"Anything by Richard Dawkins. On camera he is most likeable and easy to understand. But when I read him in print my brain fuses."

This was supposedly Rawat just plain talking to a bunch of people who knew and respected him.  Why was he unintelligible then?  Could it possibly be that he really has nothing to say and a very murky undisciplined way of saying it?  Come on, be honest.  If anyone else confused you so you'd be at least willing to consider where their expression, rather than your reception, had fallen short.  But you can't do that with Rawat, can you?  Think where it might lead.

"Can't comment. Wasn't there. I didn't understand half the stuff he said in the 70's either. Of course it was all his fault, he fell short, he should have gone to Oxford universtity before having the cheek to address us old hippies. I don't think you need to resort to that kind of provocative rhetoric Jim. Do you? I am no longer in combat mode, you can put your stick down."

How can you enjoy something you can't understand? 

"I said I didn't understand the small piece you showed me. I never said I was confused by the Arundel transcriptions I was reading as a whole."

You make yourself sound like you're mentally handicapped and happy to just look at the pretty pictures, the text being over your head.  Of course you don't think of yourself like that in the least.  This is just part of the typical game-playing you'll resort to to avoid calling a spade a spade.  Scratch you on another occasion and you'll be boasting with the best of them about your razor-sharp mind as you ridicule the lesser faculties of more coomon folk.  Doc as the simple goatherd doesn't cut it.  We know you.

"It appears you have trouble with comprehending simple honest statements. I said I couldn't make head nor tail of that ONE piece you mentioned. I added that I often find people's words too much to take on board. My sharp mind is in fine working order thanks, but it likes to choose it's own butter to slice through. Know what I mean?"

 I can't imagine a comparable situation with your band where you just shout at them for hours, they don't understand you but like the pretty pictures and you've accomplished something.  That was a foolish analogy.

"You're right it was a foolish example. I don't shout at anyone. But we are heading for a band showdown soon I think because one of the keyboard players just will not budge from his 1970's deep meaningful new age crappola that he thinks the world so needs to hear. He's a sweet guy (and an ex p) but rather stiff when it comes to playing music. The rest of us prefer to let loose and see what we come up with at any given session, seems to work well and we have a very interesting mix of influences coming to the surface. None of them are pwk by the way."

Judging the trainings by only seeing what M said is like trying to make sense of a phone call when you can only hear one person talking. Impossible. But that said, yea, he gives them stick. Just seeing his outburts on their own makes them seem, well, dispreportionally one sided.

Oh come off it! What?  You know damn well that you don't have to hear anything that's being said to him before, during or after his rants to understand them.  It's not as if premies are "giving him stick" too and we're only hearing one side of an animated argument.  You know that all they're doing, those premies in attendance, is sitting there unctiously and quitely trying to please him, even as he screams and yells at them.  It's called servility.  Look it up.

"That's how the sessions may have begun, but it's not how they ran. He ensured that no-one got away with sitting there pretending to be the servile surrendered little premie with a blissful grin stuck on their face."

How can you say Rawat's simply straight talking when you've already admitted you can't understand what he's saying?  You're a real piece of work and not in the slightest to be taken seriously. 

"You're going around in circles again Jim. And resorting to attack mode once more. I'd be fascinated to know the dialogue of antagonism that was going through your head when you wrote that."

That's all a training is about, bringing the right people up to scratch and getting rid of the unsuitable ones.

I guess the unsuitable ones would be the ones who didn't understand what their great, powerful leader was saying even though he was screaming it at them, huh?  That would seem to be you.  I wonder what Rawat really thinks about you if he's ever thought about you at all.  Don't you?

"No. The unsuitable ones were those who came with serious agendas and ambitions which had nothing in common with enjoying K or helping spread it around the world. I don't wonder what M thinks of me at any given moment. I know I have delighted him on some occasions and irritated him on others. As he has also done to me."

Some people thought they were attending an inspiring spiritual awareness primer that would leave them high and mighty, perhaps.

They got a shock! .......

You're a toady for someone you don't even understand.  It's amazing how just plain idiotic that looks.

"I understand M very well thanks Jim."

Just saw the news of the shooting of Dimebag Darrel (lead guitarist with Pantera). Bloody hell, some mindless fuck decides Darrel was responsible for breaking up the band so he walks onstage and shoots him dead.

You mean the guy was guilty of mindless hero worship?  Hey, I hear ya! 

"Well Jim, no-one forced you to mindlessly hero worship M for 20 good years."

That's the kind of shit I worry about in today's world, not people like M who are trying to focus on the beneficial effects of self awareness in the individual.

How do you know what he's trying to focus on?  You can't understand him!