He has examined the training records, with Maharaji's quite abusive approach towards participants, which is pretty obvious to any open-minded reader, but falls back into a defensive state of saying that this was presumably caused by the course members.

Given Doc's proven agility of mind and above-average means of communication, this is quite bizarre.

It seems to me that this is proof of both a deeply inculcated belief in Prem's absolute speciality, plus, maybe more importantly, a very deep love and loyalty to the person himself.

At the same time, exes seem to experience a totally obverse reaction, in saying that, because Prem can be so dissonant in his inter-personal relations, he was always a fraud in his 'mastership' in the first place.

This polarity of attitude seems to me to be the cause of the problem of understanding between premies and exes. That either Maharaji is/was a great Master, or he is really nothing.

It seems to me that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
That, sure, Maharaji was never the Great Lord projected upon him, and which he himself came to believe.
But neither was he a nullity. No - he was a person of some higher consciousness (at the time, but lesser so now?) who could make this apparent to others through his physical presence, and by the tapping of various centres of consciousness within them.

I myself continue to practise the techniques of Knowledge, and find that the third technique, formerly known as the Holy Name, is very efficacious in making me aware of a love centre within me.
I feel that by concentrating on this technique, I become embued with a feeling of deep tangible love within me.
That this actually alters my perceptions, and makes me more aware and conscious of my own being or 'self'.

I think really that this has been the 'message' of many teachers past or present. It actually works, produces a tangible and valuable result.

It seems to me that we have been culturally indoctrinated into seeing this as evidence that such masters or teachers were aspects of or avatars of God, instead of really being humanistic teachers with some propensity to aid this awareness.

To refer to Jesus, for example, most members/bishops of the church before Constantine came along would never have seen Jesus as some immaculate conception who was total man/total God.
The idea would have seemed completely absurd. They viewed him as an inspirational person who could direct people towards an internal focus on something of great value, a benevolent life-style, and ethical outlook, but this is where is stopped.

We are in some ways, therefore the dupes of history and its conveniences. We tend to view things either in terms of a divine and inarguable incarnation or impostership, whereas neither viewpoint is true, nor would it have been accepted at all by whole centuries of people before Constantine's definitive synods.

Maharaji can certainly make people feel centred and beautiful during his discourses (especially his introductory ones).
Knowledge can actually work, given practise and occasional dipping into the fraternity of programs.

I enjoy feeling in tune with myself via meditation, but understand the limitations of all teachers. They are human like everyone else, and can rise to being extremely inspirational and completely obnoxious on occasion.

The real value is the focus within ourselves, which I believe to be an invaluable experience, despite the realities of the 'masters' or teachers themselves.

In so saying, I believe I am probably reasonably in tune with the generations prior to our accepted Western Constantininian conditioning, which was based upon much wishful thinking and political convenience.