Well, GOK, I guess I could thank you for your long answer but .... hm .... I dunno, man.  I just don't know.  I mean, it's been a few days and I had to go back and read my post again after reading yours.  I couldn't remember what I'd actually asked you by reading your reply.  But there it was, clear as day.  I asked you if Rawat was calling himself God in those two quotes.  And you, my good friend, didn't answer.

I do this for a living, by the way.  Question people.  I'm a criminal lawyer and that's what I do.  As you might imagine, I've encountered all sorts of witnesses.  Many are honest and direct, many are not.  You fall into the second group and I think you're well aware of that.  You're clearly not stupid.  You know full well that you simply offered up a bunch of words as some sort of consolation for not actually answering the question.  It's a form of playing the duck.  Believe me, I've seen it before.  The whole thing -- the nice tone, the chatty courtesy, the mild self-effacing and (forgive me for this one), the mock sincerity. 

But why couldn't you just answer the question? 

If you were a witness and I was cross-examining you, here's what my next question would be:

Thank you for all that, sir, but would you mind answering the question?

Here's what your answer reduces to:

Sometimes people don't hear things accurately.  Sometimes the press and other news media don't quote people correctly.  You don't recall ever personally hearing Rawat claim he was God.  Besides, people here seem to be mistakenly asserting that all sorts of terms are synonymous with God.  In any event, when Rawat first came to the west he was young and his English wasn't all that great.  He made a lot of language mistakes.  In any event, he wisely stopped talking in spiritual terms in the 80's which was a really good idea because even a word like "God" means different things in different places.  Moreover, Rawat can't be defined this way or that.  He just is what he is.  Beyond all that, his message is the same and Knowledge isn't about concepts, it's an experience.  And we all learn from experience, Rawat too.  After all, whatever else he is (or isn't) he's a human being too so he definitely gets the benefit of that excuse.

Like I say, if you were a witness and you answered that way, I'd just stand there giving you all the rope in the world.  I might even look over to share a little smirk with the jury.  Or maybe look at my watch.  Maybe I'd drink a sip of water.  At some point I'm sure I'd stand there with my arms folded just kind of watching you go on and on. 

But eventually, when you were finally finished, I'd ask you again, did he or didn't he claim to be God in those passages.  If you then harped on your "concern" about the accuracy of the quotation we might get into a big, useless digression about what Rawat might possibly have said instead of:

I was telling you yesterday that Guru will take devotion and multiply it and give it to God. Remember, I was only saying that for your mental satisfaction. Guru is Himself God! Look at Him; what is God, you will see in Him. Look at Him first. See in Him, and you will find God. The full power of God that you have seen in Light, that you will see in Light.

If you then tried to get away by claiming you don't know what Rawat meant by God I'd help you out with yet another quote of his, the gist of which he repeated oh so many times, that God was "Generator, Operator and Destroyer".  We'd clear up that little "difficulty" lickety-split, I tell you.  No problemo for you, premie Ji!

Or if you started talking about how he doesn't talk that way anymore anyway, I'd simply advise you that that wasn't what I was asking.  I was simply asking about those quotes.  Did he or didn't he claim he was God?  That's all, simple question.  Did he or didn't he?

Or if you then tried to say, as you did already, that Rawat was so young then and he, like anyone, is free to make mistakes once in a while, same thing.  I'd remind you that that wasn't what I was concerned about.  Just look at the quotes and tell the truth to the full extent of your ability.  You took an oath before God to do just that, it so happens.  Now, again, did he or didn't he claim he was God?

At the end of the day, GOK, all your evasions would be cut off and your nice, chatty dissembling would be stripped away.  You'd be forced to answer and, unless you simply wanted to lie under oath, you'd have to admit, yes he did. 

My next question, by the way, would be, "Why was it so hard to admit that?"