![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Rumiton you have removed a paragraph from teachings. Now it goes straight from Rawat being a teenager to the Keys in 2005. I think the missing paragraph is important and if anything the period betweeen 1976 and 2005 should be expanded on. Momento 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
All the sources are listed Andries and they don't include Cagan. It would be controversial to cherry pick items of Rawat's teachings which is why I kept it broad and non-specific.The sources are Hunt, Melton, Miller, Downton and Chryssides. Momento 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
With regards to undue weight, there is too little weight that Rawat claimed to be God. There are three sources for that (Hummel, Kranenborg, and Melton) Melton very clear writings about this is not so clear in the article. That should be improved too. Andries 00:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Good morning. I'm not suggesting a quote war at all and I don't think that it's possible to use Rawat's own quotes in the Teachings section because no concensus would be reached here about such quotes. I was hoping that you all would get that I was being rhetorical in my posts above and in my question, "What exactly is it that Prem Rawat teaches?" I was trying to demonstrate that the section doesn't illuminate the reader about what Rawat actually does. I know what Rawat teaches, but my point is that quoting sources which describe the fact he has teachings isn't conveying to the reader what it is that Rawat teaches. That said, I think the Teachings section should be removed because there isn't any up-to-date source that describes his teachings. The paragraphs contained within the section can be incorporated elsewhere in the article. Sylviecyn 12:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Good evening (as if the time of day is in any way relevant here but for game playing). The crux of Prem Rawat's teaching is four simple techniques of meditation. Find a suitable quotable source of that information and be done with it. What others make of those simple techniques is neither her nor there. That is the crux of his teaching. VivK 13:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That is a solid idea M. Unfortunately it takes us back to the removal of those damn 'trappings'again! VivK 02:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Andries, if starting a user page called Andries/Teachings of Prem Rawat is another attempt to circumvent the ethical standards of a Biography of a Living Person then it is not going to work, and it will reflect even more badly on you than your previous attempts to do so. Rumiton 12:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello again (albeit briefly by neccessity). A lot of the above comments from premies about Prem Rawats teachings seem to again demonstrate difficulty in broaching this simple subject squarely. All this talk of how he now speaks of some ‘simple’ thing is hardly adequate description of his teachings. Of course Rawat attracts people initially through public talks where he speaks in these simple 'inspiring' terms. However people who express further interest are encouraged to complete a rather lengthy program called 'The Keys'. This is how they learn more of his teachings and also, importantly, commit themselves to the process of becoming his student. This process is absolutely tangible and could be well described but is of course the priviliged revelation of those who subscribe to ‘The Keys’ not people who read Wikipedia. Wikipedians should not be timid about describing these teachings and need not disempower Rawat by giving away his secrets. Suffice it to say that there are some.
For a start you should decribe Rawat’s teachings, as scholars have done, in historical context. Even Rawat scholar Ron Geaves will have undoubtedly reported how young Rawat initially carried on the teachings of his father (which were indeed full of 'Indian cosmology'). Then plenty of sources report how Rawat gradually morphed his father’s teachings into three essential practices for followers which were collectively referred to as 'The Knowledge'. I.e. 'Satsang, Service and Meditation.' (Remember the essential 3 legged stool). Also he taught that he himself (as the Master) was the indispensible forth ingredient in all this and that premies should see him whenever possible (for what he still referred to as 'Darshan'). It was that simple.
No one can deny that the tone of his teaching has changed over the years. I would encourage you to describe this using the sources you have. No doubt you guys are more familiar than I with his current teachings, just as I dare say I am more familiar with his past teachings than some of you. So report that he currently teaches ‘Knowledge' via the ‘Keys’ and that the final outcome of the ‘Keys’ is the disclosure of very particular meditation techniques that are to be kept private.
How far you are prepared to describe those techniques is debatable I suppose. I personally dislike the vows and secrecy around the techniques of Knowledge as I think it all it does is preserve some sort of ‘empowering spell’ over people. All the same, it should surely, at the very least, be reported here that there are elements of Rawats teachings that require secrecy. (like Masonic practices if you will). So please don’t nit-pick over what Rawat’s teachings are. It is plain. He teaches ‘practices’ which his students/followers/premies (whatever your current acceptable adjective is) do. And there are loads of good resources to refer to. PatW 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't 'want to say' anything.. It's obvious what his teachings were and are, and what should be said. There's plenty of support in published material for this. You apparently just aren't looking very hard. Look at Sophie Collier's 'The Odyssey of a Young Woman in the 70s' for example. All the other books, Downton etc. surely describe these things too. There is tons of info out there. Also Rawat's official Keys Website itself (as linked from the article) describes how the final phase of the programme involves being shown the techniques of meditation etc. It seems to me that your emotional involvement is possibly blinding you. After a break from this article and a brief read and look at Collier, it seems that you have somehow so effectively tied yourselves up with 'Wikipedia red-tape' and indecision over what Rawat's teachings actually were/are, that you cannot move. I am sure it would be an easy task for anyone to write a sensible sentence or two giving the correct gist of his teachings and where they came from, after reading from a few sources. Anyone, that is, other than someone stuck redefining the word 'teachings' and whether, as people describe them, they were actually DLM's teachings or Rawat's. It seems to me that premies actually do not want to find the 'scholarly reports' for some reason. Not everything has to be from some scholarly report anyway does it?
Would you argue the following is describing the Mahatma's teachings not Rawat's? Sure there are elements of his father's fire and brimstone approach - but is this not one example of good evidence that Satsang, Service and meditation were the fundamental teachings at that time? Of course Mahatma's put a personal spin on sometimes but these guys were his official initiators, acting on his authority to teach his teaching? Do you deny that?
After the mahatma had taught us all four techniques, he said that the reason for our positive experience was the connection of grace that was established between us, the disciples, and Maharaj Ji, the Guru, in this mystical initiation. We should not teach the meditation to anyone else, he cautioned. The people we taught would be spiritual bastards, initiates without gurus. And furthermore, he added, if we taught the meditation to anyone else, we would suffer too, if not in this life, in the hereafter. Undoubtedly we would be reincarnated as snakes, he said. To me this seemed like typical Hindu mumbo-jumbo. I felt that there was good reason to safeguard the first three techniques of meditation. They were more advanced and should be learned in a certain setting, like a Knowledge session, where everything could be properly explained and all questions answered. But I thought Indian threats were not a good way to protect them. Hellfire and brimstone, from whatever culture, just isn't that scary. The Divine Light Mission plan for God-realization did not consist of meditation alone. It had suggestions on how to approach every aspect of daily life. The first and most basic part of the prescription was meditation in doses of an hour in the morning, an hour at night. Then came service. Service was roughly equivalent to the Buddhist idea of "right livelihood." Any activity you did should be spiritually elevating. You should not engage in any employment you found immoral or that hampered your spiritual growth. Ideally, everything you did should be selfless. After service came satsang. This is a Hindi word that means "the company of truth," and it generally refers to conversation about the spiritual realization and experiences of the conversants. Satsang also is used to refer to meetings of groups of premies for the purpose of talking over spiritual subjects on a more formal basis. -----If Maharaj Ji wanted to run a little religion based on his father's teachings and he was able to find people to join, so what? That was his business, not mine. It all seemed so simple. etc. etc. (from Sophie Collier)
Here's another question. Who on earth would contest that Rawat's teaching were not Satsang, Service and Meditation? My point is that it is not a controversial point. You describe Rawat as a 'man' but you don't have a scholars report that he has been confirmed 'male'. Where do you draw the line? At an editor's whim?
Also you say: And if you read Shri Hans' book you will find almost exclusively references to Kabir and the Ramayana etc. which is like quoting Shakespeare or the Bible to English speakers. They are not "teachings," more like confirmations of the
Guru-Shishtra tradition.
I disagree. Rawat's father's book is perfectly representative of his beliefs and is presented as such. It reflects his teachings, preachings, whatever you care to call it. And to deny that fact by pointing out that Shri Hans librally quotes from other Hindu texts is absurd. These gurus all inherited their 'teachings' from previous ones and spent their lives trying to give them their own autonomy. Rawat is no different. His teachings are essentially the same only packaged differently and appended considerably for modern consumption. Shri Hans was not so shy about quoting from his Hindu influences. On Wikipedia you don't have to get all worried that your not giving the correct gist of Rawat's teachings according to your own beliefs and interpretation. What you should do is report the manner of those teachings in a way that normal people can understand. You seem to think that only 'students' can get the true gist so 'let's just avoid the issue'. Read what you wrote again. Shri Hans teachings WERE confirmations of the Guru tradition. And there's nothing at all wrong about saying so. Rawat's teachings also have the same roots. Go and read Radhasoami Reality or David Lane...they all confirm this. So does Ron Geaves if you look a bit closer to home. ( I ..er..edited this a bit as I was a bit annoyed earlier...sorry)
PatW
20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jossi. Yes, I agree. Regarding my 2 lengthy posts to Ruminton. I am genuinely regrettably too busy to engage fully here but I really wanted to explain to him how uneccessary it is for him to labour over the delusion that there is some difficulty in describing the past teachings. I will not elaborate further than I have below. I hope that what I have said may make things clearer and be helpful. Since I last looked the 'teachings' were removed. By whom? Presumably by the majority premies editing here, like brothers Ruminton and Momentius. Do I have the time to change the article right now? No. Common sense tells me therefore to write a quick post or 2 hopefully enlightning those who have made it their responsibility to trash the teachings section, on why that is silly. If I can't change the article I can at least try to change the hearts of those who do. I would like to think that is an acceptable reason to post as I have done. So please understand that if I have the chance to properly apply myself to editing later I will. Changing the world by changing hearts is all for now! (sound familiar?) PatW 11:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sylvie, I am feeling a bit grumpy at the moment. Just got a private message on YouTube from an anonymous ex-premie who claims to know me. Venomous. If you want to see a personal attack, I could quote from that. Anyway, my comments above were not intended to be attacking, they are just an expression of frustration at some very long posts appearing here (1000+ words) that have to be responded to, when all the material in them has already been covered in discussion several times. There is a limit to anyone's patience.
Jossi, I disagree with restoring the deleted Teachings section. I am not being wilfully obtuse. Teachings should not be a place to report on his activities, as it did, it should describe any previously unknown concepts or facts that he (or his father) has transmitted. If his audience already knows what he is saying then he is not teaching them anything. I find nothing like this in Hans Yog Prakesh, just obvious references to values that were already well accepted in Indian culture. Of course, there is always a point to be found, but it is left to the listener to decide what it is. The same with Prem Rawat. I have often heard him say "What I am telling you, you already know." That is what makes this Teachings subject difficult. Regarding sources, Reinhard Hummel picked up on this point strongly, and Hunt mentions it obliquely. Rumiton 02:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ruminton. I repeat there is no difficulty to describe Rawat's teachings except for those tied up with their own agendas about the subject as you most certainly appear to be judging by your words here.. Your personal opinion of what should be said is surely not in line with common sense or common practice. Any sensibly compiled article about a religious teacher will include some historical context to give the gist of where the persons ideas have come from or from what tradition he arises. My point is that Rawat is no exception. He has a past and his teachings clearly derive from them. You seem to be falling into the trap of 'revisionism' whereby you want to accord Rawat more uniqueness than he deserves by excluding describing the past teachings which you apparently think have nothing to do with Rawat. I sense you fear that including info about the Indian roots will detract from Rawat's new style and uniqueness. It's like a Beethoven fan who is so inspired by the maestros works that he wants to emphasise the uniqueness of that man's music above all others. Actually Beethoven, like anyone, had strong influences which no future historian would dream of omitting. Only a starry-eyed fan would be capable of proclaiming that Beethoven's music was entirely unique. We are all products of our culture. I wish you would read religious scholars like David Lane or Mark Jurgensmeyer who have studied and written much on these particular Indian traditions. They say that throughout history, many charismatic new religious leaders (or more particularly their followers) shy away from describing their teacher in terms of historical similarities. Why? because they want to emphasise their leaders 'uniqueness' his 'autonomy'. These teachings are 'His' not something more prosaically inherited or that anyone else could teach. It goes without saying that an encyclopedia should not include any of that kind of 'advertising' nonsense. I obviously hit a nerve with you in my last post which was sincere and not some kind of 'pseudo-intellectual rant' as you describe. Your trite dismissal is unwelcome. I don't care if this subject has been discussed at length before. I think you are still apparently are not clear on this matter so my bringing it up is not innappropriate.
Further to this, here is a perfectly good example of a legitimate scholarly source which comments on Prem Rawat's teachings. Why won't you use this? Because you disagree with what he says or the reasons I gave above I suppose. If so, that suggests a double-standard on your part.
'The teachings of the Divine Light Mission, led by the boy guru Maharaj-Ji, are essentially those of Radhasoami as well, and other spiritual leaders of the time were also influenced by Radhasoami teachings'
For a summary of Maharaj-Ji's teachings, see Jeanne Messer, "Guru Maharaj Ji and the Divine Light Mission' in Robert Bellah and Charles Glock, eds. 'The New Religious Consciousness (Berkeley: University of California Press 1976) pp 54-55. (from 'Radhasoami Reality, The logic of a modern faith' by Mark Jugensmeyer.
Did you know for example that Rawat's father according to David Lane (another well-respected scholar) was 'reportedly' actually initiated by Sawan Singh (of Rahasoami fame) prior to his meeting Sarup Anand? Sawan Singh was the top Radhasoami guru of the day. The Radhasoami teachings were essentially Satsang, Service (Seva) and Meditation (using almost exactly the same techniques), their motto was 'Work is Worship' which was also the 'DLM motto'. The Sant Mat tradition wherefrom Sarupanand came and which DLM preferred to associate Shri Hans with, and which indeed Rawat recently described on his website, has many close links both geographically and in practices and beliefs with Radhasoami.
What I am trying to impress upon you is that it is entirely innappropriate to brush under the carpet (as you manifestly want to do) the origins of Rawat's teachings, believing as you do, that they are somehow 'more unique', 'special' , 'important', 'relevant' etc. than those of his predeccessors. I get the impression you only want to draw attention to his current 'modus operandi' which you think is more palatable. It is very obvious to anyone impartial that that is disingenuos - intentionally misleading. I don't doubt your sincerity about wanting people to get a good impression of Rawat from Wikipedia, but really, you insult peoples intelligence by witholding interesting information which righly belongs in an encyclopedia. Did you know that David Lane has written extensively, criticising 'fake' guru's who try to claim 'uniqueness' by changing the teachings they learned from others slightly to apppear as if they are 'unique' and 'special to them' 'only obtainable from them' 'by their unique Grace' etc. and how they and their followers deny that their 'revered unique leader' learned anything from the past. This phenomenon itself is the subject of scholarly examination. Ie. The attempts by charismatic leaders to bolster their self-importance, and accentuate their exclusivity, by denying their roots or changing pre-existing teachings so they have the stamp of a unique leader whose teachings are his alone and invented and controlled by him. All you are going to do by discouraging a full description of the roots of Rawat's teachings is to do him a huge disservice. We are living in more enlightened times. You can only be seen as complicit in a sad attempt to make Rawat seem more unique than he is by trying to restrict information about him. I wish you premies would wake up and see that by being so precious and emotional, you are actually doing Rawat a disservice. Let him be who he is - don't do exactly what you accuse past premies of doing, imposing your ideas on how to present the teachings - putting him on a bigger pedestal than he deserves so he can only be later knocked off. I sense huge dysfunction in premiedom as a result of all this. Also I personally sense that many (not all premies) have huge resentment to premies who deviate from the party-line attitude to Rawat (like me for instance). I encourage a scholarly report here on Rawat's teachings not so as to detract from him but a service to truth. If that diminishes some 'religiously held beliefs' about him so much the better for everyone concerned. I'd encourage you to embrace a more broad-minded, courageous and realstic view of that which you hold so precious.
PatW
10:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
For goodness sake it's not that much to read and I've given a lot more substantial info about where to find sources about his teachings than you've contributed. As you well know, to find the proper sources and distill them into a sensible article will take considerable reading, so the least you might do is to carefully read a few instructive words from someone who knows a lot more than you about the subject. I am not goading you, I just refuse to beat about the bush with you over this. I've read all the above discussion and frankly, I'm astonished that you consider yourself qualified to edit this section at all. I'm sorry but if you think that the Indian Roots of Rawat's teachings don't deserve a mention in an encyclopaedic section about his teachings then you are wrong and should not mess with other's prior work so disrespectfully. Why don't you go read the books I've referred you to above? You still sound as if you believe the cultural background to his work bears no relevance to his teachings. Let me remind you that for decades Rawat has taught Meditation (still does), Satsang (still a part) and Service. What you need to describe fully is the way his teachings have changed AND where they come from. This subjective idea that his teachings are somehow so esoteric and personal you have some 'difficulty' describing them is utterly irrelevant. It should not be a sticking point. That sort of description is not relevant here. A much simpler prosaic, scholarly synopsis is required as Jossi and Momento actually seem to understand. So please stop counting my words and apply your precious time to understanding what I've already said. If as you say, you are only prepared to superficially scan discussions and criticisms of your editing approach here then no-one will take you seriously. Maybe you should respect that someone actually took the time to explain at length to you what is wrong. No more from me for a while I think. PatW 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The introduction makes the following claims:- "The Prem Rawat Foundation, established in 2001, promotes his message in eighty-eight countries via print, video and television...." and "Between 1965 and July 2005 Prem Rawat spoke at 2,280 events around the world." I cannot find a source for either of these claims, and both seem to me unlikely to be true. The former implies TPRF is formerly incorporated or has official representation in 88 countries which I doubt, and the latter implies Rawat spoke at an average of 57 events a year for 40 years. Schedules previously published by Elan Vital for 2002 and 2003 show only 35 and 33 events respectively, and these were very active years for Rawat. In the 80s and 90s he was much less active, and in the late 70s he mainly spoke only at large international festivals of which there were only a handful a year. His attendance at speaking engagements as a child in India would be impossible to verify. Unless reputable sources can be found for these claims, I suggest the first is changed to something like "worldwide", and the second removed completely.-- John Brauns 23:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Nik Wright2 11:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If you care to look at the opening paragraph you'll see that "Hadden, Religions of the World, pp.428" is cited (3). Hadden says - "The meditation techniques the Maharaji teaches today are the same he learned from his father, Hans Ji Maharaj, who, in turn, learned them from his spiritual teacher [Sarupanand]." 'Knowledge', claims Maharaji, 'is a way to be able to take all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you...'. Momento 14:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Nik Wright2 09:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
One of many examples of what is wrong with your sandbox.
His speaking style was described as resembling a "Christian evangelical campaign."[11][12][13].
You say something in the sandbox, but miss context "in one satsang in 1975", and miss to present other viewpoints in the sources offered. That is called selective sourcing, and quoting out of context, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not see any out-of context quoting, selective sourcing or undue weight in User:Andries/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat. Of course, I am aware that some contributors will not like the article, but all is sourced to (often multiple) reliable sources. Please make objections while referring to wikipedia policies and do not dismmis reliable sources becuase you do not like/believe/agree with what they state. Andries 18:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
How come that the [Divine Light Mission]] disaappeared from the summary? The only reason why Rawat is notable is because he was the leader of the Divine Light mission. Andries 16:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you would explain what is wrong with this entry ? -- Nik Wright2 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Rumiton, DLM is an ancient irrelevance, and EV is a more modern irrelevance. As Geaves says "Maharaji has chosen a route of perpetual transformation in which organizational forms are created and utilized and then destroyed, thus providing flexibility to deal with rapidly changing social attitudes, to provide pragmatic solutions to internal problems, and above all to keep his students focused on the core message rather than the peripheral requirements of organizational forms". I"m happy with Nik Wright2's edit of the lede. Momento 10:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is there Zero on criticism when a simple google search will return plenty info on it? I just tagged it NPOV for the sake of accuracy Galf 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to editors who have gone to so much trouble in attempting to produce a reasonably balanced article within Wikipedia guidelines. I do not intend to edit the article, only to offer 3 suggestions that I hope editors will take seriously and consider.
1. Nine of the 15 lines in the introduction are taken up with information about the 1970s up to around 1980. Isn't this unbalanced given Mr Rawat's 36 year history in the west? Only 2 lines contain information about his current activities. The introduction provides almost no information about the 10 year period leading up to the present during which he has been very active.
2. The intro states, "and abandoned the traditional Indian religious trappings from which the techniques originated." Did the techniques originate in Indian trappings? The statement appears to be factually incorrect. Unless a number of reliable sources make the same claim I suggest that it be regarded as an extraordinary claim (I think that is the correct term) and deleted. It greatly detracts from the article.
3. Editors may favor chronological order, however, given the level of Mr Rawat's current activity and the enormous increase in interest in his message worldwide, perhaps the article would have more appeal if more focus was given to the last 10 years or so. I found the Recent years section most interesting. How about moving it to just below the introduction?-- Maximango 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In the 'Coming of Age' section, it is claimed that Rawat "encouraged students to leave the ashrams". What is the source for this? Apart from the sudden and brutal closing of the ashrams in the early 80s, I recall at no time did Rawat encourage his followers to leave the ashrams. -- John Brauns 16:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think the most 'correct' thing would be to somehow explain that students were universally called 'premies' until the 1980's when such Indian terms and customs were being gradually phased out. Also in the 90's Rawat, who had been known up until then by his title 'Maharaji' or 'Guru Maharaji'), started to favour being called by his surname 'Rawat' ( I would presume for the same reasons). Of course these facts are supported by all of the legitimate resources, scholarly reports etc. as is reflected by their dates of publication. Although the transition may not have been described in any one particularly succinct way, all these publications talk of 'premies' and 'Guru Maharaj Ji' prior to the 80's/90's and later books, like "Peace is possible' adopt the modern equivalents. I think it is a worthy concern that readers, who maybe familiar with one or other terms, may be confused unless there is some clarification. Many people will remember 'Guru Maharaji' or 'Premies' but may not make the connection with 'Rawat' or 'students'.
Whilst 'enthusiast' may have a literal meaning which strikes a chord with Ruminton, it's certainly not in common circulation quite yet. Maybe because that word has come to have a rather 'hobbyist' connotation in these heathen times!
PatW
16:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the article, and related articles, is that it is little more than propaganda for what has been a destructive religious cult. The so-called "knowledge" is, by itself, dangerous and harmful, particularly if the "music" "meditation" is practiced on one side, as taught in the 1973 era and if the "word" "meditation" is practiced during all waking hours as taught in the 1973 Knowledge Sessions.
Practitioners, generally, have no sense of humor left anymore. Bal Bhagwan Ji has a trim figure. The other brothers are all so fat and ugly that they make even their mama look good.
Wowest 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
As there was no criticism in this article, despite Criticism of Prem Rawat redirecting here, I have boldy readded criticism from an older version of the article, to restore some balance to the article. Catchpole 08:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's very rude to a) slap on a POV tag because the article doesn't represent your POV and b) to do it again, without discussion, when a long time editor points out the obvious. Momento 11:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
(diff) (hist) . . Prem Rawat; 12:57 . . (-10) . . Rumiton (Talk | contribs) (→Leaving India - Removed "in public." Nobody knows how he acted in private.)
Of course "nobody knows how he acted in private," but if he acted like a teenager in public, the fact that it was public is significant. I think you should have left "in public" as it was, for the same reason you gave for deleting it -- that nobody knows how he acted in private -- but I'm not going to undo it myself. Wowest 07:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Got a bit carried away and found a new photo. What do you think? Momento 10:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |retrieved=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Rumiton you have removed a paragraph from teachings. Now it goes straight from Rawat being a teenager to the Keys in 2005. I think the missing paragraph is important and if anything the period betweeen 1976 and 2005 should be expanded on. Momento 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
All the sources are listed Andries and they don't include Cagan. It would be controversial to cherry pick items of Rawat's teachings which is why I kept it broad and non-specific.The sources are Hunt, Melton, Miller, Downton and Chryssides. Momento 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
With regards to undue weight, there is too little weight that Rawat claimed to be God. There are three sources for that (Hummel, Kranenborg, and Melton) Melton very clear writings about this is not so clear in the article. That should be improved too. Andries 00:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Good morning. I'm not suggesting a quote war at all and I don't think that it's possible to use Rawat's own quotes in the Teachings section because no concensus would be reached here about such quotes. I was hoping that you all would get that I was being rhetorical in my posts above and in my question, "What exactly is it that Prem Rawat teaches?" I was trying to demonstrate that the section doesn't illuminate the reader about what Rawat actually does. I know what Rawat teaches, but my point is that quoting sources which describe the fact he has teachings isn't conveying to the reader what it is that Rawat teaches. That said, I think the Teachings section should be removed because there isn't any up-to-date source that describes his teachings. The paragraphs contained within the section can be incorporated elsewhere in the article. Sylviecyn 12:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Good evening (as if the time of day is in any way relevant here but for game playing). The crux of Prem Rawat's teaching is four simple techniques of meditation. Find a suitable quotable source of that information and be done with it. What others make of those simple techniques is neither her nor there. That is the crux of his teaching. VivK 13:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That is a solid idea M. Unfortunately it takes us back to the removal of those damn 'trappings'again! VivK 02:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Andries, if starting a user page called Andries/Teachings of Prem Rawat is another attempt to circumvent the ethical standards of a Biography of a Living Person then it is not going to work, and it will reflect even more badly on you than your previous attempts to do so. Rumiton 12:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello again (albeit briefly by neccessity). A lot of the above comments from premies about Prem Rawats teachings seem to again demonstrate difficulty in broaching this simple subject squarely. All this talk of how he now speaks of some ‘simple’ thing is hardly adequate description of his teachings. Of course Rawat attracts people initially through public talks where he speaks in these simple 'inspiring' terms. However people who express further interest are encouraged to complete a rather lengthy program called 'The Keys'. This is how they learn more of his teachings and also, importantly, commit themselves to the process of becoming his student. This process is absolutely tangible and could be well described but is of course the priviliged revelation of those who subscribe to ‘The Keys’ not people who read Wikipedia. Wikipedians should not be timid about describing these teachings and need not disempower Rawat by giving away his secrets. Suffice it to say that there are some.
For a start you should decribe Rawat’s teachings, as scholars have done, in historical context. Even Rawat scholar Ron Geaves will have undoubtedly reported how young Rawat initially carried on the teachings of his father (which were indeed full of 'Indian cosmology'). Then plenty of sources report how Rawat gradually morphed his father’s teachings into three essential practices for followers which were collectively referred to as 'The Knowledge'. I.e. 'Satsang, Service and Meditation.' (Remember the essential 3 legged stool). Also he taught that he himself (as the Master) was the indispensible forth ingredient in all this and that premies should see him whenever possible (for what he still referred to as 'Darshan'). It was that simple.
No one can deny that the tone of his teaching has changed over the years. I would encourage you to describe this using the sources you have. No doubt you guys are more familiar than I with his current teachings, just as I dare say I am more familiar with his past teachings than some of you. So report that he currently teaches ‘Knowledge' via the ‘Keys’ and that the final outcome of the ‘Keys’ is the disclosure of very particular meditation techniques that are to be kept private.
How far you are prepared to describe those techniques is debatable I suppose. I personally dislike the vows and secrecy around the techniques of Knowledge as I think it all it does is preserve some sort of ‘empowering spell’ over people. All the same, it should surely, at the very least, be reported here that there are elements of Rawats teachings that require secrecy. (like Masonic practices if you will). So please don’t nit-pick over what Rawat’s teachings are. It is plain. He teaches ‘practices’ which his students/followers/premies (whatever your current acceptable adjective is) do. And there are loads of good resources to refer to. PatW 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't 'want to say' anything.. It's obvious what his teachings were and are, and what should be said. There's plenty of support in published material for this. You apparently just aren't looking very hard. Look at Sophie Collier's 'The Odyssey of a Young Woman in the 70s' for example. All the other books, Downton etc. surely describe these things too. There is tons of info out there. Also Rawat's official Keys Website itself (as linked from the article) describes how the final phase of the programme involves being shown the techniques of meditation etc. It seems to me that your emotional involvement is possibly blinding you. After a break from this article and a brief read and look at Collier, it seems that you have somehow so effectively tied yourselves up with 'Wikipedia red-tape' and indecision over what Rawat's teachings actually were/are, that you cannot move. I am sure it would be an easy task for anyone to write a sensible sentence or two giving the correct gist of his teachings and where they came from, after reading from a few sources. Anyone, that is, other than someone stuck redefining the word 'teachings' and whether, as people describe them, they were actually DLM's teachings or Rawat's. It seems to me that premies actually do not want to find the 'scholarly reports' for some reason. Not everything has to be from some scholarly report anyway does it?
Would you argue the following is describing the Mahatma's teachings not Rawat's? Sure there are elements of his father's fire and brimstone approach - but is this not one example of good evidence that Satsang, Service and meditation were the fundamental teachings at that time? Of course Mahatma's put a personal spin on sometimes but these guys were his official initiators, acting on his authority to teach his teaching? Do you deny that?
After the mahatma had taught us all four techniques, he said that the reason for our positive experience was the connection of grace that was established between us, the disciples, and Maharaj Ji, the Guru, in this mystical initiation. We should not teach the meditation to anyone else, he cautioned. The people we taught would be spiritual bastards, initiates without gurus. And furthermore, he added, if we taught the meditation to anyone else, we would suffer too, if not in this life, in the hereafter. Undoubtedly we would be reincarnated as snakes, he said. To me this seemed like typical Hindu mumbo-jumbo. I felt that there was good reason to safeguard the first three techniques of meditation. They were more advanced and should be learned in a certain setting, like a Knowledge session, where everything could be properly explained and all questions answered. But I thought Indian threats were not a good way to protect them. Hellfire and brimstone, from whatever culture, just isn't that scary. The Divine Light Mission plan for God-realization did not consist of meditation alone. It had suggestions on how to approach every aspect of daily life. The first and most basic part of the prescription was meditation in doses of an hour in the morning, an hour at night. Then came service. Service was roughly equivalent to the Buddhist idea of "right livelihood." Any activity you did should be spiritually elevating. You should not engage in any employment you found immoral or that hampered your spiritual growth. Ideally, everything you did should be selfless. After service came satsang. This is a Hindi word that means "the company of truth," and it generally refers to conversation about the spiritual realization and experiences of the conversants. Satsang also is used to refer to meetings of groups of premies for the purpose of talking over spiritual subjects on a more formal basis. -----If Maharaj Ji wanted to run a little religion based on his father's teachings and he was able to find people to join, so what? That was his business, not mine. It all seemed so simple. etc. etc. (from Sophie Collier)
Here's another question. Who on earth would contest that Rawat's teaching were not Satsang, Service and Meditation? My point is that it is not a controversial point. You describe Rawat as a 'man' but you don't have a scholars report that he has been confirmed 'male'. Where do you draw the line? At an editor's whim?
Also you say: And if you read Shri Hans' book you will find almost exclusively references to Kabir and the Ramayana etc. which is like quoting Shakespeare or the Bible to English speakers. They are not "teachings," more like confirmations of the
Guru-Shishtra tradition.
I disagree. Rawat's father's book is perfectly representative of his beliefs and is presented as such. It reflects his teachings, preachings, whatever you care to call it. And to deny that fact by pointing out that Shri Hans librally quotes from other Hindu texts is absurd. These gurus all inherited their 'teachings' from previous ones and spent their lives trying to give them their own autonomy. Rawat is no different. His teachings are essentially the same only packaged differently and appended considerably for modern consumption. Shri Hans was not so shy about quoting from his Hindu influences. On Wikipedia you don't have to get all worried that your not giving the correct gist of Rawat's teachings according to your own beliefs and interpretation. What you should do is report the manner of those teachings in a way that normal people can understand. You seem to think that only 'students' can get the true gist so 'let's just avoid the issue'. Read what you wrote again. Shri Hans teachings WERE confirmations of the Guru tradition. And there's nothing at all wrong about saying so. Rawat's teachings also have the same roots. Go and read Radhasoami Reality or David Lane...they all confirm this. So does Ron Geaves if you look a bit closer to home. ( I ..er..edited this a bit as I was a bit annoyed earlier...sorry)
PatW
20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jossi. Yes, I agree. Regarding my 2 lengthy posts to Ruminton. I am genuinely regrettably too busy to engage fully here but I really wanted to explain to him how uneccessary it is for him to labour over the delusion that there is some difficulty in describing the past teachings. I will not elaborate further than I have below. I hope that what I have said may make things clearer and be helpful. Since I last looked the 'teachings' were removed. By whom? Presumably by the majority premies editing here, like brothers Ruminton and Momentius. Do I have the time to change the article right now? No. Common sense tells me therefore to write a quick post or 2 hopefully enlightning those who have made it their responsibility to trash the teachings section, on why that is silly. If I can't change the article I can at least try to change the hearts of those who do. I would like to think that is an acceptable reason to post as I have done. So please understand that if I have the chance to properly apply myself to editing later I will. Changing the world by changing hearts is all for now! (sound familiar?) PatW 11:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sylvie, I am feeling a bit grumpy at the moment. Just got a private message on YouTube from an anonymous ex-premie who claims to know me. Venomous. If you want to see a personal attack, I could quote from that. Anyway, my comments above were not intended to be attacking, they are just an expression of frustration at some very long posts appearing here (1000+ words) that have to be responded to, when all the material in them has already been covered in discussion several times. There is a limit to anyone's patience.
Jossi, I disagree with restoring the deleted Teachings section. I am not being wilfully obtuse. Teachings should not be a place to report on his activities, as it did, it should describe any previously unknown concepts or facts that he (or his father) has transmitted. If his audience already knows what he is saying then he is not teaching them anything. I find nothing like this in Hans Yog Prakesh, just obvious references to values that were already well accepted in Indian culture. Of course, there is always a point to be found, but it is left to the listener to decide what it is. The same with Prem Rawat. I have often heard him say "What I am telling you, you already know." That is what makes this Teachings subject difficult. Regarding sources, Reinhard Hummel picked up on this point strongly, and Hunt mentions it obliquely. Rumiton 02:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ruminton. I repeat there is no difficulty to describe Rawat's teachings except for those tied up with their own agendas about the subject as you most certainly appear to be judging by your words here.. Your personal opinion of what should be said is surely not in line with common sense or common practice. Any sensibly compiled article about a religious teacher will include some historical context to give the gist of where the persons ideas have come from or from what tradition he arises. My point is that Rawat is no exception. He has a past and his teachings clearly derive from them. You seem to be falling into the trap of 'revisionism' whereby you want to accord Rawat more uniqueness than he deserves by excluding describing the past teachings which you apparently think have nothing to do with Rawat. I sense you fear that including info about the Indian roots will detract from Rawat's new style and uniqueness. It's like a Beethoven fan who is so inspired by the maestros works that he wants to emphasise the uniqueness of that man's music above all others. Actually Beethoven, like anyone, had strong influences which no future historian would dream of omitting. Only a starry-eyed fan would be capable of proclaiming that Beethoven's music was entirely unique. We are all products of our culture. I wish you would read religious scholars like David Lane or Mark Jurgensmeyer who have studied and written much on these particular Indian traditions. They say that throughout history, many charismatic new religious leaders (or more particularly their followers) shy away from describing their teacher in terms of historical similarities. Why? because they want to emphasise their leaders 'uniqueness' his 'autonomy'. These teachings are 'His' not something more prosaically inherited or that anyone else could teach. It goes without saying that an encyclopedia should not include any of that kind of 'advertising' nonsense. I obviously hit a nerve with you in my last post which was sincere and not some kind of 'pseudo-intellectual rant' as you describe. Your trite dismissal is unwelcome. I don't care if this subject has been discussed at length before. I think you are still apparently are not clear on this matter so my bringing it up is not innappropriate.
Further to this, here is a perfectly good example of a legitimate scholarly source which comments on Prem Rawat's teachings. Why won't you use this? Because you disagree with what he says or the reasons I gave above I suppose. If so, that suggests a double-standard on your part.
'The teachings of the Divine Light Mission, led by the boy guru Maharaj-Ji, are essentially those of Radhasoami as well, and other spiritual leaders of the time were also influenced by Radhasoami teachings'
For a summary of Maharaj-Ji's teachings, see Jeanne Messer, "Guru Maharaj Ji and the Divine Light Mission' in Robert Bellah and Charles Glock, eds. 'The New Religious Consciousness (Berkeley: University of California Press 1976) pp 54-55. (from 'Radhasoami Reality, The logic of a modern faith' by Mark Jugensmeyer.
Did you know for example that Rawat's father according to David Lane (another well-respected scholar) was 'reportedly' actually initiated by Sawan Singh (of Rahasoami fame) prior to his meeting Sarup Anand? Sawan Singh was the top Radhasoami guru of the day. The Radhasoami teachings were essentially Satsang, Service (Seva) and Meditation (using almost exactly the same techniques), their motto was 'Work is Worship' which was also the 'DLM motto'. The Sant Mat tradition wherefrom Sarupanand came and which DLM preferred to associate Shri Hans with, and which indeed Rawat recently described on his website, has many close links both geographically and in practices and beliefs with Radhasoami.
What I am trying to impress upon you is that it is entirely innappropriate to brush under the carpet (as you manifestly want to do) the origins of Rawat's teachings, believing as you do, that they are somehow 'more unique', 'special' , 'important', 'relevant' etc. than those of his predeccessors. I get the impression you only want to draw attention to his current 'modus operandi' which you think is more palatable. It is very obvious to anyone impartial that that is disingenuos - intentionally misleading. I don't doubt your sincerity about wanting people to get a good impression of Rawat from Wikipedia, but really, you insult peoples intelligence by witholding interesting information which righly belongs in an encyclopedia. Did you know that David Lane has written extensively, criticising 'fake' guru's who try to claim 'uniqueness' by changing the teachings they learned from others slightly to apppear as if they are 'unique' and 'special to them' 'only obtainable from them' 'by their unique Grace' etc. and how they and their followers deny that their 'revered unique leader' learned anything from the past. This phenomenon itself is the subject of scholarly examination. Ie. The attempts by charismatic leaders to bolster their self-importance, and accentuate their exclusivity, by denying their roots or changing pre-existing teachings so they have the stamp of a unique leader whose teachings are his alone and invented and controlled by him. All you are going to do by discouraging a full description of the roots of Rawat's teachings is to do him a huge disservice. We are living in more enlightened times. You can only be seen as complicit in a sad attempt to make Rawat seem more unique than he is by trying to restrict information about him. I wish you premies would wake up and see that by being so precious and emotional, you are actually doing Rawat a disservice. Let him be who he is - don't do exactly what you accuse past premies of doing, imposing your ideas on how to present the teachings - putting him on a bigger pedestal than he deserves so he can only be later knocked off. I sense huge dysfunction in premiedom as a result of all this. Also I personally sense that many (not all premies) have huge resentment to premies who deviate from the party-line attitude to Rawat (like me for instance). I encourage a scholarly report here on Rawat's teachings not so as to detract from him but a service to truth. If that diminishes some 'religiously held beliefs' about him so much the better for everyone concerned. I'd encourage you to embrace a more broad-minded, courageous and realstic view of that which you hold so precious.
PatW
10:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
For goodness sake it's not that much to read and I've given a lot more substantial info about where to find sources about his teachings than you've contributed. As you well know, to find the proper sources and distill them into a sensible article will take considerable reading, so the least you might do is to carefully read a few instructive words from someone who knows a lot more than you about the subject. I am not goading you, I just refuse to beat about the bush with you over this. I've read all the above discussion and frankly, I'm astonished that you consider yourself qualified to edit this section at all. I'm sorry but if you think that the Indian Roots of Rawat's teachings don't deserve a mention in an encyclopaedic section about his teachings then you are wrong and should not mess with other's prior work so disrespectfully. Why don't you go read the books I've referred you to above? You still sound as if you believe the cultural background to his work bears no relevance to his teachings. Let me remind you that for decades Rawat has taught Meditation (still does), Satsang (still a part) and Service. What you need to describe fully is the way his teachings have changed AND where they come from. This subjective idea that his teachings are somehow so esoteric and personal you have some 'difficulty' describing them is utterly irrelevant. It should not be a sticking point. That sort of description is not relevant here. A much simpler prosaic, scholarly synopsis is required as Jossi and Momento actually seem to understand. So please stop counting my words and apply your precious time to understanding what I've already said. If as you say, you are only prepared to superficially scan discussions and criticisms of your editing approach here then no-one will take you seriously. Maybe you should respect that someone actually took the time to explain at length to you what is wrong. No more from me for a while I think. PatW 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The introduction makes the following claims:- "The Prem Rawat Foundation, established in 2001, promotes his message in eighty-eight countries via print, video and television...." and "Between 1965 and July 2005 Prem Rawat spoke at 2,280 events around the world." I cannot find a source for either of these claims, and both seem to me unlikely to be true. The former implies TPRF is formerly incorporated or has official representation in 88 countries which I doubt, and the latter implies Rawat spoke at an average of 57 events a year for 40 years. Schedules previously published by Elan Vital for 2002 and 2003 show only 35 and 33 events respectively, and these were very active years for Rawat. In the 80s and 90s he was much less active, and in the late 70s he mainly spoke only at large international festivals of which there were only a handful a year. His attendance at speaking engagements as a child in India would be impossible to verify. Unless reputable sources can be found for these claims, I suggest the first is changed to something like "worldwide", and the second removed completely.-- John Brauns 23:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Nik Wright2 11:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If you care to look at the opening paragraph you'll see that "Hadden, Religions of the World, pp.428" is cited (3). Hadden says - "The meditation techniques the Maharaji teaches today are the same he learned from his father, Hans Ji Maharaj, who, in turn, learned them from his spiritual teacher [Sarupanand]." 'Knowledge', claims Maharaji, 'is a way to be able to take all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you...'. Momento 14:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Nik Wright2 09:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
One of many examples of what is wrong with your sandbox.
His speaking style was described as resembling a "Christian evangelical campaign."[11][12][13].
You say something in the sandbox, but miss context "in one satsang in 1975", and miss to present other viewpoints in the sources offered. That is called selective sourcing, and quoting out of context, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not see any out-of context quoting, selective sourcing or undue weight in User:Andries/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat. Of course, I am aware that some contributors will not like the article, but all is sourced to (often multiple) reliable sources. Please make objections while referring to wikipedia policies and do not dismmis reliable sources becuase you do not like/believe/agree with what they state. Andries 18:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
How come that the [Divine Light Mission]] disaappeared from the summary? The only reason why Rawat is notable is because he was the leader of the Divine Light mission. Andries 16:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you would explain what is wrong with this entry ? -- Nik Wright2 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Rumiton, DLM is an ancient irrelevance, and EV is a more modern irrelevance. As Geaves says "Maharaji has chosen a route of perpetual transformation in which organizational forms are created and utilized and then destroyed, thus providing flexibility to deal with rapidly changing social attitudes, to provide pragmatic solutions to internal problems, and above all to keep his students focused on the core message rather than the peripheral requirements of organizational forms". I"m happy with Nik Wright2's edit of the lede. Momento 10:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is there Zero on criticism when a simple google search will return plenty info on it? I just tagged it NPOV for the sake of accuracy Galf 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to editors who have gone to so much trouble in attempting to produce a reasonably balanced article within Wikipedia guidelines. I do not intend to edit the article, only to offer 3 suggestions that I hope editors will take seriously and consider.
1. Nine of the 15 lines in the introduction are taken up with information about the 1970s up to around 1980. Isn't this unbalanced given Mr Rawat's 36 year history in the west? Only 2 lines contain information about his current activities. The introduction provides almost no information about the 10 year period leading up to the present during which he has been very active.
2. The intro states, "and abandoned the traditional Indian religious trappings from which the techniques originated." Did the techniques originate in Indian trappings? The statement appears to be factually incorrect. Unless a number of reliable sources make the same claim I suggest that it be regarded as an extraordinary claim (I think that is the correct term) and deleted. It greatly detracts from the article.
3. Editors may favor chronological order, however, given the level of Mr Rawat's current activity and the enormous increase in interest in his message worldwide, perhaps the article would have more appeal if more focus was given to the last 10 years or so. I found the Recent years section most interesting. How about moving it to just below the introduction?-- Maximango 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In the 'Coming of Age' section, it is claimed that Rawat "encouraged students to leave the ashrams". What is the source for this? Apart from the sudden and brutal closing of the ashrams in the early 80s, I recall at no time did Rawat encourage his followers to leave the ashrams. -- John Brauns 16:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think the most 'correct' thing would be to somehow explain that students were universally called 'premies' until the 1980's when such Indian terms and customs were being gradually phased out. Also in the 90's Rawat, who had been known up until then by his title 'Maharaji' or 'Guru Maharaji'), started to favour being called by his surname 'Rawat' ( I would presume for the same reasons). Of course these facts are supported by all of the legitimate resources, scholarly reports etc. as is reflected by their dates of publication. Although the transition may not have been described in any one particularly succinct way, all these publications talk of 'premies' and 'Guru Maharaj Ji' prior to the 80's/90's and later books, like "Peace is possible' adopt the modern equivalents. I think it is a worthy concern that readers, who maybe familiar with one or other terms, may be confused unless there is some clarification. Many people will remember 'Guru Maharaji' or 'Premies' but may not make the connection with 'Rawat' or 'students'.
Whilst 'enthusiast' may have a literal meaning which strikes a chord with Ruminton, it's certainly not in common circulation quite yet. Maybe because that word has come to have a rather 'hobbyist' connotation in these heathen times!
PatW
16:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the article, and related articles, is that it is little more than propaganda for what has been a destructive religious cult. The so-called "knowledge" is, by itself, dangerous and harmful, particularly if the "music" "meditation" is practiced on one side, as taught in the 1973 era and if the "word" "meditation" is practiced during all waking hours as taught in the 1973 Knowledge Sessions.
Practitioners, generally, have no sense of humor left anymore. Bal Bhagwan Ji has a trim figure. The other brothers are all so fat and ugly that they make even their mama look good.
Wowest 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
As there was no criticism in this article, despite Criticism of Prem Rawat redirecting here, I have boldy readded criticism from an older version of the article, to restore some balance to the article. Catchpole 08:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's very rude to a) slap on a POV tag because the article doesn't represent your POV and b) to do it again, without discussion, when a long time editor points out the obvious. Momento 11:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
(diff) (hist) . . Prem Rawat; 12:57 . . (-10) . . Rumiton (Talk | contribs) (→Leaving India - Removed "in public." Nobody knows how he acted in private.)
Of course "nobody knows how he acted in private," but if he acted like a teenager in public, the fact that it was public is significant. I think you should have left "in public" as it was, for the same reason you gave for deleting it -- that nobody knows how he acted in private -- but I'm not going to undo it myself. Wowest 07:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Got a bit carried away and found a new photo. What do you think? Momento 10:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |retrieved=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)