Andries, Andries, Andries,

You don't have a clue what you're talking about and you seem too obtuse to learn much.  And you keep relying on these scholars for the most trite, out-of-date, biased or just plain wrong information.  In this case, Rawat split with his mother 30 years ago!  Who the hell cares what  Dr. Jan van der Lans has to say about it?  Why didn't you just respond on your own, as a person, with your own mind, goddam it?!  You do have one, don't you?

Let's try this again --

You said:

But in the case of Maharaji I still think there is a chance that he is not a disgusting charlatan but merely incompetent or a victim of his surroundings.

To which I replied:

You've seen Rawat's obvious disinformation campaign denying his past and trying to characterize anyone who'd expose it as uncredible for all sorts of reasons.  You've seen how clearly destructive and oppressive he was in the past through all sorts of things he said and did then.  You've seen how he's carefully manipulated all this subterfuge to amass a great fortune without ever once owning up to anything he's ever done.

And you have the audacity to suggest that maybe he was just "incompetent" or, funnier still, a "victim of his surroundings"?!

Okay, what's your answer?  That's YOUR answer, not Dr. So-and-so's.