes members as fitting Introvigne's profile of "Type III" apostates, who become "professional enemies" of the formerly revered organization. Ex-premies categorize these charges about personal problems as argumentum ad personam attacks, and say any such character flaws are completely irrelevant to the question whether Prem Rawat is a reliable and competent teacher of effective meditation techniques.

In 2004, persons apparently having an anti-Rawat agenda forged the email address of Brisbane attorney Damian Scattini who represents Elan Vital in Australia, sending to many Australian lawyers, journalists and business leaders an email purporting to be an invitation from Scattini, who is not a student of Rawat's, to "worship" Rawat and containing the same photographs of Rawat in Hindu religious clothing as appear on the ex-premie websites. Scattini filed a now-pending criminal complaint with Queensland authorities. Ex-premie Jim Heller has applauded and defended the scheme, but denied any involvement.

Supporters say that ex-premies' letter-writing campaigns organized through its Internet chat rooms and websites constitute harassment intended to threaten students' jobs and careers. They point to an effort launched on the Internet in September 2004 on an anonymous website at Geocities to coordinate a campaign to write to University College Chester (now the University of Chester), the employer of Dr. Ron Geaves, asking that he be sanctioned for publishing papers favorable to Rawat in academic publications without informing the publications that he was a follower of Rawat's. Geaves replied that he has always been open about his allegiances, and faults his critics for, he alleges, not identifying themselves. Supporters see this as a cyberstalking attack on Geaves' professional life and an attempt to have him fired for his religious beliefs. Geocities removed the site in October 2004 after a Terms of service violation was filed.

Elan Vital, UK, a charitable organization established in the United Kingdom, present their opinion in this matter: "Elan Vital supports freedom of speech and the rights of an individual to express differing opinions. Any legitimate disagreements are looked at sympathetically and responded to accordingly. Over the past thirty years, many thousands of people in Britain have practised Prem Rawat's teaching of inner peace and found them of great benefit in their lives. At the same time, many have also decided not to pursue them and have moved away with no ill feelings. However, to our chagrin, a very small number have formed themselves into a vociferously complaining opposition of whom some actively work against Prem Rawat and Elan Vital in a way that can only be characterised as that of a 'hate group'. For a few years, a small Internet-based hate group of approximately twenty disgruntled former students operating under the cloak of anonymity has been harassing Maharaji, his students and Elan Vital. They operate using a fake front with a Webmaster allegedly residing in Latvia, who uses a blind e-mail address, safely outside of the reach of law. They have made no effort to provide journalists or interested parties with any independently verifiable documents or factual support for any of their allegations. Using mostly anonymous Internet postings, the front of an unregistered association and a Webmaster in the Republic of Latvia, they have committed harassing and sometimes unlawful acts."

Legal actions against critical former members

Organizations affiliated with Prem Rawat have recently threatened or pursued civil actions against ex-premies, with varying degrees of success.

  • In April 2003, lawyers acting for Elan Vital USA sent letters to the hosts of the ex-premie websites ex-premie.org, ex-premie2.org, ex-premie3.org and also to Google, claiming that pages on these sites violated Elan Vital's copyright on certain material, including quotations from Rawat, photos of Rawat, and song lyrics. The webmaster of the U.S. sites, ex-premie.org and ex-premie3.org, challenged these claims, asserting that publication of the material was allowed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Elan Vital declined to pursue the claims further. (Ex-premie2.org is under Scottish jurisdiction and is not affected by the Act.) The letter sent to Google is now published on the Chilling Effects website, which asserts "anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users."
  • In late 2003, The Prem Rawat Foundation brought a successful Internet domain name administrative proceeding, known as a "UDRP proceeding," against group member Jeffrey Leason (also known as "Roger Drek") for registering the Internet domain name "TPRF.biz" and using it to surreptitiously direct Internet users to his own website critical of TPRF, apparently in an exercise of the non-commercial variant of cybersquatting known as "cybergriping." The administrative tribunal in 2004 ruled against Leason, reasoning that his actions were not protected as free speech because he used for his domain name the precise name of his target rather than a distinctive variant, leading to the conclusion that his motivation was either to deceive Internet users into believing the website was sponsored by TPRF or else to drive them away from TPRF websites. The tribunal held this to be a bad faith use of the TPRF.biz domain name and directed the domain name be transferred over to the organization.
  • Two ex-premies, Tom Gubler and John Macgregor, were found civilly liable in January 2004 for a scheme to misappropriate data from Elan Vital's computers, and were enjoined by an Australian court from using the wrongfully taken documents and ordered to pay Elan Vital's legal costs. Gubler was a computer repair technician with access to Elan Vital's computers who at the behest of Macgregor, a freelance journalist, surreptitiously copied Elan Vital's data and emailed it to Macgregor and others. Their activities were exposed and Elan Vital brought injunction actions against both men. Macgregor ran away from law enforcement officers to keep his computer from a court-ordered examination, but relented after being held in contempt of court . Gubler originally testified in an affidavit that the ex-premies were a hate group existing as part of a conspiracy of ex-premies designed to harass Rawat and his students and to interfere with the ability of persons to follow their spiritual beliefs. Gubler later attempted to recant that testimony, claiming he signed this affidavit under duress, . Finding Macgregor and Gubler "utterly lacking in credibility" the court refused to allow Gubler to withdraw his earlier admissions.,. Macgregor unsuccessfully mounted the defense that his goal was to expose wrongdoing by the organization, but the court held this an insufficient justification, and noted that misappropriated material did not show any wrongdoing by Rawat or the organizations. In October 2004, after being discovered that Macgregor lied under oath and after failing to appear in court, an Australian-wide arrest warrant was issued against him for criminal perjury. In January 2005, in a post on an ex-premie discussion board titled "Apology to Maharaji and premies", Macgregor ostensibly apologized for causing pain to Rawat's family and to his students , and admitted that he had been "irrational" and "obsessed." His apology generated a variety of responses, including criticism from other ex-premies that doubted his sincerity, and he was accused by them of "selling them out" by attempting to appease Elan Vital with his apology. Critics cited that evidence for his lack of sincerity was the fact that he had not sought to publish the apology more publicly, such as in the Australian newspapers or the free Indymedia internet sites where his critical articles had appeared. A website has appeared that claimed to be authored by Gubler that criticizes and ridicules his affidavit and claims that he signed the affidavit under duress.
  • In June 2005, Elan Vital Inc., USA, sent a letter under the Digital Copyright Millenium, Act to the hosts of prem-rawat-maharaji.info claiming that photographs shown pages on the site violated Elan Vital's copyright. Elan Vital did not attempt to remove the text of those webpages or stop the legal owner of the website, John Brauns, from voicing his opinion. Elan Vital declined to pursue their claims when Brauns sent a counter-notification . Brauns is also the webmaster of the ex-premie.org website.


External links

  • Gateway webpage - contains links to a wide range of both critics' pages and pro-Rawat pages; maintained anonymously

Critical websites

FAQs related to critics published by organizations related to Prem Rawat

Sites responding to critics

References and bibliography

Prem Rawat (related topics)
Teachings
Books
Films
Related
Categories: