I think this is Dutch humour ( ?)  

The revisionism of followers of Rawat ( previously known as a "Guru" ) is not as blatant ,arguably, as that of the followers of  Rajneesh  who , although he wasn't named " Guru" ,was far more of a stereotypical  indian-style " Guru " than westernised Rawat. The Osho organisation, according to this magazine , seems to have outlawed the word " Guru" in relation to their "master"  (oops, thats probably a dirty word ,too) 

I think Andries is light- heartedly saying that the endorsement of Rawat's revisionism  by premies ( oops! another blasphemous word )doesn't seem, in Andries' opinion having read that magazine article, to be as extreme as that of the " Osho" ( Rajneesh) organisation .

However, IMO the revisionism by Rawat and his followers is of course worse ,in a sense  than Osho...if only because Rawat, unlike Rajneesh, is still alive, making the lies about his past all the more insulting ( because he obviously is an accomplice to them)  to those of us who remember the truth.

 Surely Andries must know that we do not exaggerate ?

( I now see that Andries has replied to you John........I was interrupted while I was writing this ....)