'Saying that people who see the man in those sort of terms is making him an 'incomprehensible entity', is way off the mark.'

Actually, I have no idea who John Gotti is, so didn't understand the allusion.

I used to think that a useful way of understanding Maharaji is a comparison with Napoleon. I even mentally constructed a post comparing the historical circumstances behind the rise of the Emperor with those which produced Maharaji.

Certain similarities are unmistakable. Both were short men, of around the 5 feet twoish mark.
Both had dominant mothers and largeish collections of siblings who all had to be provided with kingdoms. Napoleon gave them chunks of Europe.
In Maharaji's case, they were provided with sections of the Cosmos.

Napoleon was subject to depressions (not tonight Josephine), which Maharaji also suffers.
Napoleon had a collosal ego which increasingly brooked no dissent. Maharaji's trainings maybe have a similarity to the Emperor's later staff meetings.

Both experience the Jungian Ego and Shadow syndrome, in which the ego is so paramount that no blame for any matter whatsoever is accepted by the possessor.
The responsibility for any problem or catastrophe is always severely at the door of anyone else - it is totally unthinkable for them to accept any fault.

In all these things, Maharaji, Napoleon and Musso are probably highly similar.

On the other hand, Napoleon was noted for great personal charm by many people. He could be a very engaging friend and companion (see interestingly Doctor O'Meara's memoir of Napoleon on St. Helena).

On the other hand, many people found him terrifying. Madame Staël said that a 'chill wind whistles around that man'. (Maharaji: You don't want to see my other side!).