Gok,

It's important to know just how much Rawat's organizers are willing to lie when trying to protect Rawat, on any subject.  Here is a 1997 letter from Glen Whittaker, (head of EV in England), to another premie Ross Sutton (head of EV Internation PR team).  It is clear that their only concern is to hide any illegalities rather than to correct them.

***

   PR CONSIDERATIONS - AUGUST 1997 REPORT BY G.W. FOR R.S.

It seems to me Ros that the two major areas where adverse PR could occur over the next period, say the next two years, are (1) the growing interest in and knowledge of the so-called Rhadasoami Tradition which would claim thart M is just one of several teachers forming part of a new Indian religious tradition, giving out a similar message and teaching similar meditation techniques, and (2) the rapid growth in discussion on the Internet on M, which has several negative aspects. I will address both of these briefly and comprehensively, so that you can have an understanding of what is out there without spending too much time delving into it yourself. 1. The Rhadasoami Tradition. [To be posted soon.] 2. INTERNET Much of the Internet material concerns, firstly, what is seen as M's profligate use of money during the late '70's, particularly in relation to Dacca, with potentially damaging stories of how it was collected and processed, and secondly, as I reported after my first meeting with Patrick Wilson, the very bad feeling many people seem to have still as a result of their life in the ashram from 1978 till they closed, around 1983. Both these concerns will need addressing at some point, one feels, they are so strongly expressed and felt, they will not go away. If they, and particularly the second, are ignored, they will continue to fester as an ever-present source of potential damage to M's present work. Stories about M's personal life, in particular the interview with Mischler, can be handled easily by pointing out the by and large exemplary life he has led, especially compared to the extreme abuse visited on disciples by other 'masters'. In any area of comparison, M comes out far, far ahead. Even the heavy drinking reported by Mishler at the time of the family break-up, and we have to assume exaggeration to beef up the drama of Mischler's tale, is understandable in terms of the incredible stress M was going through at the time, combined with his own need to live a normal life with its own growing pains and youth experiments. The story of the 707 can only be answered, in my view, by not hiding it, but freely admitting (if faced with questions on it by journalists) that Maharaji had the intention of creating a travelling headquarters, which is true, whereby he and a large group of initiators and organisation aides would move from country to country in an effort to spread Knowledge far and wide. The plan was therefore honorable, but was found to be unworkable in practice and was jettisoned in Maharaji's attempts to find the right formula to continue his work. It is worth saying that shortly after this he closed down the ashram system as being unworkable in the west, and spent two or more years in semi-retirement while he thought out how to go forward. As the New Yorker journalist points out in a riposte to the angry letters about the ashram at that time, he thinks it to M's credit that rather than get stuck in the old rut like so many other so-called gurus, M had the courage to change things, and in his case he 'got his sister back' as a result, as a functioning human being taking on a family role again and ceasing proslytising on M's behalf. This is a very positive point. So the 707 can be seen as a wild but valid attempt to do things in a different way. What is more difficult to explain is the sumptiousness of the decor of the plane - gold-plated taps etc. When one internet person who worked on the plane claimed it had a diamond encrusted toilet seat, he says it as an exaggeration, but one senses the opulence was not far off . This we have to accept and shrug off - yes, M did want it appointed to very high standards of comfort, is our answer, but only because he would be living in this plane for most of his time. The ownership and funding of the project might cause further complications,, was it owned by EV-US? If not there could have been an illegality and Virgil needs consulting on where we stand on this. The ashram question is even more difficult to deal with. Many of the correspondents appear to feel they had been badly abused and taken advantage of, losing years of their life in something they were promised would be worthwhile and permanent, but was not. In particular, David Smith is criticised for what was seen as his inhunman disregard for personal feelings as he implemented (as it is understood) Maharaji's instructions to encourage married pwk's to end their relationships and move into the ashram. Most of all, constant reference is made to a meeting of ashram pwk's with M at Kissimee where he was understood to have said the ashram is permanent, its inmates are his chosen fast-track people, but at the same time impressed his 'divine' credentials by saying he could, if he wished, 'turn them all blue and make them fly'. Shortly after he closed the ashrams, leaving an enormous sense of let-down. What is asked for on the internet is for Maharaji to acknowledge what happened, and either explain it or apolgise for it. We can of course point out that 1 - life in M's ashrams, even in those 'dark' days, as they are perceived, was respectful of the individual, beautiful and after all voluntary compared to the real abuse visited by almost all other so-called masters on their devotees. 2. it was again an experiment where M was trying for the first time to bring the traditional way K was taught and practised to the west. He found it did not work but only by trial and error, and then had the courage to abandon it, in effect to cut his losses, even knowing this would cause pain to those who had become reliant on the ashram system. Now all this experimentation has led to what we have today, a way of spreading Knowledge which combines efficiency with humanity. If some people resent being 'trapped' in the ashram at that time, it is regrettable, but it was their free choice. And far from blighting careers, etc, a few years in a monastic environment, dedicated to the inner beauty, cannot be claimed to be time lost or wasted; it has another value which ought to be given some credence. The only real answer to this is that M himself lent his full authority to persuading people to adopt this lifestyle, which did come close to a negation of personal liberty and choice, and this has led to strong resentment against him personally. It is as if they want him to acknowledge that he may however unintentionally have misled them, and even apologise. I do not see how he could do this as 1. fundamentally it is their own misunderstanding that caused their problem, and 2. there might be claims for some kind of compensation arising. But it might be an effective way to neutralise this violent feeling for M in some way to address it. If this sting is drawn, much of the rest of the Internet criticism would begin to deflate. The pwk defenders of M in the correspondence make matters worse with their intemperate devotional righteous anger. Even Linda Gross does us a disservice by allowing herself to be reported as saying words to the effect that 'you will not get your questions answered unless you give him the respect he deserves', which led to much predictable derision.