He HAS said that he is not "God". So he is making a distinction between "God" and those other descriptions - "Satguru", "Perfect Master", "Lord" - like he has done in the past. Ever since I got Knowledge in 1974 he has been making a distinction between "God" and "Guru" (or "Satguru"), between "God" and "Perfect Master", as I have previously pointed out many times. (Another example I remember is that he said being "Perfect Master" does not mean that he is perfect, but it means that the Knowledge he can reveal is perfect, the perfection is within every human being.)

If you want to believe that there is no distinction between "God" and "Perfect Master", or between "God" and "Lord", or between "God" and "Satguru", that's up to you, but it doesn't change the experience of Knowledge. To me Maharaji is an enlightened soul, someone like Buddha, someone who is guiding me from darkness to light, from a negative life to a positive life, taking me away from the experience of fear to the experience of love, taking me away from feeling screwed-up to feeling free in my life, taking me away from feeling dissatisfied to feeling peace in my life. A dispute over the definition of "God", or what precisely Maharaji may or may not have implied when he was 13 or 14 years old, is not going to change that experience.

Of course if you are going to be unsympathetic towards Maharaji, you could make a big deal over his definition of "God". Just like I could make a big deal out of you saying you are an "ex-premie". I could say that since "premie" means "lover of God" or "lover of truth", you are therefore clearly implying that you are now an "ex-lover of God", an "ex-lover of truth", that you used to be a lover of God, a lover of truth, but now you have clearly implied you are no longer a lover of God, no longer a lover of truth. Maybe that's not a great example, but I hope you get the point - that logically I could make that argument, if I was unsympathetic to what you really mean, if I refused to acknowledge the context in which it was said, if I wished to be simplistically literal about the meaning of "ex-premie".

But I am not unsympathetic to what you really mean. I understand what you really mean, in what sense you mean it, and the context in which you say it, so I do not claim that you implied you are no longer a lover of God, or no longer a lover of truth. Likewise I sympathetically understand what Maharaji means when he says he is not "God". I'm sure he can say he is not "God" and truly mean it. But he has never said he is not "Satguru".

He is presenting his message to a wider audience now, all over the world, in many different parts of the world, to people of many different cultures, to people of many different beliefs, to people of many different religions, and to people of no religion. He does not wish to present his message now using any kind of religious terminology, from any particular culture - and that's very understandable - with all the confusion and unwanted connotations and baggage which goes with religious terminology. He can present the same message more clearly without all that terminology, and he is doing a good job of it.

Knowledge works for me, and in a world of so much dissatisfaction, depression, fear, etc., I'm very grateful that I have something which works for me, which works so well for me. It may not work for everyone, for whatever reason. Maybe other things can work for other people. I know many people get a lot out of religious practice - such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. - and if so, then I think that's something very positive in their lives. Maybe for other people it's something else, something unconnected with religion. I believe anything which is positive and helpful in people's lives should be encouraged. But for me the positive and helpful thing in my life is Maharaji and Knowledge. For more than 30 years it has been something which has greatly helped me in my life, something which has been wonderful in my life, and which continues to be wonderful in my life.