Elisa,

Thanks for your reasoned exchange here.  Personally, I don't understand how premies balance the old days and the new days.  In 1997, when I gave up the practice of Knowledge, I could not find that balance.  Evidently, you have found the way to accept the innocuous public relations image of the Prem Rawat Foundation while accepting the validity of Maharaji's past, even though there seems to be serious contradictions.    To discuss this issue thoroughly would take a very long time, thus the forum continues on.

But...

If we ignore the history of Prem Rawat and Knowledge in the West, we can still discuss the present situation because of the forthcoming Keys.  Rawat's teaching will be clearly outlined in the way that he wants it to be.   The major focus of his teaching is finding inner peace and how that is accomplished.  Our little argument here about the need for a master such as Rawat to "show" the way, or to "help" people find the way can be argued purely from today's perspective.  Perhaps Rawat will teach that indeed what he shows people is the same as what other people call "Self-Knowledge," or what Buddhist meditators find in their practice, etc.  But in the past he has said quite clearly that "Knowledge" should not be called "Self-Knowledge" because there is a need to distinquish his "Knowledge" from other paths.  What is Rawat's postion now on this question.  Perhaps we will find out.  What he has said about it in the past is all over the map.  You can find quotes for whatever position you want to take, which is the same problem that Biblical people have.

I am hoping that the Keys will be outlined in printed text as well as in video presentation.  I am hoping that Rawat will explain his message more clearly, both to those people who are becoming interested for the first time, and for those of us who have been interested for a long time.

I am hoping that he will not be as vague as he has been in the past about various issues.  It has long been an established tenet that Knowledge is ineffible or impossible to pin down and that each person has his or her own experience, but that is satisfactory only to a certain extent.  It is true that each person has their own inner experience, but there IS a need for a philosophical understanding between people.  This philosophical understanding is necessary for peace between people who practice Knowledge, and also between premies and non-premies.  I would even go so far as to say this philosophical understanding is necessary for each person's own peace, because I do not believe that peace is derived from meditation alone.  At least I am sure that is case for me personally.  I never found my fulfillment "within" me completely independent of the world outside of myself.  Relating to "this world" is so important to me, as is relating to other people.

As I said, I find it rather hopeless to come to conclusion about Rawat's teaching if we jump back and forth from various periods of the past because there has been so much "evolution" to put it nicely, or "contradictions" to put it not so nicely.

As for Jonathan's question about the inner knowing of one's self and Rawat's exclusvity, I find that the exclusivity of Rawat's approach is a great mistake, and the aspect of personality cult is a hindrance to furthering his message and a hindrance to individual peace.  I find that the truth is found in a more inclusive and universal attitude in which each person's access to their own inner self is seen to be independent of any four particular yogic techniques or any particular person.  I am afraid that my view is contrary to Rawat's view in 2005.  I am not saying here that Rawat's approach is mistaken for purely public relations reasons, but is also a mistake for purposes of finding one's own inner self, because the foundation of inner peace is being one's own master in total disregard for authority figures.

So do I have any hope, then, for a rapproachement between exes like myself and for Rawat's future message?  Not really.  Although it is entirely possible.  Rawat could denounce the guruism inherent in his approach and he could clearly come out and state that he advocates "Self-Knowledge," not just the particular "Knowledge" that depends upon him as the giver as the most essential idea.

You, Elisa, have accepted this most essential idea, Maharaji as giver of the experience.  This is the difference between you and we exes.  I only hope that you can see that the true similarity between us is actually more basic and more powerful than the difference.  We are still united in our sameness, while each unique.