:::I have been asked to comment on this discussion, and I find I cannot support either side as this concept of a 'succession' does not make any sense to me. There clearly is no independent evidence that Shri Hans nominated any of his sons to take over as the Satguru (whatever that means) so we should look at the facts. Yes, it is true that Rawat's mother and brothers supported Rawat's position as the figurehead for eight years, but when Rawat went against his mother's wishes, the Indian courts ruled in favour of his brother, Satpal, who consequently inherited Shri Hans's property and the Indian Divine Light Mission organisation (and also, presumably, the rights to his central spiritual treatise, Hans Yog Prakash). Regarding the 'right' to teach the techniques of meditation, clearly no one can claim an exclusive right to do so, so the idea of succession makes no sense. Prem Rawat has as much right to teach the techniques as the Nigerian Guru Maharaj Ji that Elan Vital denounced earlier this year. No, the idea of succession only makes sense if one subscribes to the idea that there is only one Perfect Master alive at any one time, and when one dies, another divinely acquires the position. Just like when a King dies. As Rawat no longer claims to be the unique 'Perfect Master', this definition of succession cannot apply. So what is it that you guys were arguing about? -)