San,

          Just to be clear - the way this thread developed is not my preference as to how discussions between people who respect each other would best procede.

From what you say it does seem that the source of my disagreement with you is 'semantic' - sadly semantic has become a dirty word - though the search for meaning in language is in my view as important as any other environment of enquiry.

If I have a criticim of your statement :

Suffice it to say that one can abstain from judging others and still be vigilant and proactive and on top of their game and looking out for themselves and those around them.      

it is that this is overly depersonalized, to a degree that shifts legitimate challenge of individual behaviour into the abstract. This is a very important point when dealing with cult/group behaviour (and why perhaps the Nazi reference is so pertinent) - it is so easy for the individual to deflect any challenge to personal behaviour onto the abstraction of the group.

In relation to Rawatism- premies abstract behaviours that would otherwise be unacceptable to them - onto/into the greater good or cosmic purpose of Rawat and Knowledge.  Ultimately challenging Rawat means challenging premies - and challenging premies means challenging their habitual abstraction of the personal onto/into cult behaviour.

Making a personal challenge is always uncomfortable because it places the challenger in an exposed position - they open themselves up to reciprocal challenges. Cults rely on that for their defence - and the story of the last seven years of ex premieism is one where Rawat's followers have made endless personal attacks on those who challenge him. Still for those who are intent on making the challenge - it's the only way forward.

Nik