Hi Jim, I'm glad to see you're keeping calm about this - unlike #9 who seems to be getting a little unduly overexcited.

If and when you ever leave Rawat, you'll see what it's like to deal with premies' responses to the evidence. 

Yes Jim I more or less agree, or, to be precise, I agree that that implication is clearly there.

I'm sorry but I didn't ask you if he "implied" that he was God.  Not that there's all that much difference between implying it or stating it outright but when Rawat says that the guru is himself God, that's a direct claim, nothing implied about it.  So let's not quibble about this please.  I think the most accurate statement on this would be that at times Rawat directly stated he was God, other times he implied it, other times he seem to imply he wasn't and yet other times he even flatly denied it.  The point though is that yes, it's true, sometimes at least, Rawat claimed to be God.  Agree?  Yes or no?

And I am well aware of various other similar things Maharaji said or implied in the 1970s (which is why I initially quite clearly said to you: "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.").

But I am being precise. (Please, #9, don't confuse me with anyone else. I speak only for myself. And other people do not speak for me.) I said I don't recall Maharaji ever saying that he is "God". In fact, from the time I got Knowledge in 1974, I was always very much aware of a distinction Maharaji often made between God and Satguru, or God and Perfect Master, or God and himself. For example, according to 'Divine Light' magazine, April 1972, Maharaji ("speaking to Western disciples, Prem Nagar, 24 November 1971") said:

"You know, I'll say this quite frankly that God is shy. He doesn't like to show Himself. He doesn't like to shout out, 'Hey, here I am, here I am, look at me'. So he utilises the help of Satguru. Suppose you take a high authority, let's say Elizabeth. Suppose by chance Elizabeth goes to jail and is locked in. Now Elizabeth possesses a million times more power, more authority than the jailer. Right? But without the help of the jailer she cannot come out. She is locked in, completely locked in. The Queen can't come out. This is what I want to tell you, it is a simple fact."

So I think Maharaji is clearly making a distinction there.

These terms "God", "Lord", "Saviour", "Satguru", etc., are not simple terms, and should not be assumed to be simple. For example, Christians refer to Jesus as "Lord" - so is that exactly synonymous with saying that Jesus is "God"? I don't think so, at least not according to the Bible:

"As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. 'Good teacher,' he asked, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?' 'Why do you call me good?' Jesus answered. 'No one is good - except God alone.'" (Mark 10:17-18 - New International Version).

"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God." (Matthew 19:17 - King James Version)

"The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

"But the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me." (John 14:31 NIV).

"About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'" (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34).

I'm not saying that those quotations are actually the words Jesus actually said - whether or not the Bible is completely accurate is not the point - the point is that for thinking Christians (who believe the Bible is accurate or fairly accurate) the words "Lord" and "God" cannot be simplistically regarded as synonymous.

I'm explaining this just in case anyone thinks I am splitting hairs here, because I am definitely not. It's a very important point.

Maybe to some, most or all Hindus the terms "God" and "Lord" are synonymous. I don't know. I am not a Hindu. I am more of a Buddhist, and more of a liberal Christian. So to me those terms, "God" and "Lord", are not the same.

The terms "God" and "Lord" mean different things to different people. Maharaji is speaking to a much wider audience nowadays, than he was in the 1970s, (and he is not a Hindu now, if he ever was). So God only knows (!) what Maharaji means when he uses the term "God" - especially nowadays, speaking to a wider audience?!!! (And he deliberately doesn't use the term "God" very often nowadays)?!

Would YOU like to define what YOU mean when you use the term "God" (whether or not you believe in "God" - i.e. if you don't believe in "God", define what it is you don't believe in)?

And would YOU like to define what YOU mean when you use the term "Lord" (whether or not you believe in "a Lord" - i.e. if you don't believe in "a Lord", define what it is you don't believe in)?

Do you think your definitions would be the same as my definitions, or the same as Maharaji's definitions, or the same as the Archbishop of Canterbury's definitions, etc?

My point is that these are not simple terms, so no-one should be simplistic about them.

(I should have been in bed three hours ago!)

To be continued.

PS The experience of Knowledge IS simple!

Well, actually, GOK, you are splitting hairs.  Look up "Lord" and you'll see that it's synonymous with "God".  Here, for instance:

Main Entry: ¹lord
Pronunciation: 'lord
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English loverd, lord, from Old English hlAford, from hlAf loaf + weard keeper -- more at LOAF, WARD
1 : one having power and authority over others: a : a ruler by hereditary right or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due b : one of whom a fee or estate is held in feudal tenure c : an owner of land or other real property d obsolete : the male head of a household e : HUSBAND f : one that has achieved mastery or that exercises leadership or great power in some area <a drug lord>
2 capitalized a : GOD 1 b : JESUS
3 : a man of rank or high position: as a : a feudal tenant whose right or title comes directly from the king b : a British nobleman: as (1) : BARON 2a (2) : an hereditary peer of the rank of marquess, earl, or viscount (3) : the son of a duke or a marquess or the eldest son of an earl (4) : a bishop of the Church of England c plural, capitalized : HOUSE OF LORDS
4 -- used as a British title: as a -- used as part of an official title <Lord Advocate> <Lord Mayor> b -- used informally in place of the full title for a marquess, earl, or viscount c -- used for a baron d -- used by courtesy before the name and surname of a younger son of a duke or a marquess
5 : a person chosen to preside over a festival

Of course that's the case.  And, sorry to say this, but of course you already knew that.  We're all familiar with lots of phrases in prayers and songs, for instances, where the words are used interchangably.  Or together.  As in "The Lord God" or how about "The Lord Almighty God"?  They mean exactly the same thing and, whatever notion one has of either one is exactly the same notion they have of the other.  Whatever Rawat or the Archbishop of Canterbury believe God to be is what they think the Lord is.  If you insisted, I'm sure we could find all sorts of situations where each of them themselves interchanged the terms indiscriminately.  

In any event, it's just a quibble. Let's go somewhere more interesting.  What do you think of EV's FAQs wherein they deny that Rawat ever said he was God, directly or otherwise?