Prem
Rawat:
Attenuation of a religious experience.
INHERITANCE,
CONTROL AND EXPRESSION
Prem
Rawat inherited his ‘guruship’ from his father Hans Ram Singh Rawat,[1],[2],[3],[4]
despite being just eight years old at the time of his father’s death
Prem Rawat was hailed as the next
Satguru and became the central object of
bhaktism amongst his late father’s followers.
Following Hans Rawat’s death effective control of the Rawat movement
passed from Hans Rawat to Prem Rawat’s mother and eldest brother
although this control was by no means absolute and a degree of tension
existed between three distinct elements around which varying degrees of
factionalism developed. Prem Rawat’s mother and eldest brother did not
have direct control over the running of the Divine Light Mission which
was legally an association of members and the officials of the Mission
were an entity distinct from the Rawat family; additionally the
Mahatmas
appointed by Hans Rawat represented a further
separate body of influence. There is no published evidence which
demonstrates from which of the competing groups the young Prem Rawat
took his lead after his father’s death.
A family dispute in 1974 saw Prem Rawat lose the bulk of the Indian
following that had previously been loyal to his father,,
with many devotees transferring their allegiance from Prem Rawat to his
older brother Sat Pal, now known as
Sat Pal Maharaj.,
While the Indian following was largely lost to Prem Rawat, those
followers in Europe, the United States and Australasia who had been
attracted to Prem Rawat in his role as the boy Guru “Maharaj Ji” between
1971 and 1974, in most cases maintained their allegiance to Prem Rawat
in spite of the family split. It was amongst this ‘western’ following
that the beliefs and, to the extent that it can be said to exist, the
teaching of Prem Rawat found sustained expression.
TRANSFER OF
BELIEF
The
beliefs and teaching presented to the first European and American
travellers who encountered the Rawat family and the Divine Light Mission
in India in the late 1960s, was the philosophy and teaching of Hans
Rawat, who had died just a few years previously. Whilst the focus of
adoration had moved from Hans Rawat to Prem Rawat, then called
Balyogeshwar Shri Sant Ji Maharaj
in all other respects the character of the belief system of the Rawat
movement had remained unchanged.
The transfer of the Rawat belief system to
Europe, America
and Australasia occurred wholesale with new followers encouraged into a
deeply personal
bhakti
relationship
with the
Satguru Guru Maharaj Ji without whose divine grace the techniques of
the Knowledge meditation alone would not provide the direct experience
of god.
Those wanting initiation into the meditation were called aspirants and
as in India were required to listen to
Satsang to
achieve a state of ‘readiness’, the test of which was a quality of
expression of
emotional desire by an individual aspirant as judged by one of the
Mahatmas.
The
Satsangs given by Prem Rawat and the
Mahatmas
were heavily laden with Indian cultural and religious imagery as well as
emphasizing the duplicity of the mind.,
Parables from Hinduism that had been favoured by Hans Rawat were
regularly repeated within
Satsangs and reproduced in printed media.
From 1971 onwards critical media in the USA began to pose questions to Prem Rawat and his followers
which
the Rawat belief system had not previously had to contend with. The
nature of the
Satguru, his age and the worldly luxury he enjoyed were frequent
targets.,,
Despite these widely posed questions, prior to the family dispute of
1974 there was no attempt either by the Rawat family or the Indian
Mahatmas who had traveled to Europe and North America to moderate the
operative belief system that underscored the Divine Light Mission’s
transfer to ‘the west’. After the family split Prem Rawat began to
entertain the possibility of changing the way in which his
Satguruship was presented to the public, a
key influence in the approach to change was
Bob Mishler who for a time became Rawat’s closest American
adviser.
Mishler was the first insider to openly question the notion of
Rawat’s implied divinity and to acknowledge that Divine Light Mission
had a cultic character.
Despite Rawat’s apparent early agreement with
Mishler, the scale of change that
Mishler had envisaged caused Rawat concern: “About half way through 1976, Maharaji got very insecure
about what was going to happen to him if we continued with this. He
realised that he was going to lose his automatic hold over the devotees
that he had had up until that point.”
Also according to
Mishler, Rawat’s concerns did not arise from any
philosophical or religious disquiet but from purely selfish
materialistic motivations “He had grown accustomed to a very
luxurious lifestyle. A lot of the necessity of keeping the members
believing that he was God was to ensure that they would continue to
support him in this lifestyle. If it meant that he was going to have to
make any sacrifices in this lifestyle (and it had become apparent by the
middle of 1976 that this was going to be the case) then he didn't really
want to have to do that.”
Faced
with Rawat’s refusal to change,
Mishler resigned from the Divine Light Mission in early 1977
and the change in direction begun under
Mishler's influence came to halt, and to a degree was even reversed.
UNBROKEN
SUCCESSION OF BELIEF
The
creation of the Divine Light Mission in North America, Europe and
Australasia can be seen as what in Christianity would be termed an
apostolic succession. The beliefs, the received wisdom, the
expressed cultural norms and religious references required to be adopted
by converts to the Rawat following outside of
India were precisely the beliefs, the received wisdom,
the expressed cultural norms and religious references which described
the belief system which had been propounded by Hans Ram Singh Rawat.
The adoption of increasingly materialistic behaviour
by Prem Rawat in 1971 and 1972 could be considered as the point at which
the ‘succession’ was broken, however if taken, as it was by many
followers, that Prem Rawat was the Perfect Master and that all behaviour
by the Master was beyond reproach then no actual break occurred because
the belief system which maintained Prem Rawat as
Satguru in relation to his devotees, was the same unchanged system
which had maintained Hans Rawat as
Satguru in relation to his devotees.
Some scholars have identified the split between Prem Rawat and his
mother as being motivated by Prem Rawat’s wish to shape his own
‘movement’,
however no actual change of promulgated belief commenced until
Mishler persuaded Rawat that change was necessary, some time
after the family dispute. The split between the members of the Rawat
family certainly caused a separation in the management of the Indian and
non Indian Divine Light Mission’s but a divergence between the active
belief systems which underwrote the Divine Light Missions did not occur
on Indian and non Indian lines until after the family rift, and even
then the European, American and Australasian followers of Prem Rawat
continued to hold beliefs that were substantially those that had been
promulgated by Hans Rawat.
THE DIVINE
LIGHT MISSION OF PREM RAWAT
Only
after the departure of
Bob Mishler did the Divine Light Mission outside of India become
wholly the creature of Prem Rawat. Although there had been some denial
of Prem Rawat’s divinity many followers continued to hold on to their
beliefs about the
Satguru and with
Mishler no longer an influence for secularism Rawat began a
restatement of the role of
bhaktism. In 1977 the role of the
ashrams
was once again placed at the forefront of what was by then a distinct
Prem Rawat – then still called Guru Maharaj Ji – movement.
Despite having no legal role in the national Divine Light Missions it
was Rawat who was universally identified as being the ‘leader’ and while
many of his followers adopted lives of poverty and chastity, Rawat
cultivated an increasingly opulent lifestyle.
The disjuncture between the lifestyle of Guru and follower represented
a fundamental presentational separation from the inheritance of Hans Rawat. In the transfer of the Rawat belief system out of
India, the
moral philosophy of Hans Rawat evident in the
Hans Yog Prakash
had received little attention and from 1977 onward Prem Rawat’s
presentation of ‘his message’ effectively suppressed a key aspect of
Hans Rawat’s philosophy, the conception of
‘Benevolence’.
Benevolence was given a specific section in the
Hans Yog Prakash and while this is largely concerned with the
‘benevolence’ of giving Knowledge, Hans Rawat was specific in writing :
“The next
most important help we can offer people after giving them these two
types of knowledge is physical. To help others by means of one's
physical strength is truly a kind of charity.”
And
within his exploration of what Benevolence
meant, Hans Rawat addressed the role of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ thinking and
the respective effect of each upon human behaviour.
“If his
impressions are good, he becomes someone of good character, and if his
previous Impressions are bad, he becomes someone of bad character. If
someone continues to listen to evil suggestions, invite bad thoughts and
perform evil deeds, then the impressions in his mind will also be evil,
and the character that is built on these will be evil too. If somehow
the habits which these impressions lead to, get a strangle hold on the
mind, then he will be unable to see the disadvantages of evil acts, they
will become invisible to him and it will become a part of his nature to
do evil unthinkingly.”
The
suppression by Prem Rawat of the notion of Benevolence was primarily
achieved by redrawing the focus of the activities of Divine Light
Mission and its associated businesses. While previously much had been
made of the intention to provide services to communities - health care,
education, food co-ops and humanitarian aid
,
,
after 1977 such ideas were entirely abandoned and although some of the
Divine Light Mission businesses prospered their role was solely income
generation. Service, one of the three key ‘actions’ commended by Hans
Rawat and which was functionally the expression of ‘Benevolence’ was, in
Prem Rawat’s Divine Light Mission, structured as purely rendering
devotion to the Guru and propagation of ‘the message’.
EMOTION
VERSUS CONCEPT
Between
1977 and 1982 the Divine Light Mission of Prem Rawat was characterised
by its highly devotional focus on Prem Rawat. The belief system which
operated in Prem Rawat’s Divine Light Mission, although shorn of any
moral scope, was nevertheless unequivocally the belief system
previously promulgated by Hans Rawat, albeit an abridgement in which a
central precept had been amputated. Devotion to the master remained the
overarching context and the actions of Service, Satsang and Meditation
were the key definitions of a followers life. All initiates were
expected to listen to and to give Satsang regularly and Meditation was
supposed to be practiced one hour each morning and one hour each night,
plus the practitioner was supposed to “constantly meditate” on the
“Word” technique.
The defining activities of Prem Rawat’s Divine Light Missions were the
operation of the
ashrams,,
in which a profound emotionalism was cultivated, and the organisation of
festivals of ecstatic celebration.,
The focus of Prem Rawat’s
Satsangs remained much as it had been prior to 1977, on the need for
devotion, the need to be without doubt (about the Guru) and the need to
be without ‘concepts’. However when matched with the increase in
intensity of emotional devotionalism, Rawat’s consistent attacks upon
‘doubt’ and ‘concepts’ took on both totalitarian and anti intellectual
characteristics, and prompted by the
People’s Temple tragedy, outside observers became increasingly
polarized over the cultic status of Prem Rawat’s movement.
STYLISTIC
CHANGE
Beginning
in 1982 Prem Rawat prompted a series of changes in the way the Divine
Light Missions operated and in the way he himself was presented. A
number of commentators have described these changes in terms of Rawat
seeking to make his ‘message’ more acceptable to a ‘western’ audience;
an alternative view is that the changes were merely a pragmatic response
to increased costs and falling revenues. The first and most dramatic
change was the closure of the Divine Light Mission
ashrams
about which Michael Dettmers who was Rawat’s personal assistant at the
time has said: “Yes,
at first he thought it was a mistake to do away with them
[the
ashrams] but then finally they went away because they simply couldn’t
be sustained financially and all the responsibility that was implied.”
Other changes followed in the wake of the
ashram closures, some were incidental to the closures, while
others were made as Rawat gained confidence that his movement had the
momentum to continue generating resources without his having to be
explicitly a
Satguru. However none of these management and presentational changes
altered the inherent belief system adopted by the remaining loyal
following.
PREM RAWAT – MEDITATION MASTER
Until
the mid 1980s Rawat had no physical role in the teaching of the
Knowledge’ meditation techniques and the role of the Guru in the
Knowledge initiation sessions was merely implied in terms of a mystical
transmission of
‘Grace’ from Guru to devotee. After 1974 stylistic changes had been made
in the naming of the initiation officiates, firstly from Mahatma to
Initiator and finally to Instructor but the officiate role remained
largely unchanged as the hands on teacher of the Knowledge techniques.
After the
ashram closures, the role of Instructor was incidentally
elevated when Rawat decreed that ordinary followers were forbidden to
give
Satsang, and the entitlement of talking about the Knowledge
meditation was restricted to Rawat, his appointed Instructors and a few
privileged close followers.
Remarkably until sometime after 1983 Prem Rawat had himself never given
instruction in meditation and when he decided in the mid 1980s that this
was a task he would take on, he had to be taken through the process by
one of his Instructors. Subsequently Rawat decreed that only he would
give initiation into the Knowledge techniques, and only he would give
Satsang. Mike
Finch,
the Instructor who helped Rawat rehearse his first Knowledge initiation
session has commented on the inadequacy of the Rawat meditation
teaching: “
Another
viewpoint is that Maharaji probably does not himself practise the
techniques, has no interest in them for himself or for anybody else,
picked them up 'off the shelf' as it were from his father, and that
there is nothing remotely meaningful that can be said about how to focus
on the physical place each technique pinpoints, so it is best to keep a
mysterious silence and hope that it is taken for something deep and
wise.”
PREM
RAWAT’S TEACHING
With the notable exception of his preferred name/title “Maharaji”,
in the 1980s Prem Rawat abandoned the use of Hindi and Sanskrit terms
and reduced his range of reference to Indian writings. Rawat has never
made any exposition of what if anything has actually changed in his
teaching or in the belief system that underpins that teaching.
Explanation of apparent contradictions between the content of his early
Satsangs and
his later
speeches has
extended only to Rawat’s catch all position about ‘concepts’.
,
Prem Rawat provides no explanation about why he is especially enabled
to teach meditation, and while he has stated that he is human (and by
implication not divine) he has never explicitly denied his ‘satguruship’.
Further there has been unwavering recourse by Rawat and his followers to
the formula used as early as 1971, which involved consistent denial that
there was any underpinning belief system to Rawat’s teaching because
‘what is taught is an experience’.
As of 2005 Prem Rawat ceased to give personal instruction in the
Knowledge techniques, instead selected aspirants who have watched a
series of DVDs, amounting to over 70 hours of Rawat’s recorded speeches,
are admitted to a supervised showing of a recording of Rawat
demonstrating the four techniques. The techniques are presented as being
‘secret’ and ‘unique’. Rawat presents the Knowledge experience as being
an empirical sensation of an inner reality, he does not use terms such
as spirit or God, but the implication is that the experience is
transcendental.
Rawat
uses a rhetorical formula to explain his relationship to religious
belief, however the formula is contradictory because it requires
validation by individual Religious authorities:
"What
Prem Rawat offers is independent of and compatible with any religion.
Knowledge is a practical way of experiencing peace within. It is not
related to any philosophy, belief system, or spiritual path.
Does this have something to do with religion, a spiritual path, or a
philosophy?
What Prem Rawat offers is independent of and compatible with any
religion. Knowledge is a practical way of experiencing peace within. It
is not related to any philosophy, belief system, or spiritual path.
What Prem Rawat
offers is independent of and compatible with any religion. Knowledge is
a practical way of experiencing peace within. It is not related to any
philosophy, belief system, or spiritual path.”
The contradiction is to some extent mitigated if it is accepted that
what Rawat propounds is unmoderated
solipsism.
The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) was created in 2001 and the
organisation states that it: “advances the efforts of Prem Rawat,
known also as Maharaji, to bring dignity, peace, and prosperity to
people around the world.”
Despite
this statement by the organisation which bears his name, in his speeches
Prem Rawat does not commend the bringing of dignity and prosperity, nor
does he speak about how dignity and prosperity is to be brought to “people
around the world.” TPRF places much emphasis upon how successful its
‘humanitarian’ activities are,
yet Rawat never speaks about the desirability or otherwise of supporting
humanitarian efforts, so while TPRF is active in presenting Rawat as a
‘humanitarian’,
humanitarianism has no role in what Rawat teaches.
Prem Rawat’s formulation for bringing peace is that everyone should
practice his Knowledge meditation which will yield ‘peaceful’
individuals. By 2007 Rawat’s teaching of belief consisted of nine
mutually supporting propositions:
-
That there is
‘true’ peace and happiness which is distinct from commonly experience
peace and/or happiness.
-
That ‘true’ peace
and happiness can not be achieved by any kind of social or
co-operative action.
-
Conflict on a
societal and global level will only be reduced when individuals have
‘true’ peace and happiness.
-
‘True’ peace and
happiness can only be achieved by an individual’s involvement with
their self.
-
The self is present
in all humans, but is particular to each human.
-
The only route to
experience the particular self is via Rawat’s unique Knowledge
meditation.
-
That the Knowledge
meditation will only work if an aspirant is made to ‘thirst’ for the
experience delivered by the Knowledge meditation.
-
That only by
listening to Rawat’s speeches can an appropriate thirst be generated.
-
Only Rawat’s
demonstration of the Knowledge techniques provides genuine instruction
which allows practice of the techniques to actually provide access to
the self.
While this teaching is complete in its own terms it leaves the believer
in a position of inventing their own context in which the Prem Rawat
system of belief can be consistent with an empirical experience of the
outer world. Faced with the lack of any alternative explanation of why
Rawat is uniquely positioned to teach commonly available techniques of
meditation, many of Rawat’s remaining followers continue to demonstrate
an emotional
bhaktism toward their ‘teacher’.,,
Although the Élan Vital organisations and The Prem Rawat Foundation do
not promote Prem Rawat as a
Satguru, for the majority of Rawat’s followers, Rawat remains in
effect their
Satguru,
without whose divine grace the techniques of the Knowledge meditation
alone would not provide the direct experience of god.
Devoid as it is of any moral, philosophical or cultural compass, what Prem Rawat now teaches is merely a pale shadow of the rich and
culturally charged philosophy formerly adopted and taught by Hans Rawat.
|