In a thread below Jim challenges Andries over an academic statement:

[A] Here is what the Dutch religious scholar Reender Kranenborg writes about Maharaji's claims of divinity.

"She [his mother] disinherited him spiritually. In fact, he was expelled from the movement. Maharaji continued independently, though with less pretentions than in the past: he did not speak with divine terms about himself, but called himself 'humanitarian leader' "

[J] After all this time and all the evidence you've been shown do you think this is true, Andries? If not, why did you post it?

It is not clear from what Andries posted whether Kranenborg has justified this statement with any reference to Rawat's 'speeches', however Kranenborg's statement is not necessarily uncritical and perhaps implies some significance in the term 'humanitarian that did not survive translation.

the Collins English dictionary gives the following definitions:

Humanitarian:

1. having the interests of mankind at heart

2. of or relating to ethical or theological humanitarianism

3. a philanthropist

4. an adherent of humanitarianism

Humanitarianism:

1. humanitarian principles

2. Ethics:

a. the doctrine that man's duty is to strive to promote the welfare of mankind.

b. the doctrine that man can achieve perfection through his own resources.

3. Theology: the belief that Jesus Christ was only a mortal man.

Perhaps Kranenborg was content to acknowledge Rawat's 'self description' as his being a humanitarian because Kranenborg viewed Rawat's teaching as amounting to "the doctrine that man can achieve perfection through his own resources".

So if Rawat is a 'humanitarian', what kind is he ? Do Rawat and the premies believe that "man can achieve perfection through his own resources" ? or do they believe that "man's duty is to strive to promote the welfare of mankind" ? Does Rawat "havethe interests of mankind at heart" ? Is Rawat "a philanthropist" ? Is Rawat "an adherent of humanitarianism" ?

The answers to all of these questions should be easily demonstrable - yet for all of the tens of thousands of words in the Wikipedia articles, there is not a single element that is not ambiguous in terms of Rawat's supposed 'humanitarian' status. Of course premies would have  it that by spending a few dozen days a year travelling in luxury, Rawat is making a great sacrifice for 'humanity' - but in normal human judgement that hardly counts as either philanthropy or striving to promote the welfare of mankind.

Nik