With that "should" again - in the outside world you have to be prepared for people to challenge "should".

To be clear - I have no expectation - beyond the requirements of the Law - or within the agreed co-operative boundaries of a forum like this, that anyone would, let alone should, respect me in any way. If however by dint of my behaviour toward and in support of others,  by display of insight or kindliness - someone does accord me respect, then I'm very grateful for that.

I seem to remember one of my kids at about age 13, who having done something amazingly stupid which attracted a rebuke from me, shouting at me that I should respect her. My response was in terms of "Yeah Right". Respect is a two way process, which is always conditional - as distinct say,  from parental love.

>Premies are human beings.< So are politicians, paedophiles, prostitutes, poisoners ........ being human in itself is no great recommendation.

>Premies are individuals< Well that's a moot point isn't it ? By definition a premie is someone who has signed up to a particular world view, a view that I consider to be totalitarian and funamentalist. I know there are many premies who have this fantasy that because they are not EV insiders that somehow they are not part of a fascistic grouping. In any meaningful sense a 'premie' is a member of a crowd and his/her behaviour in relation to the crowd interest is not as a free individual, but merely as a crowd element.  A premie is someone who has rejected individuality.

You undoubtedly wish to be treated as an individual but your cult allegiance is the thing that takes away your individuallity - not whether I or anyone else treat you with respect.

GOK - in your 'positives' post below (I note you didn't feel able to respond to my post there) you gave the standard Rawat apologia about Rawatism not being about belief - but about it being an experience. You say:

>to realise and understand for themselves (through the experience of Knowledge) who or what Maharaji is - rather than rely on any belief. That's why it's called "Knowledge" - it's not about belief.< 

 I fear that a semantic sleight of hand is in play here, after all 'knowing' is not an experience, it is a process that occurs in response to experience.

 How does anyone 'know' that what they experience in meditation has anything to do with 'Maharaji' ? Where does the 'belief' that something is 'known' about 'Maharaji' come from ? And as Rawat is merely an 'inspirational speaker' what is the source of this mystical 'knowing' and why should Rawat/Maharji be the subject of such a mystical understanding ?

I am genuinely interested in your answers to these questions - don't forget most readers here have had the same 'experiences that you have had, we also have had the 'knowing'. It's Rawat's propaganda that we are 'unlit matches' - but other than we no longer accept the  view of the premie crowd, what is it that makes us so unenlightened ?

N