I've concluded that the only difference between a cult and a religion is that a cult revolves around a living leader, or master, (even if focusing on an established religion), and a religion is based on a dead master. There may be the rare exception, but I can't think of one.So it must all come down to projection. And the religions of today are the cults of yesterday.
But I don't think that it's always the case that 'masters' are necessarily bad people. And may be some were genuine - even if it is all a load of crap (the whole lotu idea). But there's no way that Rawat is genuine - at least not now. He was first the victim of birth, but over time has become a deluded, megalomaniac con artist.
Megalomaniac:
A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, and/or omnipotence.
Plus, getting drunk regularly, and dishing out verbal abuse, doesn't fit with my idea and understanding of how the 'living lord' would behave. If there is such a thing!
In one way I'm annoyed with myself for falling for such a con. But another part of me thinks that I would have gone for something, anything,at that time (when I received K). And although M is right prat, and the whole thing is, and was, a farce. I do reassure myself that when I became involved, early 70's, that at that time M was still relatively genuine. He just changed before I did. He screwed up, messed up and got lost. Years later, with the help of the internet, (because he hid his behaviour so well), I was able to see it for what it was.
I expect Neville B will disagree with me though! Regarding the lotu idea that is.
