Jump to content

Criticism of Prem Rawat

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 4.8.16.157 (talk) at 02:17, 3 October 2004 (→Critics' character and motives questioned: Ron Geaves open letter). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NOTE: Over the next few days, special consensus edits to this article are being negotiated on its talk page in preparation for removing the "disputed tag" from this page. During this short negotiation period, please discuss proposed edits on that page rather than making substantial edits here, especially deletes. Thank you.

Template:Totallydisputed Prem Pal Singh 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, have been the subjects of controversy and criticism to some degree since his early beginnings. This article details and explores that criticism.

Sources of criticism

After Prem Rawat's first arrival in the UK and USA 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 [1] and the New York Review of Books [2]. In 1979, Bob Mishler, President of Rawat's Divine Light Mission (DLM) organization from 1972 to 1977, gave a radio interview[3] 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 activists Anton and Janet Hein[4] and controversial anti-cult activists and former deprogrammers Rick Ross[5] and Steven Hassan[6] have listed the Elan Vital organization on their websites as deserving of scrutiny. During the 1980s and until the late 1990s, there was very little media coverage of Prem Rawat and his organizations, either positive or negative.

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 group of vocal ex-followers with an active Internet presence. The group members call themselves "ex-premies," based on the practice, discontinued in the West but ongoing in India, of Rawat's followers calling themselves "premies." Some of these ex-premies 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. Although one of their websites is registered in the name of an "Ex-Premie Association", 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. The size and true influence of the ex-premies are in dispute; there are something over one hundred unverified testimonials on an ex-premie website, and apparently some multiple of that number have contributed to internet chat rooms maintained by ex-premies. They speculate their views may be shared by a larger group of Rawat's former followers, but as there has been no known attempt to canvass the views of that larger group there is no way to verify this.

The ex-premies characterize their activities as a public service of warning people about the dangers 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. Supporters charge that the ex-premies' actual goals are to harass students and drive them away from Rawat and question the critics' character and motives.

Elan Vital and Rawat's supporters active on the Internet have labeled the ex-premies an insignificantly small hate group[7] of no more than a few dozen people who speak for no one but themselves and use the Internet to magnify their importance by spamming search engines and manipulating the media to shed negative light on Rawat[8]. Elan Vital's FAQs include a long history of alleged harassment by the ex-premies against it, Rawat, and his students[9]. Ex-premie, Dr. Mike Finch writes on his website that he has observed very little hate among ex-premies he knows and that he and others suffer from a variety of emotions including, feeling stupid, grief, and sometimes anger. [10] He speculates that number of people who have not pursued Knowledge must be bigger than number who currently practice it, and that there is no harassment in the legal sense of the word. Ex-premies further assert that supporters are unable to discredit the critical testimonies of former senior staff within the organizations[11]. Supporter's say that ex-premies are impinging on people's freedom of belief by wagging a campaing of intolerance.

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[12]. Certain DLM publications contained material that ex-premies contend were meant to be interpreted by Rawat's followers as claims of divinity[13]. They note he used to dress up as Krishna, and at the age of twelve promised to personally establish peace in the world[14]. They demand that Rawat and/or Elan Vital explicitly disabuse all his current followers of such claims.

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[15], and the title "Lord" simply denotes affection or admiration [16]. They assert the presentation of Knowledge and the young Rawat's public persona were 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[17].

Supporters 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"[18]. 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[19]. 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 inconsistent with claims of personal divinity, such as 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."

Rawat's shedding of Indian trappings has itself generated controversy. Ex-premies who say they once believed in Rawat's divinity see this change—which they do not see as a liberation but as a dodge—as a primary source of their disillusionment, and now 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 and revisionism, while supporters describe it as part of an honest evolution from child guru within the Indian tradition toward a more universally understood teacher of inner peace.

In his 1979 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[20]. 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[21]. Supporters dismiss his charges as coming from a disgruntled ex-employee after being fired.

Critics 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[22]. 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 in September 2001 in Scottsdale, Arizona in the U.S. at a program for major Western donors[23].

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[24]: 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 square metres) on an almost five-acre (two hectare) mountain ridgetop, ocean-view parcel purchased in the 1970's, 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.

The organizations report that Rawat and his family are entirely supported by personal business investments[25][26] with absoultely 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.

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 assert these aircraft were what enabled Rawat to reach one million people in India in 2004[27]. 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[28], 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 [29][30]. 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[31].

Personal lifestyle

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.

According to Dettmers, he was in Rawat's inner circle in 1974, responsible for organizing Rawat's touring arrangements. He claims that during a fifteen 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, made similar allegations[32][33][34].

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[35]. 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 India he once witnessed 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[36], decisions and actions he characterizes as inconsistent with being a trustworthy spiritual teacher.

Supporters dismiss many of these claims as utter fabrications and as coming from disgruntled ex-employees. They categorize these remarks as the outrageous allegations that apostates typically make, pointing to an explanation advanced by CESNUR’s president, sociologist Massimo Introvigne, for the causes of such behavior[37]. Supporters say that these allegations are maliciously designed to assassinate Rawat's character with no other purpose than to attempt to discredit him, and 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.

Miscellaneous criticism

  • Uncritical acceptance - Critics claim 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[38], and emphasizing faith in him[39] and surrender to him[40]. In 1981 Wim Haan wrote in an article after involvement for several months with the DLM in the Netherlands that Rawat's battle against the mind sometimes degenerated in complete irrationality. Rawat's current students deny this, saying he instead inspires them to think for themselves and encourages them to "stand on their own feet"[41].
  • Public relations and media - Ex-premies allege Prem 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[42][43][44], noting such interviews contain no questions about controversial topics such as past claims of divinity. 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[45][46][47]. 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.
  • Closure of the ashrams Critics say that Maharaji had first made possible for premies to live in ashrams [48], which involved a conscious personal decision to join a comunal life of poverty, obedience and celibacy. [49] Maharaji ordered the closure the ashrams in 1983. [50] This closure was hard on some its inhabitants that experienced problems with the transition to a life outside the ashrams. [51]

Critics' character and motives questioned

Supporters say that the ex-premie group harbors the hatred and ill-will typical of a hate group[52] in, for example, maintaining what they characterize as an anonymous web page and hate speech chat room[53] that exhorts violent acts such as planning to drug and kidnap members of Rawat's family[54]. 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[55], 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 had them deleted. The webmaster of website where the house plans were posted asserts they refer to a previous design of Rawat's house rather than the current one, are were posted simply to demonstrate the size of Rawat's Malibu home.

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[56]. It points to the conviction of one group member, Neville Ackland[57][58], for possession of $2.5 million worth of drugs and illegal weapons[59]. It characterizes members as fitting Introvigne's profile of "Type III" apostates, who become "professional enemies" of the formerly revered organization[60]. Ex-premies characterize 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[61], sending to many Australian lawyers, journalists and business leaders an email purporting to be an invitiation 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-premies say there is no evidence they were involved in this.

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[62][63] to coordinate a campaign to write to Chester College, 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. Supporters see this as a cyberstalking attack on Geaves' professional life and an attempt to have him fired for his religious beliefs. In an open letter, Dr. Geaves[64] states that he has always been open about his allegiances, that the website authors are afraid to identify themselves and to admit that they are writing from religious intolerance, and they are not really concerned for the scholarly study of religion but only to intimidate and harass. He also says that he values his academic freedom as highly as his liberty to follow his own spiritual truths.

Organizations affiliated with Prem Rawat have recently threatened or pursued civil actions against members of the ex-premie group, 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[65]. 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."
  • 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[66][67]. Macgregor tried to shield his computer from a court-ordered examination, but relented after being held in contempt of court [68]. 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[69]. Gubler later recanted that testimony, asserting he signed this affidavit under duress[70]. Gubler and Macgregor asked the affidavit be withdrawn from the court's consideration, but the court refused[71], finding Gubler and Macgregor lacking in credibility[72]. Macgregor mounted the defense that his goal was to expose wrongdoing by the organization, but the court held this an insufficient justification, and noted the misappropriated material did not show any wrongdoing by Rawat or the organizations[73].
  • 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 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 material 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[74].

Ex-premies' websites

  • ex-premie.org - in excess of a thousand pages critical of Prem Rawat and the organizations that support his work, written by former followers
  • Mike Finch website - ex-premie after thirty years
  • Maharaji Drek - website critical of Prem Rawat (Note: contains language and images some may find offensive)

Websites of organizations that support the work of Prem Rawat

References and bibliography

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat&oldid=6307490"