Cool.

"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.

Ah, a subtle maneuvering to that high-ground you claim I fanatically try and protect."

If so, my apologies. I think a closer reading will reveal only a request for a level playing field.

"Look, the presumption of superiority is the very basis for argument. We are both as preoccupied with our own argument as the other, and therefore to expect real dialogue is naive. I gave up on that long ago with you guys."

I don't consider this an argument - anymore. Something changed for me. I don't feel threatened by you anymore. I consider it a discussion - or a dialogue. I reject the idea, therefore that superiority is at issue. I'm more interested in methodically following out lines of reasoning and trying to disqualify the ones which present inconsistencies, or other obvious weaknesses.

If you have given up on real dialogue, then what is your intention exactly?

"My question to you Jonx is this - what price are you willing to pay for this gorgeous vision? Is any price worth it? Is insanity an acceptable price to pay?

Separation from the self is the cause of insanity. The self is beyond your “cool flood of reason”, and sadly, reason has the potential to only separate one further."

These comments reflect a philosophy which I no longer subscribe to. I don't mean to lecture you about the best way to have a respectful dialogue, especially as you have pronounced that that is not your intention, but here's a statement that I could respect: I believe that seperation from the self .......... You know, instead of stating it as a fact. I think that you will have a difficult time establishing these philosophical positions as facts in any legitimate forum of ideas - why try to pawn them off as facts here?

"Is delusion an acceptable price to pay? Is the destruction of conscience okay with you? Is the complicity in an immoral enterprise an acceptable price?

Have you always been so sanctimonious? How ever you would love to stereotype me, I am a healthy, responsible, positive, and down-to-earth person. You are the one I would argue who is wrestling with the above. For me, helping others find a source of peace not tainted by the comings and goings of this world is the most moral thing I could think of doing. You may downplay its impact, but I see the awakening in a person of the awareness of self extremely important to harmony being asserted on this planet. If all you have to offer are painfully rational and well-metered ideas then you’ll forgive me if I politely carry on feeling good."

You are forgiven. (joking ) Um, apologies again for the painfulness of my rationalism. But also thank you for your flattery - I'm happy that my ideas seem well-metered to you. I think it is quite likely that that will be just about the highest praise I am ever likely to get from you. Thank you.

I don't want you to not feel good. I don't even necessarily want you to leave Rawat. All I want is the chance to discuss what following Rawat really means, and whether in the end, if one takes a bracingly honest look at all the sides of the thing, it is really worth it. Also I want the right to speak truth to power - sorry about the cliche. But you know what I mean.

Maharaji positions himself as being beyond reproach and beyond accountability. He does not give us a forum in which to critique his behavior - insofar as we regard it to have been deceptive, manipulative, and destructive. So this is as close as we can come. This is our answer to Maharaji's imperial remove - his implicit dismissal of our grievances and critique. Really our argument, if you like, is not at all with you. It is with him. And you are important because one you are a human being, but also because you are a window into a pysche that has been influenced by Maharaji. I don't know if I like you or not, because I don't really know you, but you are here in the fight. And I am glad that you are.

"Does nothing really matter in this world because its all illusion anyway, and all these allegations against Maharaji are just the expression of "mind" trying to lure you away from the pure and restorative beauty that is Maharaji and "Knowledge" and his noble mission?

What illusions of cognitive brilliance you must be living under? Sorry, you’re trying far too hard."

Ouch. I'm pretty sure I'm not brilliant. But I think I'm reasonably intelligent. How about you? You don't seem too stupid. Trying too hard? Maybe just too flowery for a shade.

In short, is shame nothing more than bourgeois vanity?

That tops it mate. You are really full of yourself! That has absolutely no meaning or relevance beyond sounding clever.

I don't agree with you on this one. I might be guilty of feeling good about what I had written. Okay, I'll admit it - I was pretty happy with it. I think it had to do with the fact that I took the time to do it - to follow through and do it. And in the end I was happy because - as I reread it, it stands up pretty well, overall. I don't see you really taking some of the more substantive ideas on by the way. Does that fall under the catagory of "just reacting?"