Understanding Rawat is more a matter of familiarity than theory.  It's one's experience in the cult and with the cult leader that matters, not one's education in the abstract. 

You are flip-flopping Jim. You who consistently tries to refute premies' experiential basis of reality in favour of abstract postulations from theorists like Dawkins are now doing a complete about-face and favouring experience over intellect. You lose much credibility my friend.

As for why exes are better observers of the cult than current members, well, the answer is too obvious for words.  You guys are pressured to not scrutinize, let alone criticize, anything about Rawat. 

Pure bullocks! I see the same facts that you do. I also see some that you don't. That is precisly why your perspective offers no greater authority than mine. To think otherwise underscores an imbalance caused by oversight and arrogance. Frankly you are a fool to think like you do.

You can't openly criticize Rawat.

I could openly criticize him but I don't because in balance his input into my life is a good thing. Period. Like a good friend, I am not blind to his faults, but he is still a friend.

The best you can do is join him in scapegoating others for the failures and shortcomings of his movement over time.

More bullocks Jim.

When people were as immersed in a culture such as we all were, we learn so much about each other, in particular what was keeping us and what was propelling us out.  I, like so many other exes, have had countless discussions on this issue with premies and ex-premies of all different stripes. 

Jim, you obviously have a high opinion of your powers of observation. Well here's a little something that could help... they aren't as great as you think they are. You have't had "discussions" with premies. To discuss is a two-way process. You hear nothing but your own voice. You have done little more than pontificate and badger.