About two years ago I attended a video event, and I arrived a little bit late, and just as I sat down I heard Maharaji say:

"Tolerance, to each other, kindness, these are the elements needed - not more doctors."

As I am very interested in "Alternative Medicine", I thought this was a notable thing for Maharaji to have said. So while I was travelling home with a friend, I said to her: "Did you hear what Maharaji said about not needing more doctors?" And she said "I didn't hear him say that." And I said "He definitely said it, I heard him, it was near the beginning, you mustn't have been paying attention."

So the next week I asked one of the event organisers if I could borrow the previous week's video, because I wanted to hear exactly what Maharaji had said, and when I brought it home and played it on my own video-recorder, I discovered that what Maharaji had actually said was:

"Tolerance, to each other, kindness, these are the elements needed - not more doctrines."!

That's a true story, and you may think I was a little stupid to have thought Maharaji would say what I thought he said, but nevertheless I seriously believed it - for a week! (Due to imperfect hearing and a mindset which led me to thinking he could conceivably say something like that).

So the first point I wish to make to you is that although you give those two quotes, I cannot be sure that they are totally accurate quotes. Although even my own ears can occasionally deceive me, I prefer to hear things straight from the horse's mouth, to hear people actually speaking their own words, before I am sure that the person actually said those exact words, and what exactly the person meant by the words. This applies not just to Maharaji, but to anyone quoted in the news, for example - if I read something in the Daily Mirror which someone has supposedly said, I do not necessarily believe it, or go along with the reporter's interpretation of it - I much prefer to hear the person himself, or herself, speaking his or her own words, on TV or radio, in his or her own tone of voice, and in context - which often gives a totally different picture. Or failing that, if I am going to read it, I want to read it in an authoritative publication.

But don't worry, I'm not going to argue that black is white. I have been around since 1974, I listened a lot to Maharaji, and attended a lot of events, and read a lot of "Divine Light" magazines, and other magazines, in the 1970s, and I understand the general point you are making.

Personally I have never heard Maharaji saying that he is "God", I don't recall him ever saying that he is "God" either in the 1970s or since then. I think I recall him in the 1970s saying that he ISN'T "God" (though my memory about that could be faulty), and I definitely heard him say more recently that he definitely ISN'T "God".

I have noticed that there is a lot of confusion about this on this board, because a lot of people here seem to conflate and confuse various different terms - such as "God", "the Lord", "Saviour", "Messiah", "Satguru", "Avatar", "divine", etc., as if these concepts are all more or less synonymous - which they most definitely are not; and as if these concepts are all very simple and easily understood - which they most definitely are not.

When Maharaji first came to the West at a very young age in 1970, he was much more open in his use of words. And he wasn't unduly pernickity about his use of words. It seems to me that he sees words as a practical and useful tool, but not a perfect tool, to communicate his message. He sees the overall message as the important thing, and doesn't unduly worry about whether every single word and phrase he uses is perfect. He uses language very intelligently, but he does not claim to use English like an Oxford Professor of English (and even an Oxford Professor of English probably uses language practically, without getting too pernickity or pedantic).

In the 1980s Maharaji decided to stop using words with religious and spiritual connotations, and has tried to make his message simpler. I can see various possible reasons why he decided to do that, including, as I have already suggested, it makes his message much simpler. All the religious and spiritual concepts mean different things to different people - and for many people they have negative connotations (and I don't think Maharaji wants to exclude these people - e.g agnostics, perhaps - from receiving Knowledge). And they can be difficult and confusing concepts: I mean, what do YOU mean by words such as "God", or "Lord" or "divine", or "Guru"? Is it the same as my understanding of these concepts? Does someone living in, for example, Japan have the same understanding of these labels as someone, for example, living in Ghana, or England, or Israel? Does someone who is, for example, a Christian have the same understanding of these concepts as someone who is, for example, a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or a Humanist, or a New Ager, etc, etc, etc.

So Maharaji has quite intelligently dropped using such terms. And he has always made the point that Knowledge cannot fit neatly into any concept or label. The experience of Knowledge is the experience of something which existed before words existed. It is not something which can be properly understood through intellectual understanding alone. When you taste a mango, then you understand what a mango tastes like.

But what people here on this board seem to forget, or misunderstand, is that Maharaji's message has not changed. It is only the presentation of the message that has changed. Maharaji has never said that he is merely a "humanitarian leader" (or something like that). Perhaps other people have said that about him, but Maharaji has never said that. I think I learned a long time ago that who Maharaji is - "who" or "what" he is - is not something that anyone else can tell me, it is something which I can only understand myself through my own experience. Other people's labels - and even my own "labels" for Maharji - will not enlighten me, but will instead only fill me with preconceptions and assumptions and expectations about how such a person (according to the label) is supposed to be. And then if Maharaji acts in a way which seems to NOT fit in with my preconceptions or assumptions or expectations about how someone like that "ought" to act, then I am liable to think he is not that person I imagined him to be (in accordance with the label), therefore he is not true, therefore he is not who he says he is. But it's not him saying that he is that person (that label), it's me! And then it's me saying that he isn't that person!

Maharaji is who he is, and that's how he wants to be understood - not in accordance with some label people wish to put upon him - but according to actual reality.

So Knowledge is not about concepts, it's much simpler than that, it is about experience.

We learn from experience. And Maharaji is no exception to this. Maharaji learns from experience. And this is one of his great strengths, that he actually DOES learn from experience - unlike many people who repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Maharaji has always made it clear that - whatever else he may or may not be - he is also, at the same time, a human being. Otherwise (as he says on the "Journey Homeward" CD) if he wasn't a human being, like every other human being, how could he say to people "This knowledge is wonderful, it has helped me, and it can help you too" (not an exact quote). So he definitely is a human being, human beings make mistakes, and Maharaji makes mistakes too - but he learns from his mistakes. And likewise he wants us to learn from our mistakes, (in a creative kind of way).