Yeah, I can't do "the Knowledge" either, and frankly I don't know how anyone can who has seen Maharaji for who he really is. For me, rational or not, it frames my consiousness in a most unpleasant way.

However, I do also maintain philosophically that whatever efficacy the practice of "Knowledge" does have, and whatever benefits it offered, I owe to myself the thanks, as it was my effort, not Maharaji's that brought those effects about.

Furthermore, I am not entirely sure the effects were good ones. I became fearful of engaging in life in any way without having first insulated myself in the soothing anaesthetic of meditation. Meditative states, and moreover the admonition that all other states are inferior, caused me to stigmatize normal interactions with people and the world in general, and create a lasting dynamic of seperation and emotional distance. Only the warm, womb-like experiences were given value.

While I have absolutely no doubt that Maharaji feels he is owed all credit for the experiences "practicing" bestows, I feel rather that he owes us an enormous apology for positioning himself falsely as an indispensable element in the experience, such as it is. When in fact, the experience varies not at all whether or not one is in thrall or not to the "Master."

The subtle and insidious conjuring trick performed by Maharaji, and eagerly lapped up like so much pap by his fawning and obsequious followers (of whose number I was recently counted to my great chagrin) was/is to insinuate himself into an experience that has as little to do with him as milk has to do with crocodiles.

Even the argument that he provides the introduction to the experience is marred by his subsequent emotional extortion and manipulation; and his claim of exclusivity over the techniques is utterly bogus.

Even now, I cannot become consious of my relaxed breathing without an uncomfortable frisson of dread by association. And the hell of it is, I was doing a breath based meditation before I became involved with Maharaji.

Yes, you are correct I meant mastery in the sense of there being a master.

Your comments are sharp and true, and expose for me many still lingering and unexamined assumptions. In particular, the expression "spiritual ascendency" after you have deconstructed it seems very arrogant and presumptuous.

What can it mean, after all? What can it mean that does not imply an arcana of mystical knowledge? How can one be spiritually ascendent if there is no spiritual world in which to ascend? And I am far from certain that such a world does exist.

Thanks for your response, thoughtful and articulate as always.