Those of us who were not Trungpa’s students tend to focus on his alcoholism and his messy death, as if those “facts” infer something about his quality as a man. To his students, the “facts” reveal only a small and unimportant part of the story. They focus not on how alcohol helped break down Trungpa’s body, but on the constant brilliance of his mind. They do not judge him by ordinary standards because they do not believe he was an ordinary person. They honestly see even his drinking as a teaching. For the rest of us, that takes a leap of faith.

- David Swick

I wanted to follow up on some of the comments posted below. I have trouble staying current with some of the topics (too busy.)

What I like about the above quote of Swick’s is the strange light it sheds on our guru, and I do like the ambiguity, too. Things just aren’t so black and white as we all wish sometimes. The big difference between Trungpa and Rawat is surely the complete openness of Trungpa. No X-rating of followers with this guy. That is certainly a strange kind of integrity, but integrity it is.

That is what is so deplorable about our Maharaji - where’s the integrity? No matter how elevated someone makes you feel, surely to God their lack of integrity has to disturb your bliss. And what else is it, all the double standards in Rawat’s scene? The secrets - secrets everywhere, from the Divine secret of Knowledge to the many scandalous secrets of his personal life, are tragic, at least to me, someone who really, really needed to believe in this fellow.

That need to believe I still have a problem with, but I actually consider it a kind of blessing as well as a problem. (By no means do I mean I "need to believe" in PR.)