·       Is she sincere? 

Sincerity can be assessed by checking whether the guru has made sacrifices to spread his teachings.

·       Is he honest?

Has he engaged in deception? Does he misrepresent the past? Does he only make advertisements or does he write the pros and the cons? Does he practice what he preaches and does he hide discrepancies? But do not assume dishonesty without good reason; never underestimate the human capacity for self-deception.

·       Is he reliable?

This simply means, are his teachings true?

Ideal types and examples

An ideal type of a person who is not sincere,  dishonest and unreliable is a charlatan, example, my former guru Sathya Sai Baba. He may be motivated by adulation to which he is addicted, or to escape poverty, or because he has a lot of sexual opportunities.

An ideal type of a guru who is sincere, honest, butunreliable is a missionary guru from an orthodox sect, example Prabhupada, the founder of the Hare Krishna/ISKCON. Prabhupada left his family to go to the USA and made several other sacrifices, but his teaching are intolerant, and he taught that  Hindu myths are literally true. Also, I personally believe that many New Age channelers/mediums are sincere, honest, but unreliable.

And ideal type of a guru who is sincere, dishonest and unreliable is a pious fraud. Examples are Jim Jones and some shamans. Jim Jones and shamans made false claims of healing and Jones did psychic surgery and was also in other respects dishonest and pretended to have psychic abilities, but used the information from taps in the Jonestown commune.  Jones was mentally disturbed, paranoid, and a drug addict which made him extremely unreliable in all matters, not just with regards to his teachings.

        Where does Rawat fit in?

Is Rawat sincere? Possibly, though he did not make sacrifices to spread his teachings, on the contrary. He may have been sincere initially. Several people who know him personally, like Mishler and Dr. Finch assert that he may be sincere.

Is Rawat dishonest? Yes, he keeps or kept his his private life from hisfollowers. Unless he is a prototypical narcistic (which is a very real possibility) person, he must be aware that he is in other respects dishonest too. Narcistic persons can simply not admit any mistake.

Is he reliable? Rawat’s teaching are implausible and his statement that he is responsible for success in meditation without a real explanation  and taking into account his break with the lineage and his doubtful private life is very implausible. He never gave a detailed rebuttal to his critics.

Andries Krugers Dagneaux