To respond specifically to your observations of practicing "Knowledge" without devotion -

I simply mean - (because, yes, its true that Maharaji sold us the idea of his indispensibility to the experience, and perhaps even sold us the idea that service for instance would deepen and make real the experience of "Knowledge") that the practice of the techniques delivered the same core experience before and after my dissaffection.

For me, I understood "Knowledge" to be the techniques, or what one experienced when one practiced the techniques. The other elements were important obviously - satsang, and service - but what I was talking about was the actual nuts and bolts sensations derived from "practicing the techniques of Knowledge."

I found no qualitative difference. I don't want to second guess Jonx, but I would imagine the premie position would presuppose, then, that I had missunderstood some essential component of the whole gestalt of meditation, service and satsang - perhaps undervalued or failed to grasp the importance of the "Master's" role.

But I don't accept that. And the reason I don't accept that is because is because my devotion to Maharaji was not feigned - it was palpable and profound in that it caused me to substantially alter the course of my life to better reflect those ill considered passions. Sorry, what I feel now were ill considered passions.

Was the basic texture of the experience changed by the triumphalism of devotion, and the excitement of "His" proximity? I guess I'll just concede that you're going to have a hard time convincing me of this - unless there is some subtle angle that I have failed to apprehend.