September 27, 2004

After a short period of reflection I have decided to respond to the website placed by anonymous individuals, in spite of its illegal infringement of copyright laws and statements meant to intimidate. The contents accuse me of ‘fraudulent research’ and threaten to contact my employer. (The latter is an empty threat as my employer is fully supportive of me.)

Intimidation is in the eye of the intimadatee. No intimidation was intended. There was no threat to contact Geaves' employer.

In addition, another anonymous website has been launched by a hate group, entitled ‘Geaves must go’.

There are three concerns of the author(s) of the websites:

1. I published a ‘positive’ article on Elan Vital, defined by the authors as a new religious movement, whilst not admitting to be associated with the teachings of Prem Rawat for the last thirty years
2. False information’ has been published in the paper in order to provide credibility to the movement through the use of my academic credentials
3. I am employed in a ‘conspiracy with the organisation’ to provide it with intellectual respectability.

I will respond to these ‘accusations’ in turn.

That I published a ‘positive’ article on Elan Vital, defined by the authors as a new religious movement, whilst not admitting to be associated with the teachings of Prem Rawat for the past thirty years

It is not an aspect of the academic study of religion that one has to disclose one’s faith position. The religious studies approach to the study of religion allows for people of any religion or none to be involved, as long as their scholarship is sound. Some of my colleagues know of my background, others do not. My spiritual journey belongs in the realm of religious freedom of choice. Almost everybody I know amongst my academic colleagues has a personal faith journey that is not declared in their writings.

That ‘false information’ has been published in the paper in order to provide credibility to the movement through the use of my academic credentials.

The ‘offending’ article was neither proclaiming the truths of Prem Rawat’s message nor denying them. I document the transformations of contemporary spiritualities and I am not concerned with the truth claims of the movements I study. Elan Vital was used as an example of where ‘crude reductionism’ has provided a simplistic view of religious transformation. My argument is that one needs to take into account believers’ self-perceptions in order to deepen understanding of motivation. As such I am not concerned with the truth of the religious experience but the impact of the power of religious experience for those who feel it. In addition, the history of Prem Rawat is significant in understanding contemporary Western spirituality.
Religious Studies scholars are looking at the observable phenomena of religion and drawing critical inferences from those; they would not be taken seriously by their peers if they merely sought to promote a particular religion or worldview. It was David Barrett, working for INFORM, who first suggested that I combine my unique ‘insider’ position with my academic training to provide insights into a little studied movement.

That I am employed in a ‘conspiracy with the organisation’ to provide it with intellectual respectability.

I value my academic freedom as highly as my liberty to follow my own spiritual truths. To every organisation or religious movement that I investigate, I offer the same conditions. I am prepared to allow the official representatives to read the final content before publication. They may raise objections that I will consider with regard to accuracy, but the final decision on the content is mine. That is non-negotiable.

I do have a personal position. I am an ‘experiential essentialist’ in the line of Professor Ninian Smart, Professsor Geoffrey Parrinder and other eminent pioneers of my discipline. I am very proud and honoured to follow in their footsteps, especially after being awarded my Chair in Religious Studies this year. My ethics are simple – the study of religion is a critical valuation that is combined with a sensitive grasp of world views. There is nothing in the article that contradicts this position.

To the authors of the website, I say that my worldview may be different to theirs, but critical debate does not involve personal intimidation or attempts to assassinate character. The way to deal with articles that express a different viewpoint is refinement or correction. Creating websites displaying ambiguous headings like ‘Geaves must go’ has caused considerable distress to my family, whilst hiding behind anonymity is universally deemed to be cowardly.

Anonymity may be considered 'cowardly' under certain circumstances but an argument is true whether or not it is written by a coward. Ron uses 'ad hominem' character assassination of me rather than credible arguments - decide for yourself. Unfortunately my business could be damaged by false accusations and I cannot risk my family's well-being so I must remain anonymous. Ron has not attempted to debate claims made by his long term friend, Mike Finch, about Rawat but then Mike is financially secure enough to be above any attempts to harrass him.

I have always been open about my allegiances as the website author’s choice of ‘evidence’ clearly indicates.

That the website authors are afraid to identify themselves or to admit that they are writing from religious intolerance rather than a real concern for the accurate, scholarly study of religion can only reflect negatively on them.

I call upon Ron to post the text of his other two articles about Prem Rawat: 'New Religions and Globalization: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives' 'From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage (parampara)'on his site so we can accurately study them.

Finally, I would like to thank the Principal of my College and my colleagues in the British Association of the Study of Religion for their full support in the last week.

--Dr. Ron Geaves