Just been reading the dialogues below with Mr Jonx, and offer the following, based on my own disentangling process:

The whole premie preentation to the world seems to turn on the word "experience". And Rawat's promise to premies centers on his offer of a "feeling". These two words are obviously hugely open ended, and fair enough, but..

It is possible in a dialogue of good will to come to a more precise understanding surrounding these words. One can ask  (I did): Is it possible to differentiate meaningfully and consistently  within the word "experience"?. And also, is a "feeling" in any way capable of being as all encompassingly universal as Rawat implies the one he is "offering" is?

As an aside, I think premie squeemishness and ineptitude with public discussion of their inner life is a direct result of the impossibility of their evolving any clearly honed, mutually acceptable concepts with which to converse. I doubt, from his text, if Jonx (for example)  has ever in his premie life, talked precisely and at length to anyone about his exact experience of what he understands as "Knowledge".  I never did. Among other things, the spurious philosophical argument of "the taste of the mango" is always so conveniently to hand, and besides Rawat wouldn't have liked it, there are secrets involved, and he never goes into detail on stage.

Back to words. To me now, putting aside phantom words like "Knowledge",  the word "experience" does not adequately describe to me  what is going on in the practice of the four techniques. What the techs offered me is best understood to me now by the word "sensation". Meditation was a sensation more than an experience.

Sensation is child like, you simply stare, if your senses are open, you get what is coming at you;  on the contrary "to experience" has a potential to be more fully conscious, a potential that is not contained in the word sensation.  And to me that means having a thinkable about, conceptually satisfying experience. What I supply and what is coming at me are worked together and become congruent and satisfyingly meaningful. (or not)

The techs didnt really help in this respect. They simply extended my sense experience, my sensation, into a hitherto unemphasised realm of staring. As such they added nothing to my understanding; as a meditater on the 4 techs I simply sensed inner objects as well as outer ones. So where was the knowing? There really wasn't any, there was just a novel sensation. It was alleged to be trancendental, but that is another matter.

Sensing and knowing something is a well examined and differentiated separation in discussions on  human cognitional experience. Premies could refer to such discussions if they really wanted to know, as their mighty word "Knowledge" implies they do, but it is very clear they don't. Thats fine but..

 Instead  they (as I did) prefer to throw around the all embracing "experience" word and assume a totally one sided subjectivist slant on it. Very convenient, but remember premies, doing so also a signals in dialogue:  " Don't push me. I am at my limits" Polite conversation stops there, unless one of the parties is a cult deprgrammer or rehab counsellor!.)

As for Rawat's  "Its a feeling" promise;  by his own admission he doesn't promote thinking, he prioritises feeling. Fine. Rawat is honest in declaring he emphasises a feeling but I don't think he is fully informed on the matter.  Thats why I moved on.

Oh I know he can fly a jet, drive a computer etc, and this it is a convenient fact for the devotee/aspirant who wants to stay sleepy and conclude that he is listening to a man who  has consciously embraced and then rejected thinking forms of cognition for the"real" feeling approach.

There is nothing about Rawat, his discourse, his example or his message that remotely suggests he has come anywhere near to comprehending  the sum of what is involved in the word thinking. As I say, it was for that glaring ommission in human cognition in him that I moved on. His appeal is bluntly naive, emotional and fostering of self-anashesia. Simple facts of the cognitional process are complete no-go areas to him. For me the mental wake up of getting away from the repeated "feeling is primary " approach was fantastic. For example at one point this idea occured to me:

"Surely it is only through thinking about it that I know that this that is happening to me is a feeling. So thinking has a more primary role in my cognitional life than I am being led to believe" Hmmm. It was a key point of analysis. To me thinking turned out to be self supporting; feeling was always conitioned. I think that is Rawat's way in to you. You have to do your thinking for yourself. Your feelings arrive from a source you can doubt, its always an open door.

!

So back to the to the sensations of the 4 techniques and the feelings that come with them: It became clear that it was only if I could penetrate with my self-active, conscious thinking into this new mix of feeling and inner sensation , just as I do in my ordinary outer sense world , that I was going to have any clue about what was happening to me with K..

Rawat himself, the so called master never even began to hit the matter at this level. I was waiting all the time for him to say something on the matter. So in the end I dumped him.

So infact, far from bringing me knowledge this Knowledge had doubled my ignorance and overloaded me with nothing more than a glimpse of another unprocessed world of sensation. And of course a transcendental ideology exactly the same as any other religion.

God I've waffled on. Jai satchitanand brothers and sisters.Thank you for listning. Can we have a song now Nourri. (leeds 1975)

Love to all

Bryn