But about splitting hairs. This argument of yours that we can "argue about interpretations till the cows come home" (when do cows come home?) is not acceptable. Words and the sentences we make with them have meaning. That's how human beings communicate with each other. At the point where a set of words can be interpreted to mean two completely different things, communication fails and the words become meaningless.

But EV's words are not meaningless. They are claiming that when people called Rawat LOTU, they didn't mean it literally and they didn't mean to suggest that he was divine. That is clear as day for anyone who wants to understand those words as they are written.

So why do you insist on splitting hairs Godo? Why do you want to defend EV. Remember, those are the people that everyone loves to hate, those power hungry bureaucratic bastards who are always messing everything up for Rawat. I guess they're just at it again, huh?

The reason why I asked you about the meaning of Satguru: You said that "I'm sure you know that Satguru means someone who can truly bring you from darkness to light." I know that this idea has been promoted by Rawat and his spokespeople. Premies were told that gu = darkness and ru= light and sat means true. Therefore satguru literally means the true one who can bring you from darkness to light. I've noticed that you repeat this concept alot.

I studied Sanskrit in a very distinguished university with very distinguished professors. The sat part is right, but guru does not mean one who brings you from darkness to light. I'm not a Sanskrit expert by any means, but this is a complete fabrication as far as I can tell. The word guru is an adjective which means heavy. So the word guru as used to mean a teacher literally means "the heavy guy." It looks like EV's precursor, DLM was lying too. And you've been carrying around this false idea for 30 years. What do you think about that?