"I called you a liar because you lied about the meaning of EV's answer about Rawat being called the Lord. You said that they didn't necessarily deny that he was the Lord or that he ever discouraged people from thinking he was. That was a lie and you know it. You lied by denying that EV lied. Plain and simple."

Here is what I actually said (in response to Jim's assertion that I had been shown "proof that Rawat -- through EV -- has lied about whether or not he ever claimed to be the Lord."):

I said:

Let's examine your "proof" calmly and clearly:

This is the evidence you quote, from EV:

Why was he called "Lord of the Universe" in the '70s?

In Western culture, when a title is given to a person, it comes with a position. In India, by contrast, such grand labels as "His Holiness" or "Lord of the Universe" are given on the basis of affection or admiration. The use of this title, which was used only in the '70s—an era of love for all things Indian— does not imply any claims that the person is holy anymore than the use of "His Excellence" means that the person is an embodiment of excellence. "I am a human being, and you are a human being," says Maharaji, "and that is the basis of this relationship." Other people in India have also been called "Lord of the Universe" well before Maharaji, without its ever implying that they claimed to rule the universe or have anything to do with its creation.

According to you Jim, this is:

"proof that Rawat -- through EV -- has lied about whether or not he ever claimed to be the Lord."

"This is a straighforward, explicit denial that he is the Lord."

Let's go through the EV statement sentence by sentence. There are five sentences altogether:

(1) 'In Western culture, when a title is given to a person, it comes with a position.'

- Is that a lie? I don't think so.

(2) 'In India, by contrast, such grand labels as "His Holiness" or "Lord of the Universe" are given on the basis of affection or admiration.'

- Is that a lie? I don't think so.

(3) 'The use of this title, which was used only in the '70s—an era of love for all things Indian— does not imply any claims that the person is holy anymore than the use of "His Excellence" means that the person is an embodiment of excellence.'

- Is that a lie? I don't think so, not if the previous sentence is not a lie. (Note that this sentence states that: 'The use of this title...does not imply any claims that the person is holy...'. It does NOT state that the person in question is NOT 'holy'.)

(4) '"I am a human being, and you are a human being," says Maharaji, "and that is the basis of this relationship."'

- Is that a lie? No, not unless you believe Maharaji is not a human being!

(5) 'Other people in India have also been called "Lord of the Universe" well before Maharaji, without its ever implying that they claimed to rule the universe or have anything to do with its creation.'

- Is that a lie? I don't think so.

So where is the big lie, Jim?

Where is the "proof that Rawat -- through EV -- has lied about whether or not he ever claimed to be the Lord"?

Where is the "straighforward, explicit denial that he is the Lord"?

In which sentence, or sentences, in particular is the "proof", the "straighforward, explicit denial that he is the Lord"?

Not answering a question fully, or not answering a question directly, or side-stepping a question, etc., is NOT lying. You may not like it, but it is not lying. It is possible to be tactful without lying, yet without telling the full truth, and it is often desireable to do so. I am sure you can think of examples in your own life when this is the case.

As I said, Maharaji now wants people to come to him without the kind of preconceptions which spiritual labels and religious terminology bring. Some people may choose to see him as "Lord", some people may not even understand that concept. Knowledge is not just for Hindus, or Christians, it's for Buddhists who believe in God, it's for Buddhists who don't believe in God, it's for Pagans, it's for New Age people, it's for people of no religion, it's for agnostics, it's for atheists even. Maharaji does not want to be labelled with religious and spiritual terminology which would deter many people from discovering what Knowledge is really about. Maharaji wants people to have as few misleading preconceptions as possible. He wants to present Knowledge simply and clearly, as something which is fresh and unique and very practical - beyond mere belief. Hence it's better to avoid confusing people with all the "spiritual" baggage of the past. Each person will learn through their own personal experience of Knowledge just what Maharaji means to them - not by being expected to believe what someone else says or believes about Maharaji.

Personally I prefer to avoid applying the word "Lord" to Maharaji, because that term has so many different connotations for different people, good and bad connotations, very narrow connotations for some people - maybe good connotations for some Hindus, but it means something different to Christians, it means many different things to different people, it carries a lot of baggage. So it is generally not a good term to be applied to Maharaji.