Criticism of Prem Rawat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prem Rawat (also called Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji attracted controversy and criticism since he started delivering his teachings in the 1960s. The sources of criticism come from articles by several scholars in the 1970s and early 1980s, individuals related to the anti-cult movement of the 1970s, media articles from the 1970s and 1980s, and former members.

Contents 1 Criticism and observations in several scholarly articles 2 Criticism in the media 3 Criticism by protagonists of the anticult movement 4 Criticism by former members 5 References and footnotes

[edit] Criticism and observations in several scholarly articles

Amongst the many scholarly articles, books, and encyclopedias that refer to the DLM and to Prem Rawat, there were various critical observations and comments made about him and his students by a number of authors.

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 KSGV, a Netherlands based Catholic Study Center for Mental Health,^[1] 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 students, 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.^[2]

Stephen Hunt, writes in Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction in 2003, that critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle that they argue it is supported largely by the donations of his followers. Hunts also writes that by keeping a low profile, the movement has managed to escape the gaze of publicity that surrounds other new religuus movements.^[3]

The Dutch religious scholar and Christian minister Reender Kranenborg 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.". He also described his impression that the person of Maharaj ji became more central in the course of years and his 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 "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 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 what he considers to be a normal and simple life.^[4]

An article written by Wim Haan that was published in the official magazine about religious movements of the Free University of Amsterdam in 1981, a university that upholds the tradition of Christian standards and values, forwards several critical statements. Haan wrote in the article 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 what he wrote was his involvement with the DLM during two years in the Netherlands, he asserts 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.^[5] Haan never learned the techniques of Knowledge about which to base these strongly critical opinions.

The sociologist Ralph Larkin wrote together with Daniel A. Foss in 1978 that the DLM "emphasized formal structure without substantive content." The religious scholar Dr. Ron Geaves, who is a student of Prem Rawat, accused them in response of bias, pointing to the number of students that were attracted to the DLM.

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 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. 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 and asserted that Rawat stimulated an uncritical attitude of the students' view of the guru and their projections on him.^[6]

The psychiatrist Saul V. Levine, who published several articles about cults and new religious movements, wrote in an undated article titled Life in Cults published in a 1989 book that he believed that public perception saw the Divine Light Mission the Hare Krishna, Unification Church, Children of God as cults held in low esteem and that families' perception "that their children are being financially exploited" is seen as one of the most pernicious and malevolent aspects of these group, while "the leaders live in ostentation and offensive opulence." He also writes 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.^[7]

Other scholars and authors that have written about this subject but who do not level criticism against Prem Rawat include: Andrew Kopkind,^[8] Charles H. Lippy,^[9] John Bassett McCleary,,^[10] Ruth Prince and David Riches,^[11] Bryan R. Wilson,^[12] Dennis Marcellino, Erwin Fahlbusch,^[13] Tim Miller, Raymond Lee, Rosemary Goring,^[14] George D. Chryssides, David V. Barrett, Lucy DuPertuis J. Gordon Melton, Jeffrey K. Hadden, Eugene M. Elliot III,^[15] Sandra S. Frankiel,^[16] and James Lewis. Barret, Dupertuis, Melton and Lewis mention criticism by the media, Rawat's mother, Bob Mishler, and anticultists respectively. Stephen A. Kent makes self-admitted subjective criticism (lacking substance) based on his personal experience with Prem Rawat and treats the criticism by the countercultural left on him in the 1970s.

[edit] 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.^[17][18] During the 1980s and until the late 1990s, there was very little media coverage of Prem Rawat and related organizations.

[edit] Criticism by protagonists of the anticult movement

In the early 1980s the late Dr. Margaret Singer, a controversial anti-cult activist, included the DLM (since then disbanded and replaced by the non-religious, educational nonprofit, 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 Elan Vital on their websites.^[19]

[edit] Criticism by former members

Gordon Melton describes that in the mid-1970s several ex-members became vocal critics^[20]. Another scholar, James Lewis, wrote that a number of ex-members became critics of the movement, attacking it with charges of brainwashing and mind control^[21].

Some of the criticism leveled at Prem Rawat derives from key personnel who, after they parted ways with Prem Rawat in the 1970s and 1980s, began making allegations against him about purported anxiety. These key personnel included Robert Mishler (who died in the late 1970s) ex-president of the Divine Light Mission. He said in a Denver radio interview in February 1979 (a few years after leaving the mission) that Prem Rawat "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol."^[22] 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.^[23]

Elan Vital, in a FAQ article about opposition to Prem Rawat and his message, claims that there is a handful of former students that actively engage in opposing Prem Rawat, his students, and their organization. They list a series of complaints against this group related to their activities and motivations.^[24]

[edit] References and footnotes

Prem Rawat (Maharaji)

Techniques of Knowledge | The Prem Rawat Foundation

Elan Vital | Criticism of Prem Rawat

Hans Ji Maharaj | Divine Light Mission | Divine United Organization