But I want to reply to something else you said. You said:

"Look up 'Lord' and you'll see that it's synonymous with 'God'."

You're being silly now, Jim. It's not a dictionary-definition question, it's a huge theological/philosophical/sociological/etc question. You are being simplistic in the extreme. The point I made is that "Lord" and "God" may mean exactly the same thing in SOME people's minds - e.g. some Hindus, some Christians - but these concepts do not mean the same thing in other people's minds - e.g. some Buddhists, some Christians, some people of no religion, and me, for example. As I said, Maharaji is speaking to a much wider audience now. He doesn't want people to be confused with these labels - so he's simplifying the presentation of his message. He's not denying anything HE said in the past, he is just choosing not to present himself in that way nowadays.

I never believed anything people said about Maharaji in the 1970s, I always listened to Maharaji. To me, Maharaji presented himself as a "Guru", as a "Satguru", as "Guru Maharaji", as a "Perfect Master". To me Maharaji never presented himself as "God". To me "God" and "Lord" are not the same. And to me they are not simple concepts. If you wish to consider them as totally synonymous, and as simple concepts, that's up to you. I'm just giving you my point of view.

You said:

"The point though is that yes, it's true, sometimes at least, Rawat claimed to be God."

No I don't agree with that. Show me a scanned copy of the 'Divine Times', or a similar DLM or EV magazine, in which Maharaji clearly says something like "I am God" - then I'll agree with that.

When I said: "Yes Jim I more or less agree, or, to be precise, I agree that that implication is clearly there", I was NOT agreeing that Maharaji was implying he was "God". I am trying to make the point that "God" and "Lord" are not interchangeable synonyms. What one person understands by "God" and "Lord" may not be the same as what another person may understand by "God" and "Lord".

Many Christians believe that God is omniscient, and that Jesus was/is "the Lord". But I don't think too many Christians would believe that Jesus, during the 33 years of his life on this earth, was omniscient, that he went around knowing everything about everyone on earth at that time (not to mention everyone in the past, or everyone in the future), like he knew what Pontius Pilate had for breakfast every morning, and simultaneously knew what every other Roman had for breakfast, and what every Gallilean, and every single person on the planet had for breakfast, and every single "sin" every single person on the planet committed, and every single thing every single person on the planet did, good or bad, every single minute of the day. And that's just a fraction of knowing everything! What kind of computer would Jesus have needed to have in his head to know everything? I don't think too many intelligent Christian would imagine that Jesus went around knowing everything. Yet many intelligent Christians believe that God is omniscient, that God knows everything. So there is a clear distinction there, which any intelligent Christian would make.

Whether or not God really is omniscient is not the point. The point I am making is that for many people - e.g. thinking Christians - there is a distinction between "God" and "Lord", and these concepts mean different things to different people So why confuse people with these complex labels when Knowledge can be presented more simply?

I think you are criticising Maharaji for being intelligent, and for learning from experience.

Maharaji wants people to realise who or what Maharaji is from each person's own individual experience of Knowledge, and not to believe other people's concepts, good or bad, about who or what Maharaji is. He doesn't want people to be confused by labels, burdened by preconceptions, misconceptions, presuppositions, etc.

That's all I have time to say for tonight.

Here is a repeat of some of the things I said below (because I don't think you understood it clearly enough, and for anyone else's benefit):

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?