I'll pass over your (unconscious?) insinuation that Maharaji had nothing to do with those "labels" (Lord of the Universe, Perfect Master, Superior Power in Person etc.) being applied to him. I shouldn't pass over it though, because documented material from that era (courtesy DLM/EV) proves that he said he was all of those, though for some reason he fought shy of actually saying the words "I am God". Was it modesty, shame, or something else? Who can tell? It didn't stop him from claiming that the Houston event in 1973 - aka Millennium - was "the holiest event in the history of mankind".

Anyway, back to you, and your spin on things.

OK, so you like meditating, and consequently choose to revere the person who showed you that particular form of meditation.

Mind if I ask why?

We don't revere the teachers who taught us the alphabet, do we? Yet without the knowledge of the written word, our lives would be immeasurably poorer. Maharaji's life too, since he has relied heavily on the written word to propagate "his" meditation since the early days. Yet he doesn't ever acknowledge the teacher(s) who showed him the basics of written communication. Why not?

OK, so if the benefit you get from the meditation is to be the focus, why not do what teachers down the ages have done? They share their knowledge with others, who then teach others the same.

Rawat's con is that he is teaching people an (arguably) beneficial means of meditating, while all the time actively dissuading them from sharing whatever benefits may come from it - unless he is involved in the "gratitude" trip.

That's not what a true teacher does.

Nor does a true teacher try to misrepresent their past.

Face it, GOK, he's happiest when people (like you and most other premies) DO revere him.

That's his pay-off.