I detect a lack of anger in your post.  That's good.  I don't think that anger is necessary or inevitable among us.  And the anger that does exist should not last indefinitely.  I get angry when I think about certain things, but once you have resolved your own feelings about something, then the intensity is gone.

But you do remark on the intensity of my feelings of disgust for Rawat and what he says and does.  I have been surprised myself, because I have personally experienced both sides of the coin.  And it does all boil down to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."  It definitely depends on your own perspective as to whether Rawat appears to be a "higher" being or a sick person. 

Speaking for myself only, although I think this would hold for anybody, when I loved premieness and the idealism and when I accepted Rawat as the figurehead for the ultimate Knowledge, then I very much admired his beneficient look and his calm, assured ways and the simplicity of his message.  But then my personal philosophy about life changed.  I stopped looking for transcendence or higher states of mind.  I lost interest in guruism.  My reaction to Rawat was simply the loss of wanting to follow his instruction.  I was to become one of those ex-premies who just fade from the scene.  But then, I immediately discovered EPO and I discovered facts about Rawat that I had been entirely unaware of.  My first reaction of extreme anger occurred when I found out about Jagdeo. He had been my initiator.

As I began to study the phenomenon of cults and to view Rawat critically, I began to see him as a human being who really has no more insight into the universe than any other human being.  And yet he was presenting himself as divine.  He still does.  These days, he is just a bit more discrete is all.  (I discount what he says when he mitigates his message in any way, because if he were to really want to mitigate his message he could easily do so in a very concrete way, and he does not.  Ever).

What I see in Rawat is no different than what I see in Adi Da or Sai Baba or Swami Kriyananda, etc.  This sort of guru-person is psychologically sick.  Narsicistic Personality Disorder combined with Antisocial Personality Disorder.  Only a truly sick individual could present himself to other people as the Answer Personified.  It makes me shudder, as I have said.

I don't like the term Secular Humanism, but it is the closest to my own world view.  I find love in humaness.  There is no human love in Rawat, other than what I might not see in his personal relationships with his family, etc.  But in his philosophy there is no humanness.  There is only the traditional disatisfaction with all things material and finite in favor of a supposed heaven or SatChitAnand.  Again, he has officially mitigated this part of his message, but only in a PC sort of way and never in the really concrete way that he easily could if he wanted to.

I have come to understand that the difference between premies and ex-premies is NOT our view of Rawat.  That view is dependent on something even more basic, which is our world view.  We must look to ourselves and judge ourselves.  That is really all we can do, anyway.  I can't really know if Rawat is friendly or not and I certainly can never know what is in his heart and mind.  But we must be authentic to ourselves.  That is a Law of the Universe, as far as my understanding goes.  And we are able to comply with that Law.  My own authenticism does not include wishful thinking and youthful idealism.  I cannot honestly attempt to reach into higher states of minds or deeper parts of my own self because I don't believe that I am capable of producing the results I might want.  I am too ignorant.  All I can do is present myself to the Universe as it is, and to be accepting and to be happy.  This doesn't mean that I cannot meditate, but just that my meditation is a form of accepting the present moment instead of trying to reach the "fulfillment" that Rawat or any other guru talks about.

So I have gone on for awhile, trying to explain my position.  The point, though, is that the way we see Rawat can vary widely, from one extreme to the other.  We need to understand that we can never know Rawat conclusively.  We can only know ourselves.  And that is a personal journey with no third party along for the ride.

I appreciate the tone of your recent posts here, Doc.  I really have no animosity toward premies.  I do have animosity toward certain attitudes and actions that premies might manifest, just as any person might manifest those.  I do not feel that there is a truly significant difference between myself as a premie and myself as an ex-premie.  There really is surprisingly little difference in myself either way.  Of course there is a big difference in my opinion of Rawat.  But who cares?  I don't.  I care more about whether a person is friendly, and authentic.

Following Rawat is rather benign, I think.  I personally view it as silly and misguided, but I don't think it turns people into terrorists or anything.  I think it is a waste of time and a wild goose chase, but it can be a learning experience and at least in the old days there was community and some other niceties.

Our all differences are man-made.  All religions are man-made.  Many of our trials and tribulations are man-made.  We should stop making these things.  And Rawat should end his cult.  We could do a lot better, and maybe someday we will.