Talk:Prem Rawat/criticism

Untitled

 * ''This is a temporary page to gather different versions of criticism together in one place. It will delete it when done once a consensus version is reached.

In Jan 07, it was decided to merge Criticism of Prem Rawat into the main article since it was a POV fork. The Original fork, Jan 2007 section below contains the last version of the Criticism of Prem Rawat article prior to it being merged into the Prem Rawat article.

Currently there is no criticism section since attempts to remove the criticism, rather than trying to reach a consensus version, started shortly after the merge was completed in Jan 07. The reversions have been occurring since then as in this example from June 2007. In Sept 07 there was a removal of NPOV tags from users wondering why there is no criticism and two more recent reverts from feb 3, 08 and feb 6, 08. Several different versions of the criticism have, however, existed over the past year. Three different versions can be read below.

Criticism from former members
A increasingly large group of former followers that have become vocal critics, call themselves "ex-premies". There is also a website that utilizes this term, Ex-Premie.Org

One of the main observations made by ex followers is that Prem Rawat and his diminishing group of followers are perpetuating a damaging myth. In spite of extream revisionism on the part of Rawat and his key advisers which seeks to cover up his past most people who were once followers are now ex followers (most simply drifted away once it became apparent that Rawat could not offer them anything while others have made use of the internet to voice their concerns about Prem Rawat and his "mission".

Gordon Melton describes that in the mid-1970s several ex-members became vocal critics. James Lewis wrote that a number of ex-members became critics of the movement, attacking it with charges of brainwashing and mind control.

Some of the criticism leveled at Prem Rawat derives from Bob Mishler, a former president of DLM, and Robert Hand after they parted ways with Prem Rawat in the 1970s. According to Melton in a 1986 article, Mishler's complaints that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaji's personal use found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.

Criticism from the media
After Prem Rawat's first arrival in the United Kingdom and United States in 1971 at the age of thirteen and through the 1970s he, his students and his organizations attracted media scrutiny and attention. Examples of articles appearing in the mainstream press in that decade include a 1974 article in Rolling Stone magazine and a 1979 article in the New York Review of Books.

A 1980 article in The Washington Post reported that a Congressional Panel had singled out, among other controversial groups: "Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission...as cults that employ manipulative techniques and turn children against their parents." An article which mentioned the Divine Light Mission appeared  in Time Magazine in 1997. A 1998 article in Rocky Mountain News referred to Elan Vital as a "cult".

In 2002, an article by the Australian Associated Press referred to the organization as the "Elan Vital cult."

In 2008, an article by The Register stated that the organization is "widely recognized as a cult" and that the editing of the Prem Rawat article by some editors of Wikipedia is evidence of "... the most extreme conflict of interest in the history of Wikipedia."

June 2007 version
Prem Rawat has at times been the subject of criticism from religious scholars, individuals related to anti-cult movements, articles in the press and media, and former members. In 1981 Jan van der Lans, a professor of psychology of religion who lived in a monastery until 1968 before being employed by the Catholic University of Nijmegen, wrote in the book commissioned by the KSGV, a Christian-inspired Dutch association, that Rawat's "life was one of idleness and pleasure". The year Van der Lans' comment was published, Rawat, now the father of four children under 10, flew a Boeing 707 to forty different cities, and spoke on 120 occasions, crisscrossing North America four times and toured South America, Europe, India, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia. Van der Lans also that "if he visits a festival then a floor of a hotel is rented for him and his family". Steven J Hunt writes than "Rawat announced himself as the new master and started his own teaching". And Geaves writes in "New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities" "that his father had chosen him as the person best suited to carry the teachings forward. And Downton writes that "the elevation of the youngest to spiritual prominence was no surprise at all, for stories are told about his extraordinary dedication to the Knowledge, which he demonstrated almost from the moment when his father, and guru, had revealed the life force to him. From the age of six, he is said to have voluntarily immersed himself in spiritual practices, sometimes meditating for hours at a time. His exuberance for the Knowledge made him a sensation at satsang, where premies say he spoke spontaneously to mass audiences with the assurance of someone many years older". Jacob Belzen, who holds four doctorates in the social sciences, history, philosophy, and sciences of religion, says that van der Lans work "was not without theological preferences and bias, but he presented himself as an empirically oriented psychologist".  Van der Lans died in 2002, the year after The Prem Rawat Foundation was founded as a Public Charitable Organization, largely for the production and distribution of audiovisual and other materials promoting Rawat's message. It also funds international humanitarian efforts, and provides water, food and medical relief to war-torn and impoverished areas..

Kranenborg's impression was that the person of Maharaj ji had become more central over the course of years, and that Maharaj ji's assertions about himself and his vocation went further as he became more aware of the extent of his divinity. He further wrote that when Christians get into dialogue with premies that the lifestyle of the guru is of great importance. He argued that a satguru who drives an expensive car and 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 what Kranenborg considers to be a normal and simple life. The sociologist Ralph Larkin with Daniel A. Foss wrote in 1978 that the DLM "emphasized formal structure without substantive content." In response the religious scholar Dr. Ron Geaves, who is a student of Prem Rawat, accused them of bias, pointing to the number of students that were attracted to the DLM.

An article published in the official magazine about religious movements of the Free university of Amsterdam written by Wim Haan, a student of theology at a Pastoral and Theology school in a small town in the Netherlands states that the battle against the mind sometimes degenerated into complete irrationality, that sometimes premies branded every critical and objective approach as "mind", and that they often avoided discussions with outsiders because these discussions could possibly stimulate the mind. Haan wrote that the word "mind" was defined in the premie-community as "being conditioned" that is all alienating influences that made man stray off from his true nature.

The sociologist Stephen A. Kent described Prem Rawat's message as "banal" based on his personal experience with Rawat and that afterwards "I listened incredulously as my companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received. In fact, they were so moved by the guru's words that they made tentative plans to return the next day" in the preface of his book and treats elsewhere in his book the criticism by the countercultural left on him in the 1970s.

Dr. Marc Galanter, a professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse at the New York University Medical Center, describes his first encounter with the Divine Light Mission ashram - "The atmosphere in the ashram was indeed quite striking. On entering a large apartment on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, I was greeted in a friendly, even intimate fashion by people who were complete strangers. The intense communality of the members was immediately apparent, a quality that was clearly an important aspect of the group's function. One could sense a closeness among those present, and an absence of the minor tensions that would be expected in a setting where two dozen people were living in tight quarters. A college dormitory, a military barracks, or a summer camp soon reveal a certain amount of hostile banter or argument. These appeared to be absent in the ashram. Caring and intimacy, reflective of the group's cohesiveness, seemed to mute any expression of animosity"..

Melton reports that "Maharaj Ji, who frequently acted like the teenager that he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader."

Glock and Bellah describes Rawat as being the subject of great controversy in India, "Although Maharaj Ji is himself from India, is a guru, and offers a meditation technique, he is not clearly Eastern and is a subject of great controversy in India, where he is also a major heretic. Any man who says that all scriptures are true, that Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Krishna, and a host of others were all Christ, is a heretic everywhere."

Criticism in the media
After Prem Rawat's first arrival in the United Kingdom and United States in 1971 at the age of thirteen and through the 1970s he, his students and his organizations attracted media scrutiny and attention. Examples of articles appearing in the mainstream press in that decade include a 1974 article in Rolling Stone magazine and a 1979 article in the New York Review of Books.

A 1980 article in The Washington Post reported that a Congressional Panel had singled out, among other controversial groups: "Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission...as cults that employ manipulative techniques and turn children against their parents." An article which mentioned the Divine Light Mission appeared  in Time Magazine in 1997. A 1998 article in Rocky Mountain News referred to Elan Vital as a "cult".

In 2002, an article by the Australian Associated Press referred to the organization as the "Elan Vital cult."

Criticism by former members
J. Gordon Melton describes that in the mid-1970s several ex-members became vocal critics. Some of the criticism leveled at Rawat derives from Robert Mishler, former President of DLM ( who died in 1979). According to Melton in a 1986 article, Mishler's complaints that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaji's personal use found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission. . Another scholar, James Lewis, notes a number of ex-members made claims of brainwashing and mind control. Some of the criticism leveled at Prem Rawat derives from Bob Mishler, a former president of DLM, and Robert Hand after they parted ways with Prem Rawat in the 1970s.

May 2007 version

 * Cut and pasted from a collaboration towards mediation.

Prem Rawat has at times been the subject of criticism from religious scholars, individuals related to anti-cult movements, articles in the press and media, and former members.

Jan van der Lans, a professor of psychology of religion at the Catholic University of Nijmegen (now Radboud University Nijmegen) wrote about followers of gurus in a book published in 1981 commissioned by the KSGV, a Christian-inspired Dutch association that organizes conferences and publishes articles and books related to faith, religion and mental health. Van der Lans wrote 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 students, yet 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. In 1986 van der Lans reported that compared to the educational level of the general Dutch population, high academic levels are overrepresented in Rawat's students

Kranenborg asserted that Jos Lammers, whom he labelled as an "ex-premie", made similar comments as van der Lans about Maharaji's lifestyle in his interview with the Dutch magazine Haagse Post. He further wrote that when Christians get into dialogue with premies that the lifestyle of the guru is of great importance. He argued that a satguru who drives an expensive car and 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 what Kranenborg considers to be a normal and simple life. The sociologist Stephen A. Kent described Prem Rawat's message as "banal" based on his personal experience with Rawat in the preface of his book and treats elsewhere in his book the criticism by the countercultural left on him in the 1970s.

The psychiatrist Saul V. Levine, who has published several articles about cults and new religious movements, wrote in an article titled Life in Cults, published in 1989, that public perception is that the Divine Light Mission, the Hare Krishna, the Unification Church, and the Children of God are seen as cults held in low esteem and that families' perceptions "that their children are being financially exploited" is one of the most pernicious and malevolent aspects of these groups, where "the leaders live in ostentation and offensive opulence." He also wrote 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".

Melton reports that "Maharaj Ji, who frequently acted like the teenager that he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader."

An author initiated in Knowledge describes Rawat as being the subject of great controversy in India, "where he is also a major heretic."

Observations from scholars
Scholars and authors that have written about Prem Rawat and related organisations without criticism include Andrew Kopkind, Charles H. Lippy, John Bassett McCleary, Ruth Prince and David Riches, Bryan R. Wilson, Dennis Marcellino, Erwin Fahlbusch, Tim Miller, Raymond Lee, Rosemary Goring, George D. Chryssides, David V. Barrett, Lucy DuPertuis J. Gordon Melton, Jeffrey K. Hadden,  Eugene M. Elliot III, Sandra S. Frankiel,  and James Lewis. Barret, Dupertuis, Melton, and Lewis mention criticism by the media, Rawat's mother, Bob Mishler, and former members respectively.

Stephen A. Kent criticizes Prem Rawat based on his personal experience with Rawat and treats the criticism by the countercultural left on him in the 1970s.

Some critical observations and comments about Rawat and his students are as follows:

An article written by Wim Haan, published in the official magazine of the Free University of Amsterdam in 1981, forwards several critical statements. In the article, Haan wrote that he was a member of a critical movement within the Roman Catholic Church and that he was a student of theology at a Pastoral and Theology school in a small town in the Netherlands. In that article, based on his description of his involvement with the DLM over the course of two years in the Netherlands, he asserts that Rawat's battle against the mind sometimes degenerated into complete irrationality, that sometimes premies branded every critical and objective approach as "mind", and that they often avoided discussions with outsiders because these discussions could possibly stimulate the mind.
 * Wim Haan

In 2003, Stephen J. Hunt wrote in Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction that Prem Rawat has left " his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers". Hunt also writes that by keeping a low profile the movement has managed to escape the gaze of publicity that surrounds other new religious movements.
 * Stephen Hunt

Reender Kranenborg, a Dutch religious scholar and Christian minister, wrote in a 1982 article 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." Kranenbord's impression was that the person of Maharaj ji had become more central over the course of years, and that Maharaj ji's assertions about himself and his vocation went further as he became more aware of the extent of his divinity. Kranenborg asserted that Jos Lammers, whom he labelled as an "ex-premie", made similar comments as van der Lans about Maharaji's lifestyle in his interview with the Dutch magazine Haagse Post. He further wrote that when Christians get into dialogue with premies that the lifestyle of the guru is of great importance. He argued that a satguru who drives an expensive cars and 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 what he considers to be a normal and simple life. Jan van der Lans, a professor of psychology of religion at the Radboud University Nijmegen, wrote about followers of gurus in a book published in 1981 commissioned by the KSGV, a Christian-inspired Dutch association that organizes conferences and publishes articles and books related to faith, religion and mental health. Van der Lans wrote 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 students, yet 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, but does not provided citations for his very critical assessment. The sociologist Ralph Larkin with Daniel A. Foss wrote in 1978 that the DLM "emphasized formal structure without substantive content." In response the religious scholar Dr. Ron Geaves, who is a student of Prem Rawat, accused them of bias, pointing to the number of students that were attracted to the DLM.
 * Reender Kranenborg
 * Jan van der Lans
 * Larkin, Foss

The psychiatrist Saul V. Levine, who has published several articles about cults and new religious movements, wrote in an article titled Life in Cults, published in 1989, that public perception is that the Divine Light Mission, the Hare Krishna, the Unification Church, and the Children of God are seen as cults held in low esteem and that families' perceptions "that their children are being financially exploited" is one of the most pernicious and malevolent aspects of these groups, where "the leaders live in ostentation and offensive opulence." He also wrote 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". His analysis was based on practices, such as the monastic life in ashrams, that were abandoned in the 1980s when Prem Rawat threw off anachronistic Hindu religious and cultural trappings previously associated with his message.
 * Saul V. Levine


 * Margaret Singer

In the early 1980s the late Dr. Margaret Singer included the DLM (since then disbanded and replaced by the non-religious, educational nonprofit, Elan Vital) in her list of cults. In 1979, Dr. Singer mentioned the Divine Light Movement as one of a set of groups that have "intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader", in an article in Psychology Today. .

The sociologist Dr. Paul Schnabel wrote in a 1982 Ph.D. thesis about new religious movements and mental health that the message of the Divine Light Mission could be summarized in 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. He further wrote that Prem Rawat was at that moment one of the purest examples of charismatic leadership. He characterized Rawat as materialistic, spoilt, and intellectually unremarkable. He asserted that Rawat stimulated an uncritical attitude of the students' view of the guru and their projections on him.
 * Paul Schnabel

Criticism in the media
After Prem Rawat's first arrival in the United Kingdom and United States in 1971 at the age of thirteen and through the 1970s he, his students and his organizations attracted media scrutiny and attention. Examples of articles appearing in the mainstream press in that decade include a 1974 article in Rolling Stone magazine and a 1979 article in the New York Review of Books.

A 1980 article in The Washington Post reported that a Congressional Panel had singled out, among other controversial groups: "Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission...as cults that employ manipulative techniques and turn children against their parents." An article which mentioned the Divine Light Mission appeared  in Time Magazine in 1997. A 1998 article in Rocky Mountain News referred to Elan Vital as a "cult".

In 2002, an article by the Australian Associated Press referred to the organization as the "Elan Vital cult."

Criticism by former members
A small group of former followers that have become vocal critics, call themselves "ex-premies". There is also a website that utilizes this term, Ex-Premie.Org

Gordon Melton describes that in the mid-1970s several ex-members became vocal critics. James Lewis wrote that a number of ex-members became critics of the movement, attacking it with charges of brainwashing and mind control.

Some of the criticism leveled at Prem Rawat derives from Bob Mishler, a former president of DLM, and Robert Hand after they parted ways with Prem Rawat in the 1970s. According to Melton in a 1986 article, Mishler's complaints that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaji's personal use found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission.

Other criticism

 * The Christian countercult activist Anton Hein, consultant Rick Ross, and psychotherapist Steven Hassan list links about Elan Vital on their websites.