If that puts you off Maharaji, then fine, he's not for you. Maybe you're a left-wing socialist, or a communist or something, or you just don't think it's appropriate for someone who claims to be whatever Maharaji claims to be, to be associated with so much material possessions. But a lot of that stuff serves a very obvious practical purpose for what Maharaji is doing - throughout the world - and maybe some of it serves a not-so-obvious practical purpose.

To be honest, it just doesn't bother me, and it has never bothered me. I think Maharaji is doing a good job in what he is doing, so if he can make use of those things, and enjoys them - good luck to him. I'm just thankful for how he has helped me in my life, whether he has a lot of possesions or not.

So I really don't care about what Maharaji may or may not own. I'm not a right-wing conservative - I describe myself as a "green liberal socialist, with a conservative streak", so maybe I'm a little more flexibly-minded than you are! And I don't have any preconceived ideas about what "someone who claims to be whatever Maharaji claims to be" (to quote myself!) should possess, or have access to.

You don't make a very good case when you say things such as:

"The fact is, if Rawat was sincere in trying to reach as many people as possible, he would remove all obstacles, especially the appearance that he is obsessed with material possessions...".

Do you not understand the difference between a fact and an assumption? What you mean is that YOUR ASSUMPTION is, "if Rawat was sincere in trying to reach as many people as possible, he would remove all obstacles, especially the appearance that he is obsessed with material possessions...".

You are entitled to your assumption, but, by anyone's definition, it is definitely not a fact.

And then you give this quote from Maharaji, as if he is talking about his OWN wealth:

"You know some people don't like rich people. They have this idea or that idea of what it is to be rich. But they really don't know. It's not easy to be rich. It isn't. Once you've made your first million, you need another to protect it. Then you have two million, and you'll need another two million to protect those two million. Then you'll have four million and you'll need another four million to protect those four million, and then you'll have eight million. Of course then you'll need another 8 million to protect those eight million and then you'll have 16 million... it isn't easy, it's not what you think."
Maharaji - Long Beach, December 1995

He clearly isn't talking about his own wealth there - and anyone who thinks he is, as you seem to insinuate, is clearly missing the point. (Maybe in the overall context it would be clearer - maybe.)

And then you say:

"His money has come from donations from his followers, including inheritances, trust funds, and shares in some very successful businesses. The statements on Elan Vital and Prem Rawat Foundation websites that he supports himself and his family by independent means, and that he is a successful private investor, are lies. All his money has come from the guru business."

Well there is no big mystery there. There is no conflict between the statement that "he supports himself and his family by independent means, and that he is a successful private investor" (note: present tense), and that "His money has come from donations from his followers, including inheritances, trust funds, and shares in some very successful businesses" (note: past tense). Where are the "lies" in that? Do you think it is illegal, immoral, or what, to have received donations? I can't see what the big complaint is - as long as he didn't steal or embezzle any money! I have absolutely no idea what he has ever received, what has ever been donated to him personally, all I know is that people are entitled to donate to whoever they wish to donate to, in liberal societies, as long as it is not illegal or immoral, etc., and that no-one has ever forced or pressurised me in any way to donate money to Prem Rawat (I've been a follower since 1974), and as a matter of fact I don't think I have ever donated money to Prem Rawat, not as far as I can remember anyway. Of course, I have paid registration fees for events, etc., (almost always it has NOT been compulsory to pay registration fees in order to attend those events, and, whether payment is required or not, it is certainly not compulsory to attend any events), but I regard that as something very practical. I have no problem with it, it's all legal and above board.

So if that's the standard of the stuff you suggest I read, please don't expect me to spend too much time reading it, or replying to it.

As I've said, I've read some of that stuff before - about Jagdeo, about alcohol, about a car accident, etc. - and there is very little substance to it in relation to Maharaji. Of course I condemn Jagdeo - and anyone else who may not have acted properly subsequently to that alleged incident. (By the way, I myself have suffered abuse as a teenager, I know what it's like to not be believed, but nevertheless, to be quite accurate, at least as far as I am aware, it is an ALLEGED incident.) But I don't see how you can condemn Maharaji in the way you do because of something Jagdeo has either done or is alleged to have done.

But you're entitled to see things your way. That's just the way I see things.

I'm sure I'll speak to you again soon.