With regard to your post, if I may, I would like to make some small humble comment:

"What they don't understand? What planet are you on? Let's look at who has the understanding of what and who does the judging."

Okay, this is the sort of combative, insulting jonx that we have all gotten to know so well.

"First, premies and ex-premies have a similar experience-base:"

True. Good. Good start, and promising.

"we all received Knowledge"

True.

"we are relatively the same age range and therefore have similar societal conditioning"

Okay, not universally true, and something of an untested assertion, but okay, not really worth debate.

"before Knowledge most of us knew there was something more to life and therefore looked for something deeper"

Here is where the problems begin. "Most of us knew....." Well, no in point of fact we didn't know. We hoped. But we did not know. And in fact no one still knows. You will I'm sure claim to "know." But I believe, and I am willing to test this hypothesis if you are interested in the process, that what you will call "knowing" is in fact an interpretation of the meaning of those experiences that you have while practicing, being in his presence, or whatever.

In other words, an outside observer will say for instance that what you call "knowing" is no more than a classic demonstration of religious faith. You have certain experiences which you have been taught to regard as having certain very precise meanings or implications. That is, you feel a deep peaceful feeling and sense that the turgid clamorings of your mind are remote and distant sensations, and your perceived distance from those raucous mental activities is your evidence that the master's gift is the most precious thing that could possibly exist. I'm just saying in a for instance - please feel free to delineate the relationship of the experience to the conclusions as you feel is the most accurate depiction for you.

My point is, and again, I welcome your sincere take on this, that the conclusions that you draw from whatever your meditation experiences are, are tutored to some degree. Whereas to someone who has deconstructed the relationship of the meditation experiences to the supposed master, those conclusions appear to be entirely fabricated and in no way borne out by actual testing.

That is to say, Maharaji taught, and I believe still does teach this, that he is a central ingredient in the experience - that without him, knowledge does not work. I think he has actually said this - "Without the Master, Knowledge does not work."

Well, ahem, that is not true in my experience. I have utterly and completely rejected Maharaji as my "master." Have nothing but contempt for the man. But I find that the mechanism of practicing "Knowledge" delivers precisely the same "experience" that it did when I was deeply devoted to Maharaji.

So, really, I don't see how you escape the conclusion, after you have left that is, that what Maharaji told us about his mysterious, ill defined role as some sort of vague but essential component to the experience is anything but a lie at worst, and just plain ill-informed at best. And if it is the latter, um, doesn't that seem like sort of a poor recommendation for someone's supposed Master? I mean, if he is the "Master of Perfection" or whatever, shouldn't he know that the experience of practicing these meditation techniques is pretty much identical with or without the attendent belief system? You know, the one where it is stipulated that without the Master, "Knowledge" doesn't work?

"most of us tried to some degree to to dedicate our lives to Maharaji and Knowledge"

True

"all of us had and still have misconceptions about what Knowledge is and the role Maharaji plays"

Yeah, this is really important. If you beat this one Jonx, you are halfway home - but it is well driven into the premie mindset that Maharaji is the only one who is CLEAR.

And of course all he is really trying to do is help everyone else get through this bewildering array of misconceptions and concepts and doubts that all have the uncanny tendency to resemble uncomfortable information about his own character, (or lack therof) the lack of integrity in his actions, irreconcileable contradictions about his enterprise, or "knowledge" itself, and what it really is suposed to be, or not be, or whatever, and of course about his once supposed divinity, and now his merely sublime presence, or even the notion that it is possible for a person to have some unique access to the divine, or if that is not just some religious notion that in the end turns out to be nothing more that a construct behind which clever charlatans can hide their innappropriately expressed libido and narccissism.

But to return to the core of this assertion on your part, let me just say that I do not accept it. I think for a discussion of these ideas to progress meaningfully, presuming that that is what you earnestly desire, because of course I have no way of knowing that is the case, you must make only assertions which everyone can unequivocally agree on - and then and only then proceed to extrapolate conclusions. I respectfully submit that you hurried by that part of the process. First we establish the comonality of our experiences to everyone's satisfaction, THEN we take the next step.

Basically I do not agree with this statement for several reaons. One is that it repositions Maharaji/Rawat as the sole arbitre of meaning. Hey, once you establish that, you have erased any possiblity that dissent can have merit. But moreover, I do think I know precisely what "Knowledge" is and the role Maharaji plays. When I followed Maharaji is when my understanding on these things was in fact the most innacurate and misinformed. Deliberately misinformed, I might add. And deliberately misinformed because it is precisely those erroneous understandings which Maharaji instills in his students that allow him to continue to control you, manipulate you, use you, exploit you, and extract from you that treasure that he has come to believe is his fair and rightful due. Namely an adulation that is based on a false presumption of who he is, and an allocation of financial resources that supports for him a material demonstration of his worth or value.

"all of us experienced all the same doubts along the way"

I'm not sure about this. Maybe some people have a harder time thinking for themselves than others - don't have the critical thinking skills for instance - never learned them or whatever.

"The one obvious difference between premies and ex-premies is premies came through the doubts, and are able to see them from the other side."

The way I see it, and I used to think exactly this way too by the way, ex-premies were unable for whatever combination of reasons, to continue to reconcile the party line - the admonition against doubt or critical thought or whatever you want to call it - with obvious warning signs that something was very wrong, very amiss in the program. The exposure of various embarassing details about Mahraji's personal comportment, a critical look at some of the many disengenous assertions of Mahraji, and the widespread and easy access to this very damning information has facilitated for many an acceleration of this process. For the committed premie, the person who courageously follows this process and allows it to take them where it in the end must take them - to disillusionment - has failed. Has "given in to dark thoughts, has let the doubtmaker supercede the heart." Has failed to heed the most important and essential advice of the teacher - "on this perilous path of the heart, always heed the words of the master, otherwise disaster looms for you." "Never leave room for doubt."

To the x-er, conscience has made a comeback. The cool flood of reason has flooded back in and the dark shadows of fear, and insecurity, and constant vigilance against the terrifying possiblity of giving the mind credence have been blessedly removed. The nightmare is finally over, and the person can begin to live his or her life again. His or her life again, not the masters. Because finally, your life is yours again.

"Ex-premies are stuck grappling with those doubts."

Addressed above.

" Premies didn't let the suspicions promulgated by a small "mob" of malcontents obscure the reality of their experience of Knowledge,"

This is sort of typical demonize the opposition type of crap, and not really worthy of detailed comment. Really we are not talkikng about suspicions, but rather fairly well documented information. And for those who have seen it for themselves (but were convinced that it was not really what it seemed to be) this comment is particularly weak.

Again we have the classic premie conflation of the "reality of their experience of Knowledge" with the legitimacy of Maharaji's claims about who he is and in essence the legitimacy of his entire operation. But the problem is that in this litmus test, the bar is so ill-defined that there is really no way definitively pass or fail it. The experience may well be "real", and in fact may be quite lovely. But how we get from that to allowing Maharaji off the hook for his deceptions and the manipulative and destructive side of being involved with Mahraji is I think the key to Maharaji's central hook.

"nor their appreciation for the person who brought that experience to them."

As above.

"Ex-premies on the other hand are exercising extreme revisionism in an attempt to expunge from their history anything positive or beautiful concerning their life with Maharaji."

You know what? I hate to say it, but I think you have a point here. Although I think that highly ethical people like Mike Finch and others will quite readily admit that there was a pleasurable side to this whole thing. I have seen in myself a reluctance to admit that there was anything good in the whole experience. There is a tremendous amount of anger when one realizes that one has been so horribly duped and has given the best and brightest years of their young adulthood to a fraud, and that anger can admit no nuance. Secondly, when one assesses the good and the bad, the bad seems to so outweigh the good, that giving any value to Maharaji's big deception seems just well, wrong.

But I am prepared to accept that I have been reluctanct to admit anything good about the exsperience. Are you prepared to likewise acknowledge the revisionism that EV and Maharaji are promulgating? Is that revisionsim okay with you?

"So, I contend that premies understand a lot about where ex-premies are coming from; the reverse cannot be said."

This is an unsupported assertion. In fact the very opposite seems most intuitive. Unless of course you buy the unlit match concept that ex-premies were never sincere seekers, and therefore were never given inner access to the sublime, and therefor of course, well, you know, never really got it.

We know the problems with this construct. And you can never prove this idea. Moreover your acceptance of the idea of the unlit match positions you as a priviledged judge of the deep and intimate intentions of other people. This is a dangerously arrogant position to take, and kind of discredits you in any kind of legitimate dialogue. The most you can really say is "I can't understand how someone who had as rich an experience of Knowledge as I am having could possibly decide to leave it, and to leave Maharaji." that would be an honest statement, and one which might invite meaningful and sincere dialogue.

What shuts dialogue down is a presumed position of superior insight. A conviction of religious intensity that you are privy to a deeper and more subtle understanding - in short a better and more complete understanding. As long as this conviction remains intact, there can be only decrees issued, and proclamations decreed. There is no dialogue when one party insists that the terms of dialogue include the presumption of one party having superior, and in fact unimpeachable knowledge or information.

"Premies' understanding encompasses a dimension that is unknown to ex-premies, i.e., seeing those nasty doubts for what they really are."

Yeah, see above on this one.

"Ex-premies live under the false assumption that because they were premies they understand the full spectrum."

I do not regard this as a false assumption. I think I undersrtand why you do. And I also undersatnd that as long as you take the position that premies who became ex-premies never really got it, that assumption does kind of work.

"With respect, the book is not closed; there is more to understand about Maharaji than you think you already "know"."

We are battling to own the rights to what it means to "know" something. This is a classic philosphical conflict between religion and rationalism or materialsim. And probably too big an idea for this exchange. But the essence of it for me, is that one side says to "know" is to verify through the best application or reason, evidence, testing, and sensory input. The other side says to truly "know" one must supercede rational models - one must transcend these crude tools we have used to arrive at knowledge (not "Knowledge) and attain a more intuitive and deeper understanding.

And that is the way that you seem to be saying Maharaji should be "known." All other ways of trying to "know" Maharaji will bring the inevitable and erroneous wrong conclusions. If only we were looking at him thorugh the lens of devotion, then his true meaning and significance would be revealed, and we would weep with relief at being back in his golden way after our long and dark sojourn in the dark and dank corridors of our intractably complicated and unilluminated minds.