I do find it very hard to buy into the extent of your concerns about meditation practice and dissociation, though I absolutely admit there are individuals that probably require other kinds of internal work before meditation would be of value for them.  In fact, the fear of sitting in quiet awareness of oneself may be an experience of extreme dissociation.  Also, I am very skeptical about the ability of psychologists and psychiatrists to depict the model of ideal mental health, however comforting it is to be within the womb of popular wisdom.

It's good to be skeptical.  I don't look at meditation as something of value and I certainly didn't go through ten years of psychotherapy so I could practice meditation -- especially the Rawat meditation -- without dissociating.  I wouldn't describe psychotherapy as "internal work," either.  I would call it therapy.

In order to remove the societal stigmas associated with any mental/emotional illnesses/disorders, it's so important to use the correct, established terms when talking about them.  That's why I titled my post "no need to reinvent the wheel."  For instance, a while back someone here used the word "terminal depression" to describe a friend that's suffering from clinical or chronic depression.  There's no such thing as "terminal depression."   There's no need (or reason) to make up new terms to describe established labels or diagnoses.  Just as one wouldn't make up new names for cancer or any other medical/physical ailment, the words used to describe mental illness are well-established.   I don't know what you are talking about when you say "differentiation."  There isn't any real "normal," however, as with any or illness or disease, there has to be a starting point to describe a disorder.  Having said that, dissociation occurs on a spectrum from normal to abnormal, i.e., when a person dissociates to a degree that it creates functionality problems -- that's not normal and (probably) requires medical attention. 

I totally agree that the Maharaji culture breeds dissociation on a large scale (as I now understand dissociation).  But I think that comes more from the culture and ideology of Knowledge when combined with the related practice of meditation.  In the M culture, some facts are totally disparate from the reality.  For example, the dynamics created when Premies continue to totally buy into the mythology of M as only, living Satguru, while attending his ‘inspirational teaching’ programs.  The examples of dissociation are endless in that culture, but I think the most harmful and insidious disconnect may be that: Maharaji is a necessary intermediary to become more deeply aware of our own essential selves!  How dissociative is that?  Remember that the path of ‘Knowledge’ has never been presented as solely a path of meditation; it is a path of guru, ‘satsang’, ‘service’ and ‘meditation’.  If we have subliminally tied that world to the exploration of our own, it can certainly take some work to undo the damage.