![]() | 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Below an excerpt from an interview with Mishler (after his split from Rawat), who talks about the meaning of this Divinity and how Rawat presented himself. I think it may be useful for editors here to know, just for perspective.
Bob: When he first arrived, his message was that he knew the truth and that the truth was within each and every individual. He sometimes used to talk about that truth, whether you called it God or something else, as the perfect energy within each individual. He said that this was something he could reveal to everyone. That, in fact, was his purpose. He was called a perfect master because he had mastered something that was perfect; presumably this perfect energy inside us which was responsible for life. In revealing that to other people, he was revealing the only thing which could claim to be perfection, the primordial energy of the universe.
He would essentially ask people to come to him and ask for this knowledge, which would be freely given. The only thing that was required was the sincerity on the part of the individual asking. If you would ask sincerely, not just because you wanted to do it out of curiosity, but because you really wanted to know the truth about life, then he would have this knowledge revealed to you. Actually, he never really did any of the initiating himself; there was always one of his disciples to do that. These disciples at that time were called Mahatmas. In the beginning years, they were all Indians as well.
He billed himself as a humble servant of God who was essentially in charge with the responsibility of revealing this knowledge to people by his father who was his guru. At the same time, although there were some people who would say, well, he has to be a god himself in order to be able to reveal God, he would always deny this. He would say : "I make no claims of this sort at all. What I am revealing - it is not even as if I am giving you something - is something that is there inside you. It is there inside everyone. By recognising it, by having it revealed to you and then by meditating on it, you can attain the peace that comes through knowing the truth. Once you have found peace within yourself, this is the way towards ultimate world peace".
As you note, this is very far removed from the Christian concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing God.
Still working on that draft version ... it is quite difficult, because it is entwined with so many aspects of his biography. Jayen 466 15:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/soul_rush.htm#preface Of course you can also get this book out of the library.
She says this: "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, (in the Peace Bomb satsang I believe pw) 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.
Also this from Foss and Larkin 1978: 'Guru Maharaj Ji is aware of his preposterous image and skillfully manipulates it. To the general public it is the height of ridicule to believe that a "fat little rich kid" with a taste for a luxurious living and expensive gadgets - and who, on top of everything, married his secretary, a woman eight years older than himself - could be the Perfect Master; yet here is Guru Maharaj Ji using the very ludicrousness of that proposition to support his claim that he is, in fact, the Perfect Master: "I mean, it's like man is big surprise, you know, people talking about surprises, but I think Perfect Master is the biggest surprise. And people make a concept of a Perfect Master, he's going to be like this, no he's going to be like this, no he's going to be like this. And then he comes. He's completely different and as a matter of fact surprises the world so much, surprises everybody so much they don't think he is" (from satsang concluding Guru Puja 74, Amherst, Mass.)
Here are Rawat's father's own words from his published book 'Hans Yog Prakash' - relevant as Prem Rawat's teachings directly derived from his fathers :
My Guru is the incarnate Lord of this time. I bow before my Guru, who is greater than Christ or Buddha, for each of them was the servant of his Satguru.
The Lords of earth, sea and sky also bow before Guru Maharaj Ji.
The Lord God has said, "Know your Guru as Myself, the Lord." We should understand that Guru is the most powerful manifestation of the Lord. If we understand this, our minds will automatically turn to our Guru before we start to do anything.
Know that no one is superior to the Guru. If someone thinks the Guru is a human being, that is his misfortune. He is of dull intelligence like a bull without a tail. The entire world knows that Guru is greater than God.
Know that Guru is the Supreme Lord. We should accept all that He says without judgement, and should offer Him whatever nice thing comes our way. The power of Guru is so fantastic that whatever we offer comes back to us a thousand fold.
Remember at all times to carry the Lotus Feet of the Lord in your heart. Realise that God and Guru are one and the same! do not doubt this fact. God is pleased if Guru is pleased, and if Guru is unhappy, God will be also. I am simply telling you.
He who gives us the lamp of true Knowledge is Satguru, He is God incarnate. If someone took Him to be an ordinary human being, his ignorance would make his whole life fruitless.
If Lord Shiva (the Destroyer) becomes angry with you, Guru can save you. But there is no one who can help you, if Guru be comes angry.
One should never go against his Guru, for Guru is both father and mother.
The saints say one should always sit below one's Guru. One should wake before one's Guru, and retire after Him. This is most important for a devotee.
One should not address Guru Maharaj Ji while lying down, eating, standing far away, or facing away from Him. One should never interrupt His conversation.
When receiving the Guru's command, one should always stand humbly before Him, to show Him respect. One should never call the Guru by His name to His face. '
Guru and Lord are one; all else is duality. When someone worships the Guru, and dissolves himself in love and service, he can find the Lord.
He who thinks Guru Maharaj Ji is a human being is blind. He will remain very unhappy in this world, and death will not relieve him of his sufferings.
When receiving the Guru's command, one should always stand humbly before Him, to show Him respect. One should never call the Guru by His name to His face. '
Here are some quotes from Prem Rawat himself:
Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ......
"Jesus gave us this Knowledge, Krishna gave us this Knowledge, but now we must look again for a new Master to show us the light. The sun comes and goes away but we don't look for the light of day which has just gone. We look for the new rising sun. The sun is there, but it rises in a new beautiful way, and we look for that. In the same way, God is the same, but now we look for him to come, in a new way, to give this Knowledge." (from book "Who is Guru Maharaji")
"There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge. But history is a pendulum which is always in swing. There have been so many scriptures, but still people have never been able to understand Him." ('And It Is Divine)
And if there has to be devotee, he has to be in a physical form. A devotee has to devote something. Have you understood now ? To devote something, he has to be in a physical form. And where is it possible for him to be in physical form ? On the earth. And with whom can he be in the physical form ? With the Lord, who is in His physical form ! He has to be with the Physical Lord who has come into this physical world with a Physical Body. Understood. (from Guru Maharaj Ji - Essen, Germany - August 31, 1975)
In this lifetime, we have the opportunity to realize, to be with GURU MAHARAJ JI. Be it not GURU MAHARAJ JI - You know maybe they didn't call him GURU MAHARAJ JI - Maybe they called him Lord, anything to be with that power. To be with that thing. To be not infinite. And yet to be with the infinite. To be here as individuals. And yet to be able to be next to the person who is everything, GURU MAHARAJ JI. The Lord all powerful.....
(from Guru Maharaj Ji's satsang "Shower of Grace", Malibu, California, June 11, 1978.Printed in Divine Times, June/July, 1978, Volume 7, Number 4, Guru Puja Special.)
Question: Guru Maharaj Ji, what does it feel like to be Lord of the universe?
M: What should I tell you about it?
Question: Just what it's like.
M: What it's like? Nothing. Because you are not in yourself; somewhere else; one with someone else.
Question: How is it to be like a puppet?
M: You don't know.... Do you? When you become Lord of the Universe, you become a puppet, really! Nothing else; not 'you'. Not 'I', not 'you' no egos, no pride, nothing else. One with humbleness; servant. Very, very beautiful. Always in divine bliss. Creating your own environment - wherever you go, doesn't matter. Like my friends used to play and I used to sit right in the corner of my ground and meditate (laughter). She wants to change places with me! I wish I could change places with everyone, and give one hour of experience to everyone! But it's not possible.
(extract from an question and answer session given by Guru Maharaj Ji in Portland, Oregon, June 29, 1972. Printed in 'Elan Vital' magazine Volume II Issue 2, Summer 1978:)
PatW (
talk)
19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Call me simple minded, but to me it looks like this all adds up to "Prem Rawat has made conflicting statements about whether he is divine." And we should craft something (as Jayen is doing) that gives a fair range of the conflicting statements. Msalt ( talk) 20:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The battle of quotes again? The battle of quotes?
People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy.
— Central Hall, Westminster, London, UK, November 2, 1971
People ask, ‚"Do you say that you are God?‚" I say, ‚"No, I am not God. . . . . . . I don't want to be God.‚" But what I do want to be is a humble servant of God so that I can teach people this Knowledge, so that I can give people this gospel of peace, love and Truth. That' all I want to do. So all these lectures, all these speeches that I am giving are just for this purpose.
— Johannesburg, South Africa, 2 May, 1972
Reporter: I was told that probably the best question to ask you, out of sincerity, is: who are you?
Maharaj Ji: ... really I can't say who I am. But, though, there is a very basic thing, what I feel about myself. And that is that people have been claiming me as God or as Jesus or so on, and ah, many television people have been asking this question, and this is an interesting question of course. I thought maybe you will interested in the answer. I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge, and it's ideal of humanity. I don't want to form a small sect or a religion. It's open thing to all. It's for all casts, all creeds, all colors. And man is human, and it's OK he can receive it. And it's something that is internal, something that does not interfere with any religion. And this is the highest thing that I am teaching, about the people of this time, today. I don't claim myself to be God. I don't claim myself to be something like that, but I can claim I can show you God.— Montrose, Colorado, 25 July, 1972
Reporter: Maharaj Ji, are you the Messiah foretold in the Bible?
Maharaj Ji: Please do not presume me as that. Respect me as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world.
Reporter: Why is there such a great contradiction between what you say about yourself and what your followers say about you?
Maharaj Ji: Well, why don't you do me a favor.. . why don't you go to the devotees and ask their explanation about it?
— Rolling Stone. The Seventies : A Tumultuous Decade Reconsidered. Boston: Little, Brown. pp. p.104. ISBN 0-316-81547-0.{{ cite book}}
:|pages=
has extra text ( help)
There are numerous archives in which this was discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that there is no argument that Prem Rawat has ever made any attempt to clarify specifically which Hindu concepts he believed in and those he didn't. The only defence that is ever produced to counter his claims and suggestions of divinity is that he also said in public that he was not God, which as we can see is only half the story.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think that you all might want to acquaint yourselves with all the questions that various ex-premies and premies have listed here
http://ex-premie.org/questions/questions_index.htm which plainly express their feelings of frustration that he has never done this. |
PatW ( talk) 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Are we going to continue allowing the misuse of these pages for
soapboxing?" How many times needs PatW be warned about the misuse of talk page discussions?
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance" The source provided does not ascribe that to be related to Prem Rawat. I checked Watts writings and found nothing related. Please be careful in using sources that describe other sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
According to Bal Bhagwan Ji Whaaat? I have that article and the cite is not made by that person, but by the journalist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It was Nicholas Cusanus that used first the term "sacred ignorance" Sacra autem ignorantia me instruit hoc, quod intellectui nihil videtur, esse maximum incomprehensibile Which roughly translates to "Only through sacred ignorance we can recognized that which appears nothing to the intellect to be the incomprehensible maximum". Clearly not a pejorative as misused by the journalist, but the contrary. I am still looking for Watts original quote to see in which context did he use it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This edit], Francis, is WP:POINT and disruptive. Not being able to revert to your preferred version, all you do is bypass 1RR with that edit? Ridiculous. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to delete the comment about fudge sundae. Three reasons. First, it is written in the present tense, implying that something from the 1970s still exists today. Second, the point about sources in Wikipedia is that they have to be expert, or in some way trained to make a judgment. WP: Sources says: As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. There are no facts here, just opinions. Third, the article repeats the view in the previous sentence, that P. Rawat's talks were banal. We should not be returning to a situation where quotes are added to quotes, with the greatest number determining the winner. Armeisen ( talk) 02:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
May I ask you a question? If his talks were so banal, why did you fall for it? Or is it that the only way to resolve your disaffection is to negate your own past? Janice Rowe ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You write such broad generalisations, Pat, that it is almost impossible to know where to start. You state the fact that, at the time, Rawat's talks were indeed widely perceived as banal by the great unwashed- who are of course the majority -including the New York Times. First, there was no fact. Second, who were the great unwashed? I'm not sure whether they were P. Rawat's followers (who, it is often alleged, were hippies) or others. If the great unwashed perceived it as banal, then why did they follow him? From what Janice says, that must include you. I'm not sure that the so-called heathen masses were indeed interested in his eating ice-cream. I'm not sure they had any interest at all, then, and certainly not now. The story then, about ice-creams, may have been what attracted you at the time, Pat, but I don't think you can even pretend to align yourself with the general public.
By the way, Pat, I think I was there before Jossi. Still here, still enjoying. Armeisen ( talk) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
TIME OUT! (and undent.) This discussion is getting way overheated. Look, this started because Momento challenged the sources for the long-standing (and I don't think really debatable) statement that some people found Rawat's teaching as simplistic. We can quibble about sources, but does anyone serious dispute that such controversy existed? I don't think so.
So then I tried, in all good faith, to remedy the problem by adding a couple of English sources. (Momento objected to the sources being Dutch.) One of my additions stands. The other I didn't think through, for a variety of reasons -- Francis pointed out my indirect citation, Jayen and Jossi noted that I probably misunderstood Watts' very point (which is embarrassing, since I'm a fan of Watts), etc. I self-reverted.
Francis noticed in one of my explanations that the NYT reporter had said the same thing (simplistic). So s/he put it back in. No disruption, no need for emotion. Legitimate argument whether a New York Times reporter is qualified to say that, sure. But let's all relax a little bit here. (By the way, it was a feature in the Sunday NYT magazine, and they often have writers with real expertise on those, so the qualifications should be examined in context, as always.) Let's just find better sources and move on. OK? Friends again? Good! Msalt ( talk) 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
To keep us on track toward improving the article, I added the NYT article as a source for the intellectual criticism of Rawat (without quoting it on fudge sundaes or anything), added the word "simplistic" to "lacking intellectual substance" and broadened it from "scholars" to a more general survey of criticism, which is more encyclopedic. Msalt ( talk) 07:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that Jossi has performed his latest favorite little conjuring trick to remove things he doesn't like from this discussion. (See thread about three up from this entitled 'Divinity' where my text has been replaced with some horrible little brown box saying "This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.") Can somebody help me out here? I really have had enough of this biased administrator stifling discussion with his paranoid beliefs about soapboxing. I came here not to soapbox but to raise objection to, draw attention to, and sensibly discuss all the inaccuracies that were obviously being presented here. Who the hell does Jossi think I'm 'soapboxing' to? Aren't we allowed to bring such things to the table for editors here to discuss? Above, I sought to draw attention to the fact that Rawat has not made any attempts to clarify which Hindu beliefs he no longer espouses as was patently germane to the thread/article. Jossi has this crazed fear about any thing hosted by that ex-premie.org website. Why? Can somebody please enlighten me as to why Wikipedia allows someone with such proven COI to wield authority here (of all places) like this? How can I undo his blasted magic trick to make things disappear like that? PatW ( talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
PatW ( talk) 19:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course I'm prepared to moderate my tone - I said as much. All I was doing was questioning why what I said amounts to soapboxing. I really still don't understand this. [
[3]]I am not altogether impressed at the AN/I. Jossi took words which I believe I'd deleted straightaway (thinking the better of it) and included that as evidence of my incivility. Correct me if I'm wrong about this please but that is my vague recollection. How fair is that? Secondly my polite comments re-questioning Jossi's fairness over the above incident were immediately removed from Jimi Wales' page altogether. [
[4]]I think that is outrageous in this day and age. Thirdly only one of the editors in that jury actually looked in here to see the context of my argument. [
[5]]The others just rushed to judgement in what I thought a rather uncivilised free for all, except Will. I am in fact so distinctly depressed by the unfair trial atmosphere here that I am now seriously considering withdrawing altogether of my own free will.
PatW (
talk)
12:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
EV is (apparently appropriately) listed on List of groups referred to as cults. DLM certainly should be on that list, but has been deleted, inappropriately, IMHO, even though it no longer exists. There should be some further categorization of these groups, however. The term is used a bit too much to imply guilt by (free) association in the minds of any given group of cult critics. Maharaj Ji does not appear to be a Charles Manson or a David Miscavige, although I am not watching him very closely. I ignored him completely for around ten years, until I discovered these Wikipedia articles.
The Love Family and The Manson Family are/were LSD cults. LSD has a hypnotic effect, and people ... participating in the "sacrament" of LSD ... in the presence of Paul Erdman (a/k/a "Love Israel") learned that he was "greater than or equal to God," and that they had to give him all of their money. In the Manson Family, Manson was held as the returned Jesus. Well, we all know where that went. It was very difficult to deprogram someone out of the Love Family if they had been through the LSD "sacrament." Leslie Van Houten may have been effectively deprogrammed by other prisoners, but they are never, ever, ever going to let her out of prison, so it doesn't really matter.
DLM and the Tony and Susan Alamo Christian Foundation, contrariwise, could be referred to as "concentration" cults. In the Alamo cult, individuals were persuaded to think the phrase "praise you, Jesus, thank you, Jesus" during all waking hours. They were then shown selected Bible verses to convince them that if they stopped thinking this phrase, God would zap them into homosexuals who could not go to heaven. The unwitting self-hypnotic effect of the "meditation" left them in fear of leaving the cult property. Recruits were selected for proselytization based upon their apparent recent drug use. Full members lived in the commune and engaged in back-breaking physical labor, for which they never received a paycheck. Oh, yeah. They also had to turn over all of their money and possessions. Almost forgot that.
The (1973) DLM version was, essentially the same -- 24/7 concentration on your own breathing, pressure to live in an ashram (or, more frequently, a "premie house"), and subsequent indoctrination into the "non-beliefs." The first of these was the belief that you didn't have beliefs (or concepts or dogma), but knew things based upon your own experience. The next was that there was something wrong, demonic or Satanic about the "mind," which was not defined, based upon its resistance to this kind of "meditation." The next was that the guru was greater than or equal to God, which you believed, but also believed that you knew. In 1973, the organization was promoting the idea that the Millennium '73 event was, essentially, the Second Coming, that "Sache dabar ki jai" referred to the Guru and his Holy Family as "the Holy High Court of God," and that the mother and three brothers were "the four angels referred to in the Book of Revelation." That whole cluster of un-beliefs was attributed to Bal Bhagwan Ji in a legendary conversation with some guy called "Tiny." Anyway, by November, I, and everyone I knew, expected a flying saucer to remove the Astrodome from the planet, with all of us inside. Rennie Davis predicted 144000 of us. It was fairly easy to deprogram someone out of the Alamo cult or DLM. You only had to convince them to stop "Praising the Lord" or "meditating," and enough of their thinking ability was restored to see that they had been deceived and that believing in flying saucers and all that was a little bit off. Oh -- and the third page of the Ashram Application asked a lot of questions about things like trust funds and potential inheritances. One premie house I was living in became an "applicant ashram," and with the requirements for a positive cash flow from the house to DLM, everyone would have needed a pretty good-paying job to continue to live there. Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman point out that the DLM mind control was particularly effective, and that they hadn't met former premies who had not been "appropriately deprogrammed." They didn't wait long enough. If you visit http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org, you will find that very few of us were deprogrammed, and that the others took 20-25-30 years to think their way out of the trap, usually after reading the histories of other ex-premies online.
Now, I'm seeing that Goom Rodgie has apparently modified his earlier "agya" from "constantly meditate and remember the Holy Name" to practicing the four techniques for a minimum of one hour a day. The "Music" as taught, unbalances the body's electrical field and impedes thinking. The "Word," as taught in the past (24/7), serves as a more severe mind control technique, similar to the "Jesus" mantram in the Alamo cult. The "Light" (as taught in 1973) has the potential to physically damage the eyes, but probably has some beneficial potential if practiced in a different manner. The "snot" technique seems to be harmless, unless you get your tongue caught in your sinuses somehow. I haven't heard of anyone doing that, but there is a Radha Soami image online (MRI, I believe), showing someone with his tongue all the way up there, which looks like it could result in suffocation. And, of course, there are other breath meditations, including one of the Vipasana techniques, which rely upon "bare attention" rather than forced concentration, and which are not normally practiced 24/7, even in a monastic environment. So "The Knowledge" could be modified into something harmless and possibly beneficial, but I see no evidence of that occurring as yet. . If there is no ongoing secret EV teaching to keep "meditating" 24/7 (and, as an outsider, now, I would have no way of evaluating that), then EV is no longer the same kind of cult DLM was. In fact, using the taxonomy of the 2nd edition of "Snapping," it would appear to be a "sect," now -- an unorthodox religious group with a pyramidal structure, which would have the potential of becoming a cult if the leader (or the group) became paranoid enough or if the group was attacked by outside society. . A lot of different things are lumped together under the rubric of "meditation." Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh a/k/a Osho cataloged hundreds of them in his multi-volume "Book of Secrets" a few years back. There was a caveat in the health benefits of meditation article here (whatever the correct name is) that benefits shown by scientific experiments to derive from Transcendental Meditation could not necessarily be expected from other meditation techniques. Someone deleted that, and I think I remember who it was, but I'm not going to guess right now or look it up right now. . Not knowing how long Momento has been following Rawat, I don't know how disingenuous he is being in calling the "meditation" techniques "self exploration," or whatever the euphemism was. The intense concentration model from the early 1970's had the positive benefit of curing some (but not all) heroin addicts, but did not have the self-discovery benefits of, for example, Vipasana meditation practice supervised by an experienced teacher. That's another criticism of Rawat, of course -- no competent supervision of the meditators, and an apparent intent to completely suppress the mind, rather than remove emotional blockages discovered in meditation through forgiveness and other "skillful means." . By the same token, it seems disingenuous to call Rawat a "motivational speaker," when his entire message appears to be that he can give you "peace of mind" if he teaches you to meditate. A self-inflicted "software lobotomy" is not the kind of "peace" anyone in his right mind would be looking for, however, and given the 1973 attack on Pat Halley, it doesn't appear likely to eliminate all of the causes of war. . However, I wouldn't completely oppose a modification to indicate that Rawat currently describes himself as a "motivational speaker." That's certainly true, whether the description is accurate or not. Perhaps I'm advocating "weasel words," but that might be a reasonable compromise. . Anyway, the article as currently written, is generally referred to as a "whitewash" by former meditation students (who, through a kind of bait-and-switch wound up being devotees of the living God instead), and Jossi continues to use his cute little interpretation of BLP to stifle all criticism of Rawat.
Wowest ( talk) 09:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Shifted Time Magazine quote to here where it seems to fit in better. Rumiton ( talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[undenting] The attendance figures are taken directly from the most contemporary reliable source, and most accurately reflect the attendance. Later stories, especially in encyclopedias where space is limited, sometimes said "about 20,000" to save space, but that is less accurate. The different attendance estimates don't suggest anything; they are a statement of fact. Police estimates invariably are smaller than those of event organizers. Readers can draw their own conclusions about the reliability of the claims of each. We don't need to do the thinking for readers; that's exactly what OR is.
Also, it doesn't matter if YOU have a problem with the words "as a result". That is what several reliable sources say, and your arguments to the contrary are OR. If you want to know why, DLM accepts contributions, and highly publicized successful events bring donations both immediately and over the long run. The event was a failure (sources use words like "fiasco" but I chose more neutral ones) and the expected contributions didn't materialize. It's not rocket science. Msalt ( talk) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone who has Downton tell me which year this happened? Thanks. Rumiton ( talk) 12:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone more clued-up than me have a look at what the archive bot is doing? The most recent archive is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_31 but it is not accessible from the archive menu (the bottom link there leads to the older http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_30 ). Also, the numbering of archive pages goes 1, 3, 4 for no apparent reason that I can discern (2 is missing, even though each line clearly starts with a hash). Jayen 466 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
We have ...and gave way to an exclusive focus on "Knowledge", a set of instructions about living life. We know, and the article says so, that the Knowledge is the four inner techniques, not a set of instructions about living life. Any problem with clarifying that? Rumiton ( talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Francis, I don't think edits like this one [6] ("all evil should be attributed to the mind") are ultimately helpful. As a statement by itself, it lacks context. It implies a kind of criticism that the authors quoted (who do explain in neutral terms what is meant by "mind") do not express. The more edits of this sort we have, the more the article will look as though – as I read somewhere the other day about Wikipedia – two people had fought over a keyboard, alternately achieving possession of it and entering a few words, until their opponent grabbed it again and entered their text. This is exactly what happened here; Momento has added a balancing statement from the same article, but the sentence still seems to me to be a sentence of two halves, more indicative of our conflict here than of what the scholars in question said. Unless we strive for middle ground, it will never end. Jayen 466 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, really, I don't see why we would need to get into fragmented discussions again. I don't like the disruption caused by that either, and have pointed it out multiple times. The Van der Lans and Derks edit was explained above in #Teachings Section, and extensively discussed there, nobody objecting to my final assessment of the situation there. Yes, there I made a reference to this:
Which was an earlier version of the article, directly linking to the full relevant Van der Lans & Derks quoted text in the footnote (so, Andries, please stop complaining I'm not doing my utmost to show what is going on); And also the pro-Rawat camp stop complaining the scholarly opinions have been removed. Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them (that's about the time when I insisted on Jossi he'd take a more relaxed approach to editing the article, and I still appreciate his reaction to that suggestion) - I only tried to find a middle ground. Msalt had moved the Van der Lans and Derks footnote, clueless about what it was doing in a paragraph on criticism of the content of Rawat's teachings. There's no reproach there, and Msalt will have no problem I wrote those words (I'm confident) - but how could Msalt not have been clueless: the Van der Lans and Derks footnote had been stripped from everything that would have made clear why it was where it was before Msalt moved it. So I explained what had happened, above in #Teachings Section, and went for the middle ground: not making the quote in the article too long (some might object and remove it as had happened multiple times before), and not too short either, at least make it an understandable sentence. I was glad Momento added the somewhat longer explanation shortly thereafter, [7], because that really made more sense. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them ???? No, Francis, no. I reverted your edit: Your edit dismissed more than a year's worth of edits by many editors, to your last version. Stick to the facts, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this section is getting at, or what middle ground is being suggested. But this discussion points up a continuing problem. So many changes are being made that footnotes are constantly being separated from what they reference. The article is being "worried" constantly, esp. by Momento, who literally appears to have made several edits a day for months if not years. For example, this edit [8] separated three sources from a statement by inserting a sentence in the middle, then adding a source for the statement after the 3 sources. No one can readily figure out what happened, and statements are often removed for being "unsourced." How can we stop this? Msalt ( talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
InformationI have been doing research about Prem Rawat and his students, and =about his detractors, and I found some information which may help bring some balance in the attempt to shape a fair article. While Prem Rawat has been known to have students that were overly passionate about his teachings, his detractors also appear to be, at times, overly determined in their profile and actions. My research indicates that Prem Rawat has had for about 10 years a small group of active opponents/detractors who have resorted to unethical and even illegal methods to prevent him from sharing his message of peace, and to prevent people interested in this message to sustain their interest. The members of this small group appear to be the same people who are now battling here on WIKI effort to inject a negative bias into the Wikipedia entries about Prem Rawat. I have done some research into their objectives and methods, and would like to summarize my findings. At times, they have manipulated the media. One of them from Bristol, UK, posting under the alias Andrew Carpenter, gave an interview to the leading Bristol Evening Post on June 17, 2003 and managed to get a full page cover article with his in silhouette to protect his anonymity. He claimed that he had discovered grave financial irregularities in the accounting of the Elan Vital UK Charity, which promotes Prem Rawats message of peace in the UK and that he had just filed a complaint with the UK Charity commission. This "Andrew Carpenter" also posted several "articles" in IndyMedia websites with misleading reporting. He indeed filed a complaint with the charity commission, but the investigation found no wrongdoing by Elan Vital: the complaint was frivolous, the journalist was duped and Elan Vital was found by the Charity Commission to be in good compliance with rules and regulations. Similar fictitious tax complaints have been sent by this small group to regulatory authorities in India, Australia and more. In each and every case, they resulted in the complaint being dismissed by the authorities. There are indications that this Andrew Carpenter is one of the detractors participating in the discussions about this WIKI article. Similarly, as already discussed here, in San Francisco, a member of the detractor group posed under the invented name “Satchianand” pretending to be student of Prem Rawat and made outrageous statements to a young inexperienced journalist with the Daily Californian, and these comments were published in a negative article on April 30, 2003. On the forum/chat room on the internet where they gather, they have made threats against Prem Rawat and his family. Some postings incited people to drug and kidnap members of Rawats family, to poison the water of the resort where he holds events, and even to broadcast false alerts that anthrax had been found in the conference hall. One posting even included a picture of knives saying these were intended for Prem Rawat. The small group also published the private phone numbers and floor plans of Prem Rawats house, and more. Several of these detractors have been found to have broken the law and some have been incarcerated. One of them, from Brisbane, Australia, admitted to stealing information from a computer belonging to a student of Prem Rawat. He was also found guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced to two months in prison. Another one was arrested in the largest drug bust in the history of Queensland and spent 8 months in jail. A US person was found guilty to have forged internet domain names to divert traffic away from legitimate sites. More recently, the forum used by this small group was shut down by the ISP after it was discovered that it was being used for “phishing” which consists of acquiring private information including credit card and bank account information. A journalist in Australia, in an authenticated affidavit signed in 2005, acknowledged having been duped by the detractors group and stated: “The goal dos the group are often obsessive, malicious, and destructive in nature. Through the use of the internet, they interfere with the rights of people to experience their own spiritual discovery ad for the purpose of harassing individuals who are students of Rawats. The groups actions have included the contacting of employers of students of Prem Rawat, letters to regulatory agencies and the media with unsupported allegations and rabid personal attacks on the character of individuals. … and the internet publication of false and defamatory stories about Rawat designed to cast him in a false light.” My sense, after conducting the above research, is that the topic of Prem Rawat appears to attract people with polarized and extreme views, and it is incumbent upon neutral editors to uphold the WIKI standards and ideals and ensure that balance, fairness and NPOV prevails.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabellaW ( talk • contribs)
I have, while conducting research, found many hate postings containing hateful statements, threats and harassments at http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech1.htm Are you denying that these postings were ever made? I also see a connection between a participant in WIKI discussions and this "Andrew Carpenter" ( http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-14218076.html) see: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-india/2006-March/0322-d4.html I can also provide the link to the affidavit by the Australian journalist,this is a public document from the Supreme Court of Queensland. http://www.elanvital.org/faq/JMG_AFFIDAVIT.pdf I can also document that this other person was arrested with $25Million of drugs as well as unsecured and unlicensed firearms. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/neville2.htm Copy of newspaper article: http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/PDF/ackland_drug_bust.pdf Regarding Mr. Fresco, my research indicates that he was not named in that lawsuit, instead he was a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabellaW ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
|
... was the name of Rawat when he was a child. See Balyogeshwar. I do not think that it is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my remark (and insertion of the alternate name) is really purely usability/navigational/"principle of least surprise". Not knowing what to think that you guys appear to be able to make anything as simple as that into something that needs to be included in a POV-pushers agenda. THERE IS NO POV IN MENTIONING THE ALTERNATE NAME OF AN INCOMING LINK IN THE LEAD SECTION. We do it everywere: Pontius Pilate's wife has six alternate names in bold in the first sentence; William III of England has at least as many alternate names in the first three paragraphs of the intro; Erik Satie has two pen names in the third paragraph of the intro; Bolzano of course mentions "Bozen" (and 5 other alternatives) in the first sentence of the intro, etc. etc. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Names related to Rawat's Childhood may well come within the purview of WP:INDIA, excising these names because they are 'historic' and therefore of little consequence would seem at very least to go against the spirit of WP:INDIA and it is surely poor manners to remove the Indian titles from the lede without any reference to WP:INDIA.
-- Nik Wright2 ( talk) 15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Historic things are not of little consequence? Balyogeshwar=Iron lady? I understood that Balyogeshwar means 'Born Lord of Yogis' I can remember that much myself from 1975 when I asked what it meant. (By the way he was still called that well into the mid-seventies and still IS known by that title to many Indians who are naturally uninformed as to how he's changed his name since then. Also there are Indians here in the UK who call him that still! Shouldn't they be able to find Rawat through searching for Balyogeshwar here? Watching this debate from a distance (rather than being personally subject to Momento's simply puerile, tortuous logic for once) it's very obvious that he is an outrageously hostile editor who is simply mocking the intelligence of the incredibly patient other editors here. I really think it's way beyond time he was banned from this article . There has been such consistent and vociferous complaint already something surely needs to be done now. I would classify his obstructive comments here as aggressive 'filibustering'. Msalt, and others.. have you considered the possible abject futility of ploughing on with your corrections here as you are patiently doing? I worry about your future sanity when you take a well-earned break to return only to find that he has completely reverted the article to his taste. That's what he is waiting to do. Is there anything that can be done to protect your work? You may have noticed I have been terminally discouraged from making actual edits. That is not because I can't, it's because I am not prepared to let him mock my efforts any more than he has done already. How many people actually stick around here to make substantial sense of this article? My observation is that 90% have fled in frustration and that is basically because no-one has successfully banned Jossi, Momento and their POV pushing friends from acting as if they own and should control the information in this article. Isn't it the case that Jossi has successfully banned some rather eloquent ex-premie voices from here for far less crimes? What is so fair about that when he tolerates this degree of disruption , year in year out from Momento?
PatW (
talk)
14:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
OK if it is true that you have banned no one then I unmitigatingly apologise. But please tell me by what process have people been banned? I understood that some ex-premies were banned? Is that untrue then? PatW ( talk) 16:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
PS. I have deleted my heading which you think was unnecessarily loud. PatW ( talk) 16:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I answered[...] Balyogeshwar is a description given by others, like "The Iron Lady" was used to describe Margaret Thatcher.
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 00:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)The "Iron Lady" is in the lead section of the Wikipedia article on Margaret Thatcher. I'd like to follow that example and close this incident.
Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, December 10, 1957 in Haridwar, India), also Maharaji (previously known as Sant Ji, Balyogeshwar, and Guru Maharaj Ji, [3]) has been a speaker on the subject of inner peace since the age of eight, as well as offering instruction of four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge. [4] [5]
(my bolding) If the material is not contentious, just removing it is no more nor less than causing disruption. And it has to stop. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 00:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately [...]
Much of a do about nothing? He was called "Sant Ji" until 8 years of age. Then he was called "Balygeshwar" along side "Guru Maharaj Ji". (Some in India still recognize him as Balyogeshwar from the early days). Then he was called just "Maharaji". All these names can be explained and are supported by sources. Can we at least agree on that first? Then we can look for ways on how best to present the information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Jossi do you ever read what I actually write before trotting out some knee jerk response which shows that you haven't? Read again and you'll see I was saying why I think his popular name(s) should be made clear first thing. PatW ( talk)
I'm OK with John Brauns' version of the intro [18] - which I think is my last version of the same. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, Jossi has given us sources for the use of "Sant Ji", a name that you deleted from the article because it was unsourced. Could you please restore it now? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help) (the one mentioned by Jossi above, I found this one to be published in 2006
[20])Momento wrote: "I object to putting temporary Hindi titles in the lede". Apparently "Guru Maharaj Ji" was also a temporary title. Are there any legitimate reasons to exclude these widely-used names from the intro? If not can we please agree on adding these names to the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned above Sant Ji was a redlink, that is: was: I just started it as a disambig page. For as far I can tell "Sant" is not a part of the name properly speaking (as The Honourable would not be part of someone's name, properly speaking - only very few people were successful in making a given epithet/honorific become their actual name, compare Augustus/ Augustus (honorific)); "Ji" on the other hand is a name shared by many (among which Prem Rawat), some of whom are also "Sant" (see disambig page I created).
As for the Prem Rawat article, I resume my previous argument: the "Sant" tradition is explained in the article. "Sant + second part of the name Maharaj Ji", is a combination self-evident from the article as a name that can refer to Maharaj Ji. In other words, I don't see the "principle of least surprise" as a valid argument to keep Sant Ji in the lead section. There's no real confusion to be avoided. Apart from that, Sant Ji is less often used than (for instance) Balyogeshwar (that's my personal appreciation, after going through quite some text external to Wikipedia on this person). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, so we still don't have any mention of "Sant Ji Maharaj". Current footnote 20 says: "A three-day event in commemoration of Sri Hans Ji Maharaj, the largest procession in Delhi history of 18 miles of processionists culminating in a public event at India Gate, where Sant Ji Maharaj addressed the large gathering." I suggest we add to the text it references (in the "Childhood" section), "...then known as Sant Ji Maharaj..." Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"Balyogeshwar" should be included in the lede for convenience in further research. Until the middle of 1973, Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature lists Prem Rawat as "Balyogeshwar: Boy Guru." I believe this was done to avoid confusing him with Baba Ram Das's more famous guru, also called "Guru Maharaj Ji," and more formally known as "Satguru 108 Neem Karoli Baba." Wowest ( talk) 08:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We have ...and gave way to an exclusive focus on "Knowledge", a set of instructions about living life. We know, and the article says so, that the Knowledge is the four inner techniques, not a set of instructions about living life. Any problem with clarifying that? Rumiton ( talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Francis, I don't think edits like this one [21] ("all evil should be attributed to the mind") are ultimately helpful. As a statement by itself, it lacks context. It implies a kind of criticism that the authors quoted (who do explain in neutral terms what is meant by "mind") do not express. The more edits of this sort we have, the more the article will look as though – as I read somewhere the other day about Wikipedia – two people had fought over a keyboard, alternately achieving possession of it and entering a few words, until their opponent grabbed it again and entered their text. This is exactly what happened here; Momento has added a balancing statement from the same article, but the sentence still seems to me to be a sentence of two halves, more indicative of our conflict here than of what the scholars in question said. Unless we strive for middle ground, it will never end. Jayen 466 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, really, I don't see why we would need to get into fragmented discussions again. I don't like the disruption caused by that either, and have pointed it out multiple times. The Van der Lans and Derks edit was explained above in #Teachings Section, and extensively discussed there, nobody objecting to my final assessment of the situation there. Yes, there I made a reference to this:
Which was an earlier version of the article, directly linking to the full relevant Van der Lans & Derks quoted text in the footnote (so, Andries, please stop complaining I'm not doing my utmost to show what is going on); And also the pro-Rawat camp stop complaining the scholarly opinions have been removed. Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them (that's about the time when I insisted on Jossi he'd take a more relaxed approach to editing the article, and I still appreciate his reaction to that suggestion) - I only tried to find a middle ground. Msalt had moved the Van der Lans and Derks footnote, clueless about what it was doing in a paragraph on criticism of the content of Rawat's teachings. There's no reproach there, and Msalt will have no problem I wrote those words (I'm confident) - but how could Msalt not have been clueless: the Van der Lans and Derks footnote had been stripped from everything that would have made clear why it was where it was before Msalt moved it. So I explained what had happened, above in #Teachings Section, and went for the middle ground: not making the quote in the article too long (some might object and remove it as had happened multiple times before), and not too short either, at least make it an understandable sentence. I was glad Momento added the somewhat longer explanation shortly thereafter, [22], because that really made more sense. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them ???? No, Francis, no. I reverted your edit: Your edit dismissed more than a year's worth of edits by many editors, to your last version. Stick to the facts, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this section is getting at, or what middle ground is being suggested. But this discussion points up a continuing problem. So many changes are being made that footnotes are constantly being separated from what they reference. The article is being "worried" constantly, esp. by Momento, who literally appears to have made several edits a day for months if not years. For example, this edit [23] separated three sources from a statement by inserting a sentence in the middle, then adding a source for the statement after the 3 sources. No one can readily figure out what happened, and statements are often removed for being "unsourced." How can we stop this? Msalt ( talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
InformationI have been doing research about Prem Rawat and his students, and =about his detractors, and I found some information which may help bring some balance in the attempt to shape a fair article. While Prem Rawat has been known to have students that were overly passionate about his teachings, his detractors also appear to be, at times, overly determined in their profile and actions. My research indicates that Prem Rawat has had for about 10 years a small group of active opponents/detractors who have resorted to unethical and even illegal methods to prevent him from sharing his message of peace, and to prevent people interested in this message to sustain their interest. The members of this small group appear to be the same people who are now battling here on WIKI effort to inject a negative bias into the Wikipedia entries about Prem Rawat. I have done some research into their objectives and methods, and would like to summarize my findings. At times, they have manipulated the media. One of them from Bristol, UK, posting under the alias Andrew Carpenter, gave an interview to the leading Bristol Evening Post on June 17, 2003 and managed to get a full page cover article with his in silhouette to protect his anonymity. He claimed that he had discovered grave financial irregularities in the accounting of the Elan Vital UK Charity, which promotes Prem Rawats message of peace in the UK and that he had just filed a complaint with the UK Charity commission. This "Andrew Carpenter" also posted several "articles" in IndyMedia websites with misleading reporting. He indeed filed a complaint with the charity commission, but the investigation found no wrongdoing by Elan Vital: the complaint was frivolous, the journalist was duped and Elan Vital was found by the Charity Commission to be in good compliance with rules and regulations. Similar fictitious tax complaints have been sent by this small group to regulatory authorities in India, Australia and more. In each and every case, they resulted in the complaint being dismissed by the authorities. There are indications that this Andrew Carpenter is one of the detractors participating in the discussions about this WIKI article. Similarly, as already discussed here, in San Francisco, a member of the detractor group posed under the invented name “Satchianand” pretending to be student of Prem Rawat and made outrageous statements to a young inexperienced journalist with the Daily Californian, and these comments were published in a negative article on April 30, 2003. On the forum/chat room on the internet where they gather, they have made threats against Prem Rawat and his family. Some postings incited people to drug and kidnap members of Rawats family, to poison the water of the resort where he holds events, and even to broadcast false alerts that anthrax had been found in the conference hall. One posting even included a picture of knives saying these were intended for Prem Rawat. The small group also published the private phone numbers and floor plans of Prem Rawats house, and more. Several of these detractors have been found to have broken the law and some have been incarcerated. One of them, from Brisbane, Australia, admitted to stealing information from a computer belonging to a student of Prem Rawat. He was also found guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced to two months in prison. Another one was arrested in the largest drug bust in the history of Queensland and spent 8 months in jail. A US person was found guilty to have forged internet domain names to divert traffic away from legitimate sites. More recently, the forum used by this small group was shut down by the ISP after it was discovered that it was being used for “phishing” which consists of acquiring private information including credit card and bank account information. A journalist in Australia, in an authenticated affidavit signed in 2005, acknowledged having been duped by the detractors group and stated: “The goal dos the group are often obsessive, malicious, and destructive in nature. Through the use of the internet, they interfere with the rights of people to experience their own spiritual discovery ad for the purpose of harassing individuals who are students of Rawats. The groups actions have included the contacting of employers of students of Prem Rawat, letters to regulatory agencies and the media with unsupported allegations and rabid personal attacks on the character of individuals. … and the internet publication of false and defamatory stories about Rawat designed to cast him in a false light.” My sense, after conducting the above research, is that the topic of Prem Rawat appears to attract people with polarized and extreme views, and it is incumbent upon neutral editors to uphold the WIKI standards and ideals and ensure that balance, fairness and NPOV prevails.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabellaW ( talk • contribs)
I have, while conducting research, found many hate postings containing hateful statements, threats and harassments at http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech1.htm Are you denying that these postings were ever made? I also see a connection between a participant in WIKI discussions and this "Andrew Carpenter" ( http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-14218076.html) see: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-india/2006-March/0322-d4.html I can also provide the link to the affidavit by the Australian journalist,this is a public document from the Supreme Court of Queensland. http://www.elanvital.org/faq/JMG_AFFIDAVIT.pdf I can also document that this other person was arrested with $25Million of drugs as well as unsecured and unlicensed firearms. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/neville2.htm Copy of newspaper article: http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/PDF/ackland_drug_bust.pdf Regarding Mr. Fresco, my research indicates that he was not named in that lawsuit, instead he was a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabellaW ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Some text and sources for Sant Mat, from the article of the same name. (I have researched this subject quite in depth in the past)
The boundaries of the movement were likely not sectarian and were devoid of Brahmin concepts of caste and liturgy. The poet-sants expressed their teaching in vernacular verse, addressing themselves to the common folk in oral style in Hindi and other dialects such as Marathi. They referred to the "Divine Name" as having saving power, and dismissed the religious rituals as having no value. They presented the idea that true religion was a matter of surrendering to God "who dwells in the heart". [6] [7]
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Francis, the other portions that you tagged with {{ cn}} are sourced to Galanter and Hunt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Francis, you are breaching the 1RR probation. Please self-revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, Momento reverted the same text twice in 10 minutes. [27] and [28]. Is there a reason you have not warned him for 1RR? There certainly appears to be a double standard in your administration here. Msalt ( talk) 18:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've read a bit more about Rawat, I find the teachings section a bit bland. It doesn't really capture what is unique about him, in my opinion, and so I'd like to suggest two major points that seem to be distinctive and exactly the kind of summary info a good encyclopedia article would contain. I have a bunch of sources, but at this point I'm more interested in working out a consensus summary that every one can agree on. I don't think there is any reason that this would need to be a point of contention. The points are:
1. It seems that a major innovation of Rawat was offering a direct sensory experience of transcendence as captured in the four elements of the Knowledge, as opposed to the more abstract transcendance offered by other religions and spiritual philosophies. A couple of quotes struck me along these lines -- one devotee told a writer “Our Knowledge is not a religion, but an experience.” And Rennie Davis quoted Rawat as saying "“Don’t believe me unless you have proof”.
This is not only a fascinating contrast with the other-worldliness of most religions (and answer to criticisms of them), but it goes a long way to explaining why this teaching would be so popular at that time in world history, a time when many were reclaiming direct experience over highly refined abstraction.
2. The concept of lila, which I understand to be "divine play" or "joking". It seems that many of the contradictions of Rawat that outsiders so quickly jumped on, were seen by many insiders as a form of lila, a joke that they were in on and the outsiders didn't get. This is a big part of what the Foss and Larkin article is about.
It seems to me that even a quick teaching section should include these, and that the article would be much richer and deeper yet NPOV. Thoughts? Msalt ( talk) 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In the Divine Light Mission, the guru taught that humanity is inherently divine. For people to attain this divinity, they must gain knowledge, which came from the teachings of Guru Maharaj Ji, who is of the line of Perfect Masters.
The movement that originally started as the Divine Light Mission is now reformed in its beliefs and teachings. Elan Vital bears little or no similarity to traditional Indian religious concepts such as reincarnation or heaven. The emphasis is in present-tense experience of life in the here and now.
Maharaj ji teaches a simple self-discovery process, involving four simple techniques to turn the senses within and appreciate the joyful basis of existence beyond thoughts and ideas. He denies criticism that his teachings represent instant gratification, but sees it instead as an ongoing learning process that can enrich an individual's life.— Edwards, Linda (2001). A brief guide to beliefs: ideas, theologies, mysteries, and movements. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. p.278-279. ISBN 0-664-22259-5.{{ cite book}}
:|pages=
has extra text ( help)
As I mentioned above, I moved the discussion of whether Rawat is divine to this section, where it fits more logically. Also, I am going to change the following line because it implies that scholars are endorsing the view that only Rawat can provide the keys to his meditation techniques, which is POV at best and certainly not what the scholars say:
"Prem Rawat teaches a process of self-discovery using four meditation techniques to which only he has the keys".
You could say something like "techniques to which he CLAIMS only he has the keys" but I think it's more encyclopedic just to describe the techniques. Hence
"Prem Rawat teaches a process of self-discovery using four meditation techniques (Light, Music, Nectar and Word)."
This is much closer to what the sources say. Msalt ( talk) 05:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't fit there. What is the logic? The teachings are unrelated to these claims. Janice Rowe ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, here's another idea. The "Westernization" section already contains a discussion about Rawat reducing the "Perfect Master" language with its deistic overtones. Would it be better to move the controversy over Rawat's deity (or lack thereof) to that section? These two sections really present two different viewpoints that might be better merged. The one currently in Leaving India seems to say "some said he claimed Godness, but he didn't really, but you can't stop those devotees, can you?" (I'm paraphrasing.) The Westernization section seems to be saying "OK, he was kind of Goddish in the Indian phase but dropped that during Westernization." (again, paraphrasing). Can we reconcile those and put them all in Westernization? I think that makes the most sense, now that I look at it. Msalt ( talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
One of Momento's sudden burst of undiscussed edits inserted the phrase "taught to him by his guru" into the first sentence of this section. "Guru" is original research; the only source we have says his "father." Furthermore, even if you could show that Shri Hans had a guru relationship with his son at age 6, it is confusing to the reader to use that term instead of the plain meaning of "father". As we're saying that Shri Hans taught him Knowledge in these very words, the reader can easily pick up that meaning as appropriate. But if you say "guru", no reader could be expected to understand that to mean his father. I also fixed the placement and citations for that phrase. Msalt ( talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I added the phrase "collectively known as Knowledge" to that first sentence as well, to make it clear that the term refers to those meditation techniques. Otherwise, the reference to Knowledge with a capital K in the last paragraph of this section is confusing. Also, I'm fine with Momento's move of the teachings criticisms to this section, as long as that doesn't ruin it as a WP:SUMMARY per Jossi's comments, but s/he placed it in the middle of the narrative of the development of Rawat's teachings (ie "1) R started as this. 2) critics say.... 3) Then R changed to that". I'm going to move #2 after #3 to keep that narrative clear. Msalt ( talk) 08:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
^ Reporter at Montrose, Colorado, 25 July, 1972: "I was told that probably the best question to ask you, out of sincerity, is: 'Who are you?' Maharaj Ji: "... really I can't say who I am. But, though, there is a very basic thing, what I feel about myself. And that is that people have been claiming me as God or as Jesus or so on, and, ah, many television people have been asking this question, and this is an interesting question of course. I thought maybe you will be interested in the answer. I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge, and it's ideal of humanity. I don't want to form a small sect or a religion. It's an open thing to all. It's for all casts, all creeds, all colors. And man is human, and it's OK he can receive it. And it's something that is internal, something that does not interfere with any religion. And this is the highest thing that I am teaching, about the people of this time, today. I don't claim myself to be God. I don't claim myself to be something like that, but I can claim I can show you God." "
Well, we used to have:
So, I don't know why the Van der Lans & Derks footnote was moved around in the article just now, and linked to a sentence where it is no reference for... [32] -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I was pondering about the framing of "lack of intellectual content" as a criticism. Is it? If we are to mention these opinions, we ought to counterpoint them with the fact that Prem Rawat has always focused on an direct experience, a feeling, which he often refers as "very, very simple". Is that bad? Good? It does not matter. Rather than frame these opinions as criticism, these should be framed as opinions and attribute these opinions to those that hold them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I added some more information about the teachings, and fixed bias on the introduction. Janice Rowe ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
When it always touches me as somewhat gossipy, how much space in the article is given to the subject's apparent wealth, I wonder why the fact that he teaches free of charge, and always has, is nowhere mentioned. To my understanding it certainly bears more notability than all this discreetly invidious subtext about house and debts and such. I imagine that a serious reader might use WP with a wish to not get fed mostly superficial mainstream attitudes, no matter how extensively published. Could editors agree on mentioning and properly sourcing this item in the Teaching section?-- Rainer P. ( talk) 23:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Janice has made a change to the lede which, although not perfect, is an improvement. The criticism of Rawat's teachings for being - simplistic, intellectually unremarkable etc - need context. And that context is - he gives "an emphasis of individual, subjective experience, rather than on a body of dogma" (Hunt). I think this is an important point as all Sant guru's took the same approach. Momento ( talk) 05:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
re. "change to the lede which, although not perfect, is an improvement": failed to see the improvement while, again, references were severed from what they were actually referencing, and text inserted not covered by these references. Also deformation of the text covered by the actual references. See also edit summary of my revert of the intro. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
He is considered an iconoclast who plots his route by pragmatic decisions to meet the demands and challenges that occur in his public career as a teacher. striving to convince people of the value of self-knowledge. [8] Rawat claims that practicing Knowledge will allow the practitioner to experience self-understanding, calmness, peace and contentment. Practitioners describe Knowledge as internal and highly individual, with no associated social structure, liturgy, ethical practices or articles of faith. [9] [10] [11]
Other thoughts?Ron Geaves considers Rawat to be an iconoclast who plots his route by pragmatic decisions to meet the demands and challenges that occur in his public career as a teacher, striving to convince people of the value of self-knowledge. [12]
Sources listed in Globalisation, charisma, innovation and tradition |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Re. lifestyle epithet:
First we had "sumptuous" to sum that up; Jayen just changed to "luxurious"; my choice would still be "sumptuous" if confined to a single word (while "luxurious" doesn't quite capture the despicable and nonspiritual from his mother's official statement). When allowing more than a single word "materialistic or opulent" would do for me, closer to sources. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Last paragraph of the lede should would be best if updated with the wording entered by Janice: Rawat teachings have been described as lacking intellectual content and as emphasizing the superiority of direct experience over intellect., sourced as per available sources, and followed by the "luxurious" lifestyle text. Or something along these lines.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"opulent" without "materialistic" wouldn't do for me, since we're summarizing two sources here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)When allowing more than a single word "materialistic or opulent" would do for me, closer to sources.
Re the lead, I just read this page without knowing the subject, and found it odd that the lead doesn't mention the Divine Light Mission at all, when it seems to be a key topic in the body of the article. I don't want to join in editing here since it seems quite hotly debated, but purely to provide context, how about adding He was formerly the leader of the Divine Light Mission. to the end of the first paragraph? From what I've read here thats (hopefully) an uncontentious statement. -- Bazzargh ( talk) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Mangalwadi
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Below an excerpt from an interview with Mishler (after his split from Rawat), who talks about the meaning of this Divinity and how Rawat presented himself. I think it may be useful for editors here to know, just for perspective.
Bob: When he first arrived, his message was that he knew the truth and that the truth was within each and every individual. He sometimes used to talk about that truth, whether you called it God or something else, as the perfect energy within each individual. He said that this was something he could reveal to everyone. That, in fact, was his purpose. He was called a perfect master because he had mastered something that was perfect; presumably this perfect energy inside us which was responsible for life. In revealing that to other people, he was revealing the only thing which could claim to be perfection, the primordial energy of the universe.
He would essentially ask people to come to him and ask for this knowledge, which would be freely given. The only thing that was required was the sincerity on the part of the individual asking. If you would ask sincerely, not just because you wanted to do it out of curiosity, but because you really wanted to know the truth about life, then he would have this knowledge revealed to you. Actually, he never really did any of the initiating himself; there was always one of his disciples to do that. These disciples at that time were called Mahatmas. In the beginning years, they were all Indians as well.
He billed himself as a humble servant of God who was essentially in charge with the responsibility of revealing this knowledge to people by his father who was his guru. At the same time, although there were some people who would say, well, he has to be a god himself in order to be able to reveal God, he would always deny this. He would say : "I make no claims of this sort at all. What I am revealing - it is not even as if I am giving you something - is something that is there inside you. It is there inside everyone. By recognising it, by having it revealed to you and then by meditating on it, you can attain the peace that comes through knowing the truth. Once you have found peace within yourself, this is the way towards ultimate world peace".
As you note, this is very far removed from the Christian concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing God.
Still working on that draft version ... it is quite difficult, because it is entwined with so many aspects of his biography. Jayen 466 15:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/soul_rush.htm#preface Of course you can also get this book out of the library.
She says this: "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, (in the Peace Bomb satsang I believe pw) 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.
Also this from Foss and Larkin 1978: 'Guru Maharaj Ji is aware of his preposterous image and skillfully manipulates it. To the general public it is the height of ridicule to believe that a "fat little rich kid" with a taste for a luxurious living and expensive gadgets - and who, on top of everything, married his secretary, a woman eight years older than himself - could be the Perfect Master; yet here is Guru Maharaj Ji using the very ludicrousness of that proposition to support his claim that he is, in fact, the Perfect Master: "I mean, it's like man is big surprise, you know, people talking about surprises, but I think Perfect Master is the biggest surprise. And people make a concept of a Perfect Master, he's going to be like this, no he's going to be like this, no he's going to be like this. And then he comes. He's completely different and as a matter of fact surprises the world so much, surprises everybody so much they don't think he is" (from satsang concluding Guru Puja 74, Amherst, Mass.)
Here are Rawat's father's own words from his published book 'Hans Yog Prakash' - relevant as Prem Rawat's teachings directly derived from his fathers :
My Guru is the incarnate Lord of this time. I bow before my Guru, who is greater than Christ or Buddha, for each of them was the servant of his Satguru.
The Lords of earth, sea and sky also bow before Guru Maharaj Ji.
The Lord God has said, "Know your Guru as Myself, the Lord." We should understand that Guru is the most powerful manifestation of the Lord. If we understand this, our minds will automatically turn to our Guru before we start to do anything.
Know that no one is superior to the Guru. If someone thinks the Guru is a human being, that is his misfortune. He is of dull intelligence like a bull without a tail. The entire world knows that Guru is greater than God.
Know that Guru is the Supreme Lord. We should accept all that He says without judgement, and should offer Him whatever nice thing comes our way. The power of Guru is so fantastic that whatever we offer comes back to us a thousand fold.
Remember at all times to carry the Lotus Feet of the Lord in your heart. Realise that God and Guru are one and the same! do not doubt this fact. God is pleased if Guru is pleased, and if Guru is unhappy, God will be also. I am simply telling you.
He who gives us the lamp of true Knowledge is Satguru, He is God incarnate. If someone took Him to be an ordinary human being, his ignorance would make his whole life fruitless.
If Lord Shiva (the Destroyer) becomes angry with you, Guru can save you. But there is no one who can help you, if Guru be comes angry.
One should never go against his Guru, for Guru is both father and mother.
The saints say one should always sit below one's Guru. One should wake before one's Guru, and retire after Him. This is most important for a devotee.
One should not address Guru Maharaj Ji while lying down, eating, standing far away, or facing away from Him. One should never interrupt His conversation.
When receiving the Guru's command, one should always stand humbly before Him, to show Him respect. One should never call the Guru by His name to His face. '
Guru and Lord are one; all else is duality. When someone worships the Guru, and dissolves himself in love and service, he can find the Lord.
He who thinks Guru Maharaj Ji is a human being is blind. He will remain very unhappy in this world, and death will not relieve him of his sufferings.
When receiving the Guru's command, one should always stand humbly before Him, to show Him respect. One should never call the Guru by His name to His face. '
Here are some quotes from Prem Rawat himself:
Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ......
"Jesus gave us this Knowledge, Krishna gave us this Knowledge, but now we must look again for a new Master to show us the light. The sun comes and goes away but we don't look for the light of day which has just gone. We look for the new rising sun. The sun is there, but it rises in a new beautiful way, and we look for that. In the same way, God is the same, but now we look for him to come, in a new way, to give this Knowledge." (from book "Who is Guru Maharaji")
"There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge. But history is a pendulum which is always in swing. There have been so many scriptures, but still people have never been able to understand Him." ('And It Is Divine)
And if there has to be devotee, he has to be in a physical form. A devotee has to devote something. Have you understood now ? To devote something, he has to be in a physical form. And where is it possible for him to be in physical form ? On the earth. And with whom can he be in the physical form ? With the Lord, who is in His physical form ! He has to be with the Physical Lord who has come into this physical world with a Physical Body. Understood. (from Guru Maharaj Ji - Essen, Germany - August 31, 1975)
In this lifetime, we have the opportunity to realize, to be with GURU MAHARAJ JI. Be it not GURU MAHARAJ JI - You know maybe they didn't call him GURU MAHARAJ JI - Maybe they called him Lord, anything to be with that power. To be with that thing. To be not infinite. And yet to be with the infinite. To be here as individuals. And yet to be able to be next to the person who is everything, GURU MAHARAJ JI. The Lord all powerful.....
(from Guru Maharaj Ji's satsang "Shower of Grace", Malibu, California, June 11, 1978.Printed in Divine Times, June/July, 1978, Volume 7, Number 4, Guru Puja Special.)
Question: Guru Maharaj Ji, what does it feel like to be Lord of the universe?
M: What should I tell you about it?
Question: Just what it's like.
M: What it's like? Nothing. Because you are not in yourself; somewhere else; one with someone else.
Question: How is it to be like a puppet?
M: You don't know.... Do you? When you become Lord of the Universe, you become a puppet, really! Nothing else; not 'you'. Not 'I', not 'you' no egos, no pride, nothing else. One with humbleness; servant. Very, very beautiful. Always in divine bliss. Creating your own environment - wherever you go, doesn't matter. Like my friends used to play and I used to sit right in the corner of my ground and meditate (laughter). She wants to change places with me! I wish I could change places with everyone, and give one hour of experience to everyone! But it's not possible.
(extract from an question and answer session given by Guru Maharaj Ji in Portland, Oregon, June 29, 1972. Printed in 'Elan Vital' magazine Volume II Issue 2, Summer 1978:)
PatW (
talk)
19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Call me simple minded, but to me it looks like this all adds up to "Prem Rawat has made conflicting statements about whether he is divine." And we should craft something (as Jayen is doing) that gives a fair range of the conflicting statements. Msalt ( talk) 20:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The battle of quotes again? The battle of quotes?
People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy.
— Central Hall, Westminster, London, UK, November 2, 1971
People ask, ‚"Do you say that you are God?‚" I say, ‚"No, I am not God. . . . . . . I don't want to be God.‚" But what I do want to be is a humble servant of God so that I can teach people this Knowledge, so that I can give people this gospel of peace, love and Truth. That' all I want to do. So all these lectures, all these speeches that I am giving are just for this purpose.
— Johannesburg, South Africa, 2 May, 1972
Reporter: I was told that probably the best question to ask you, out of sincerity, is: who are you?
Maharaj Ji: ... really I can't say who I am. But, though, there is a very basic thing, what I feel about myself. And that is that people have been claiming me as God or as Jesus or so on, and ah, many television people have been asking this question, and this is an interesting question of course. I thought maybe you will interested in the answer. I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge, and it's ideal of humanity. I don't want to form a small sect or a religion. It's open thing to all. It's for all casts, all creeds, all colors. And man is human, and it's OK he can receive it. And it's something that is internal, something that does not interfere with any religion. And this is the highest thing that I am teaching, about the people of this time, today. I don't claim myself to be God. I don't claim myself to be something like that, but I can claim I can show you God.— Montrose, Colorado, 25 July, 1972
Reporter: Maharaj Ji, are you the Messiah foretold in the Bible?
Maharaj Ji: Please do not presume me as that. Respect me as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world.
Reporter: Why is there such a great contradiction between what you say about yourself and what your followers say about you?
Maharaj Ji: Well, why don't you do me a favor.. . why don't you go to the devotees and ask their explanation about it?
— Rolling Stone. The Seventies : A Tumultuous Decade Reconsidered. Boston: Little, Brown. pp. p.104. ISBN 0-316-81547-0.{{ cite book}}
:|pages=
has extra text ( help)
There are numerous archives in which this was discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that there is no argument that Prem Rawat has ever made any attempt to clarify specifically which Hindu concepts he believed in and those he didn't. The only defence that is ever produced to counter his claims and suggestions of divinity is that he also said in public that he was not God, which as we can see is only half the story.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think that you all might want to acquaint yourselves with all the questions that various ex-premies and premies have listed here
http://ex-premie.org/questions/questions_index.htm which plainly express their feelings of frustration that he has never done this. |
PatW ( talk) 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Are we going to continue allowing the misuse of these pages for
soapboxing?" How many times needs PatW be warned about the misuse of talk page discussions?
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance" The source provided does not ascribe that to be related to Prem Rawat. I checked Watts writings and found nothing related. Please be careful in using sources that describe other sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
According to Bal Bhagwan Ji Whaaat? I have that article and the cite is not made by that person, but by the journalist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It was Nicholas Cusanus that used first the term "sacred ignorance" Sacra autem ignorantia me instruit hoc, quod intellectui nihil videtur, esse maximum incomprehensibile Which roughly translates to "Only through sacred ignorance we can recognized that which appears nothing to the intellect to be the incomprehensible maximum". Clearly not a pejorative as misused by the journalist, but the contrary. I am still looking for Watts original quote to see in which context did he use it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This edit], Francis, is WP:POINT and disruptive. Not being able to revert to your preferred version, all you do is bypass 1RR with that edit? Ridiculous. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to delete the comment about fudge sundae. Three reasons. First, it is written in the present tense, implying that something from the 1970s still exists today. Second, the point about sources in Wikipedia is that they have to be expert, or in some way trained to make a judgment. WP: Sources says: As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. There are no facts here, just opinions. Third, the article repeats the view in the previous sentence, that P. Rawat's talks were banal. We should not be returning to a situation where quotes are added to quotes, with the greatest number determining the winner. Armeisen ( talk) 02:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
May I ask you a question? If his talks were so banal, why did you fall for it? Or is it that the only way to resolve your disaffection is to negate your own past? Janice Rowe ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You write such broad generalisations, Pat, that it is almost impossible to know where to start. You state the fact that, at the time, Rawat's talks were indeed widely perceived as banal by the great unwashed- who are of course the majority -including the New York Times. First, there was no fact. Second, who were the great unwashed? I'm not sure whether they were P. Rawat's followers (who, it is often alleged, were hippies) or others. If the great unwashed perceived it as banal, then why did they follow him? From what Janice says, that must include you. I'm not sure that the so-called heathen masses were indeed interested in his eating ice-cream. I'm not sure they had any interest at all, then, and certainly not now. The story then, about ice-creams, may have been what attracted you at the time, Pat, but I don't think you can even pretend to align yourself with the general public.
By the way, Pat, I think I was there before Jossi. Still here, still enjoying. Armeisen ( talk) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
TIME OUT! (and undent.) This discussion is getting way overheated. Look, this started because Momento challenged the sources for the long-standing (and I don't think really debatable) statement that some people found Rawat's teaching as simplistic. We can quibble about sources, but does anyone serious dispute that such controversy existed? I don't think so.
So then I tried, in all good faith, to remedy the problem by adding a couple of English sources. (Momento objected to the sources being Dutch.) One of my additions stands. The other I didn't think through, for a variety of reasons -- Francis pointed out my indirect citation, Jayen and Jossi noted that I probably misunderstood Watts' very point (which is embarrassing, since I'm a fan of Watts), etc. I self-reverted.
Francis noticed in one of my explanations that the NYT reporter had said the same thing (simplistic). So s/he put it back in. No disruption, no need for emotion. Legitimate argument whether a New York Times reporter is qualified to say that, sure. But let's all relax a little bit here. (By the way, it was a feature in the Sunday NYT magazine, and they often have writers with real expertise on those, so the qualifications should be examined in context, as always.) Let's just find better sources and move on. OK? Friends again? Good! Msalt ( talk) 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
To keep us on track toward improving the article, I added the NYT article as a source for the intellectual criticism of Rawat (without quoting it on fudge sundaes or anything), added the word "simplistic" to "lacking intellectual substance" and broadened it from "scholars" to a more general survey of criticism, which is more encyclopedic. Msalt ( talk) 07:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that Jossi has performed his latest favorite little conjuring trick to remove things he doesn't like from this discussion. (See thread about three up from this entitled 'Divinity' where my text has been replaced with some horrible little brown box saying "This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.") Can somebody help me out here? I really have had enough of this biased administrator stifling discussion with his paranoid beliefs about soapboxing. I came here not to soapbox but to raise objection to, draw attention to, and sensibly discuss all the inaccuracies that were obviously being presented here. Who the hell does Jossi think I'm 'soapboxing' to? Aren't we allowed to bring such things to the table for editors here to discuss? Above, I sought to draw attention to the fact that Rawat has not made any attempts to clarify which Hindu beliefs he no longer espouses as was patently germane to the thread/article. Jossi has this crazed fear about any thing hosted by that ex-premie.org website. Why? Can somebody please enlighten me as to why Wikipedia allows someone with such proven COI to wield authority here (of all places) like this? How can I undo his blasted magic trick to make things disappear like that? PatW ( talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
PatW ( talk) 19:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course I'm prepared to moderate my tone - I said as much. All I was doing was questioning why what I said amounts to soapboxing. I really still don't understand this. [
[3]]I am not altogether impressed at the AN/I. Jossi took words which I believe I'd deleted straightaway (thinking the better of it) and included that as evidence of my incivility. Correct me if I'm wrong about this please but that is my vague recollection. How fair is that? Secondly my polite comments re-questioning Jossi's fairness over the above incident were immediately removed from Jimi Wales' page altogether. [
[4]]I think that is outrageous in this day and age. Thirdly only one of the editors in that jury actually looked in here to see the context of my argument. [
[5]]The others just rushed to judgement in what I thought a rather uncivilised free for all, except Will. I am in fact so distinctly depressed by the unfair trial atmosphere here that I am now seriously considering withdrawing altogether of my own free will.
PatW (
talk)
12:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
EV is (apparently appropriately) listed on List of groups referred to as cults. DLM certainly should be on that list, but has been deleted, inappropriately, IMHO, even though it no longer exists. There should be some further categorization of these groups, however. The term is used a bit too much to imply guilt by (free) association in the minds of any given group of cult critics. Maharaj Ji does not appear to be a Charles Manson or a David Miscavige, although I am not watching him very closely. I ignored him completely for around ten years, until I discovered these Wikipedia articles.
The Love Family and The Manson Family are/were LSD cults. LSD has a hypnotic effect, and people ... participating in the "sacrament" of LSD ... in the presence of Paul Erdman (a/k/a "Love Israel") learned that he was "greater than or equal to God," and that they had to give him all of their money. In the Manson Family, Manson was held as the returned Jesus. Well, we all know where that went. It was very difficult to deprogram someone out of the Love Family if they had been through the LSD "sacrament." Leslie Van Houten may have been effectively deprogrammed by other prisoners, but they are never, ever, ever going to let her out of prison, so it doesn't really matter.
DLM and the Tony and Susan Alamo Christian Foundation, contrariwise, could be referred to as "concentration" cults. In the Alamo cult, individuals were persuaded to think the phrase "praise you, Jesus, thank you, Jesus" during all waking hours. They were then shown selected Bible verses to convince them that if they stopped thinking this phrase, God would zap them into homosexuals who could not go to heaven. The unwitting self-hypnotic effect of the "meditation" left them in fear of leaving the cult property. Recruits were selected for proselytization based upon their apparent recent drug use. Full members lived in the commune and engaged in back-breaking physical labor, for which they never received a paycheck. Oh, yeah. They also had to turn over all of their money and possessions. Almost forgot that.
The (1973) DLM version was, essentially the same -- 24/7 concentration on your own breathing, pressure to live in an ashram (or, more frequently, a "premie house"), and subsequent indoctrination into the "non-beliefs." The first of these was the belief that you didn't have beliefs (or concepts or dogma), but knew things based upon your own experience. The next was that there was something wrong, demonic or Satanic about the "mind," which was not defined, based upon its resistance to this kind of "meditation." The next was that the guru was greater than or equal to God, which you believed, but also believed that you knew. In 1973, the organization was promoting the idea that the Millennium '73 event was, essentially, the Second Coming, that "Sache dabar ki jai" referred to the Guru and his Holy Family as "the Holy High Court of God," and that the mother and three brothers were "the four angels referred to in the Book of Revelation." That whole cluster of un-beliefs was attributed to Bal Bhagwan Ji in a legendary conversation with some guy called "Tiny." Anyway, by November, I, and everyone I knew, expected a flying saucer to remove the Astrodome from the planet, with all of us inside. Rennie Davis predicted 144000 of us. It was fairly easy to deprogram someone out of the Alamo cult or DLM. You only had to convince them to stop "Praising the Lord" or "meditating," and enough of their thinking ability was restored to see that they had been deceived and that believing in flying saucers and all that was a little bit off. Oh -- and the third page of the Ashram Application asked a lot of questions about things like trust funds and potential inheritances. One premie house I was living in became an "applicant ashram," and with the requirements for a positive cash flow from the house to DLM, everyone would have needed a pretty good-paying job to continue to live there. Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman point out that the DLM mind control was particularly effective, and that they hadn't met former premies who had not been "appropriately deprogrammed." They didn't wait long enough. If you visit http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org, you will find that very few of us were deprogrammed, and that the others took 20-25-30 years to think their way out of the trap, usually after reading the histories of other ex-premies online.
Now, I'm seeing that Goom Rodgie has apparently modified his earlier "agya" from "constantly meditate and remember the Holy Name" to practicing the four techniques for a minimum of one hour a day. The "Music" as taught, unbalances the body's electrical field and impedes thinking. The "Word," as taught in the past (24/7), serves as a more severe mind control technique, similar to the "Jesus" mantram in the Alamo cult. The "Light" (as taught in 1973) has the potential to physically damage the eyes, but probably has some beneficial potential if practiced in a different manner. The "snot" technique seems to be harmless, unless you get your tongue caught in your sinuses somehow. I haven't heard of anyone doing that, but there is a Radha Soami image online (MRI, I believe), showing someone with his tongue all the way up there, which looks like it could result in suffocation. And, of course, there are other breath meditations, including one of the Vipasana techniques, which rely upon "bare attention" rather than forced concentration, and which are not normally practiced 24/7, even in a monastic environment. So "The Knowledge" could be modified into something harmless and possibly beneficial, but I see no evidence of that occurring as yet. . If there is no ongoing secret EV teaching to keep "meditating" 24/7 (and, as an outsider, now, I would have no way of evaluating that), then EV is no longer the same kind of cult DLM was. In fact, using the taxonomy of the 2nd edition of "Snapping," it would appear to be a "sect," now -- an unorthodox religious group with a pyramidal structure, which would have the potential of becoming a cult if the leader (or the group) became paranoid enough or if the group was attacked by outside society. . A lot of different things are lumped together under the rubric of "meditation." Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh a/k/a Osho cataloged hundreds of them in his multi-volume "Book of Secrets" a few years back. There was a caveat in the health benefits of meditation article here (whatever the correct name is) that benefits shown by scientific experiments to derive from Transcendental Meditation could not necessarily be expected from other meditation techniques. Someone deleted that, and I think I remember who it was, but I'm not going to guess right now or look it up right now. . Not knowing how long Momento has been following Rawat, I don't know how disingenuous he is being in calling the "meditation" techniques "self exploration," or whatever the euphemism was. The intense concentration model from the early 1970's had the positive benefit of curing some (but not all) heroin addicts, but did not have the self-discovery benefits of, for example, Vipasana meditation practice supervised by an experienced teacher. That's another criticism of Rawat, of course -- no competent supervision of the meditators, and an apparent intent to completely suppress the mind, rather than remove emotional blockages discovered in meditation through forgiveness and other "skillful means." . By the same token, it seems disingenuous to call Rawat a "motivational speaker," when his entire message appears to be that he can give you "peace of mind" if he teaches you to meditate. A self-inflicted "software lobotomy" is not the kind of "peace" anyone in his right mind would be looking for, however, and given the 1973 attack on Pat Halley, it doesn't appear likely to eliminate all of the causes of war. . However, I wouldn't completely oppose a modification to indicate that Rawat currently describes himself as a "motivational speaker." That's certainly true, whether the description is accurate or not. Perhaps I'm advocating "weasel words," but that might be a reasonable compromise. . Anyway, the article as currently written, is generally referred to as a "whitewash" by former meditation students (who, through a kind of bait-and-switch wound up being devotees of the living God instead), and Jossi continues to use his cute little interpretation of BLP to stifle all criticism of Rawat.
Wowest ( talk) 09:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Shifted Time Magazine quote to here where it seems to fit in better. Rumiton ( talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[undenting] The attendance figures are taken directly from the most contemporary reliable source, and most accurately reflect the attendance. Later stories, especially in encyclopedias where space is limited, sometimes said "about 20,000" to save space, but that is less accurate. The different attendance estimates don't suggest anything; they are a statement of fact. Police estimates invariably are smaller than those of event organizers. Readers can draw their own conclusions about the reliability of the claims of each. We don't need to do the thinking for readers; that's exactly what OR is.
Also, it doesn't matter if YOU have a problem with the words "as a result". That is what several reliable sources say, and your arguments to the contrary are OR. If you want to know why, DLM accepts contributions, and highly publicized successful events bring donations both immediately and over the long run. The event was a failure (sources use words like "fiasco" but I chose more neutral ones) and the expected contributions didn't materialize. It's not rocket science. Msalt ( talk) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone who has Downton tell me which year this happened? Thanks. Rumiton ( talk) 12:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone more clued-up than me have a look at what the archive bot is doing? The most recent archive is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_31 but it is not accessible from the archive menu (the bottom link there leads to the older http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_30 ). Also, the numbering of archive pages goes 1, 3, 4 for no apparent reason that I can discern (2 is missing, even though each line clearly starts with a hash). Jayen 466 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
We have ...and gave way to an exclusive focus on "Knowledge", a set of instructions about living life. We know, and the article says so, that the Knowledge is the four inner techniques, not a set of instructions about living life. Any problem with clarifying that? Rumiton ( talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Francis, I don't think edits like this one [6] ("all evil should be attributed to the mind") are ultimately helpful. As a statement by itself, it lacks context. It implies a kind of criticism that the authors quoted (who do explain in neutral terms what is meant by "mind") do not express. The more edits of this sort we have, the more the article will look as though – as I read somewhere the other day about Wikipedia – two people had fought over a keyboard, alternately achieving possession of it and entering a few words, until their opponent grabbed it again and entered their text. This is exactly what happened here; Momento has added a balancing statement from the same article, but the sentence still seems to me to be a sentence of two halves, more indicative of our conflict here than of what the scholars in question said. Unless we strive for middle ground, it will never end. Jayen 466 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, really, I don't see why we would need to get into fragmented discussions again. I don't like the disruption caused by that either, and have pointed it out multiple times. The Van der Lans and Derks edit was explained above in #Teachings Section, and extensively discussed there, nobody objecting to my final assessment of the situation there. Yes, there I made a reference to this:
Which was an earlier version of the article, directly linking to the full relevant Van der Lans & Derks quoted text in the footnote (so, Andries, please stop complaining I'm not doing my utmost to show what is going on); And also the pro-Rawat camp stop complaining the scholarly opinions have been removed. Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them (that's about the time when I insisted on Jossi he'd take a more relaxed approach to editing the article, and I still appreciate his reaction to that suggestion) - I only tried to find a middle ground. Msalt had moved the Van der Lans and Derks footnote, clueless about what it was doing in a paragraph on criticism of the content of Rawat's teachings. There's no reproach there, and Msalt will have no problem I wrote those words (I'm confident) - but how could Msalt not have been clueless: the Van der Lans and Derks footnote had been stripped from everything that would have made clear why it was where it was before Msalt moved it. So I explained what had happened, above in #Teachings Section, and went for the middle ground: not making the quote in the article too long (some might object and remove it as had happened multiple times before), and not too short either, at least make it an understandable sentence. I was glad Momento added the somewhat longer explanation shortly thereafter, [7], because that really made more sense. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them ???? No, Francis, no. I reverted your edit: Your edit dismissed more than a year's worth of edits by many editors, to your last version. Stick to the facts, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this section is getting at, or what middle ground is being suggested. But this discussion points up a continuing problem. So many changes are being made that footnotes are constantly being separated from what they reference. The article is being "worried" constantly, esp. by Momento, who literally appears to have made several edits a day for months if not years. For example, this edit [8] separated three sources from a statement by inserting a sentence in the middle, then adding a source for the statement after the 3 sources. No one can readily figure out what happened, and statements are often removed for being "unsourced." How can we stop this? Msalt ( talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
InformationI have been doing research about Prem Rawat and his students, and =about his detractors, and I found some information which may help bring some balance in the attempt to shape a fair article. While Prem Rawat has been known to have students that were overly passionate about his teachings, his detractors also appear to be, at times, overly determined in their profile and actions. My research indicates that Prem Rawat has had for about 10 years a small group of active opponents/detractors who have resorted to unethical and even illegal methods to prevent him from sharing his message of peace, and to prevent people interested in this message to sustain their interest. The members of this small group appear to be the same people who are now battling here on WIKI effort to inject a negative bias into the Wikipedia entries about Prem Rawat. I have done some research into their objectives and methods, and would like to summarize my findings. At times, they have manipulated the media. One of them from Bristol, UK, posting under the alias Andrew Carpenter, gave an interview to the leading Bristol Evening Post on June 17, 2003 and managed to get a full page cover article with his in silhouette to protect his anonymity. He claimed that he had discovered grave financial irregularities in the accounting of the Elan Vital UK Charity, which promotes Prem Rawats message of peace in the UK and that he had just filed a complaint with the UK Charity commission. This "Andrew Carpenter" also posted several "articles" in IndyMedia websites with misleading reporting. He indeed filed a complaint with the charity commission, but the investigation found no wrongdoing by Elan Vital: the complaint was frivolous, the journalist was duped and Elan Vital was found by the Charity Commission to be in good compliance with rules and regulations. Similar fictitious tax complaints have been sent by this small group to regulatory authorities in India, Australia and more. In each and every case, they resulted in the complaint being dismissed by the authorities. There are indications that this Andrew Carpenter is one of the detractors participating in the discussions about this WIKI article. Similarly, as already discussed here, in San Francisco, a member of the detractor group posed under the invented name “Satchianand” pretending to be student of Prem Rawat and made outrageous statements to a young inexperienced journalist with the Daily Californian, and these comments were published in a negative article on April 30, 2003. On the forum/chat room on the internet where they gather, they have made threats against Prem Rawat and his family. Some postings incited people to drug and kidnap members of Rawats family, to poison the water of the resort where he holds events, and even to broadcast false alerts that anthrax had been found in the conference hall. One posting even included a picture of knives saying these were intended for Prem Rawat. The small group also published the private phone numbers and floor plans of Prem Rawats house, and more. Several of these detractors have been found to have broken the law and some have been incarcerated. One of them, from Brisbane, Australia, admitted to stealing information from a computer belonging to a student of Prem Rawat. He was also found guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced to two months in prison. Another one was arrested in the largest drug bust in the history of Queensland and spent 8 months in jail. A US person was found guilty to have forged internet domain names to divert traffic away from legitimate sites. More recently, the forum used by this small group was shut down by the ISP after it was discovered that it was being used for “phishing” which consists of acquiring private information including credit card and bank account information. A journalist in Australia, in an authenticated affidavit signed in 2005, acknowledged having been duped by the detractors group and stated: “The goal dos the group are often obsessive, malicious, and destructive in nature. Through the use of the internet, they interfere with the rights of people to experience their own spiritual discovery ad for the purpose of harassing individuals who are students of Rawats. The groups actions have included the contacting of employers of students of Prem Rawat, letters to regulatory agencies and the media with unsupported allegations and rabid personal attacks on the character of individuals. … and the internet publication of false and defamatory stories about Rawat designed to cast him in a false light.” My sense, after conducting the above research, is that the topic of Prem Rawat appears to attract people with polarized and extreme views, and it is incumbent upon neutral editors to uphold the WIKI standards and ideals and ensure that balance, fairness and NPOV prevails.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabellaW ( talk • contribs)
I have, while conducting research, found many hate postings containing hateful statements, threats and harassments at http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech1.htm Are you denying that these postings were ever made? I also see a connection between a participant in WIKI discussions and this "Andrew Carpenter" ( http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-14218076.html) see: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-india/2006-March/0322-d4.html I can also provide the link to the affidavit by the Australian journalist,this is a public document from the Supreme Court of Queensland. http://www.elanvital.org/faq/JMG_AFFIDAVIT.pdf I can also document that this other person was arrested with $25Million of drugs as well as unsecured and unlicensed firearms. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/neville2.htm Copy of newspaper article: http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/PDF/ackland_drug_bust.pdf Regarding Mr. Fresco, my research indicates that he was not named in that lawsuit, instead he was a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabellaW ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
|
... was the name of Rawat when he was a child. See Balyogeshwar. I do not think that it is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my remark (and insertion of the alternate name) is really purely usability/navigational/"principle of least surprise". Not knowing what to think that you guys appear to be able to make anything as simple as that into something that needs to be included in a POV-pushers agenda. THERE IS NO POV IN MENTIONING THE ALTERNATE NAME OF AN INCOMING LINK IN THE LEAD SECTION. We do it everywere: Pontius Pilate's wife has six alternate names in bold in the first sentence; William III of England has at least as many alternate names in the first three paragraphs of the intro; Erik Satie has two pen names in the third paragraph of the intro; Bolzano of course mentions "Bozen" (and 5 other alternatives) in the first sentence of the intro, etc. etc. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Names related to Rawat's Childhood may well come within the purview of WP:INDIA, excising these names because they are 'historic' and therefore of little consequence would seem at very least to go against the spirit of WP:INDIA and it is surely poor manners to remove the Indian titles from the lede without any reference to WP:INDIA.
-- Nik Wright2 ( talk) 15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Historic things are not of little consequence? Balyogeshwar=Iron lady? I understood that Balyogeshwar means 'Born Lord of Yogis' I can remember that much myself from 1975 when I asked what it meant. (By the way he was still called that well into the mid-seventies and still IS known by that title to many Indians who are naturally uninformed as to how he's changed his name since then. Also there are Indians here in the UK who call him that still! Shouldn't they be able to find Rawat through searching for Balyogeshwar here? Watching this debate from a distance (rather than being personally subject to Momento's simply puerile, tortuous logic for once) it's very obvious that he is an outrageously hostile editor who is simply mocking the intelligence of the incredibly patient other editors here. I really think it's way beyond time he was banned from this article . There has been such consistent and vociferous complaint already something surely needs to be done now. I would classify his obstructive comments here as aggressive 'filibustering'. Msalt, and others.. have you considered the possible abject futility of ploughing on with your corrections here as you are patiently doing? I worry about your future sanity when you take a well-earned break to return only to find that he has completely reverted the article to his taste. That's what he is waiting to do. Is there anything that can be done to protect your work? You may have noticed I have been terminally discouraged from making actual edits. That is not because I can't, it's because I am not prepared to let him mock my efforts any more than he has done already. How many people actually stick around here to make substantial sense of this article? My observation is that 90% have fled in frustration and that is basically because no-one has successfully banned Jossi, Momento and their POV pushing friends from acting as if they own and should control the information in this article. Isn't it the case that Jossi has successfully banned some rather eloquent ex-premie voices from here for far less crimes? What is so fair about that when he tolerates this degree of disruption , year in year out from Momento?
PatW (
talk)
14:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
OK if it is true that you have banned no one then I unmitigatingly apologise. But please tell me by what process have people been banned? I understood that some ex-premies were banned? Is that untrue then? PatW ( talk) 16:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
PS. I have deleted my heading which you think was unnecessarily loud. PatW ( talk) 16:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I answered[...] Balyogeshwar is a description given by others, like "The Iron Lady" was used to describe Margaret Thatcher.
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 00:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)The "Iron Lady" is in the lead section of the Wikipedia article on Margaret Thatcher. I'd like to follow that example and close this incident.
Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, December 10, 1957 in Haridwar, India), also Maharaji (previously known as Sant Ji, Balyogeshwar, and Guru Maharaj Ji, [3]) has been a speaker on the subject of inner peace since the age of eight, as well as offering instruction of four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge. [4] [5]
(my bolding) If the material is not contentious, just removing it is no more nor less than causing disruption. And it has to stop. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 00:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately [...]
Much of a do about nothing? He was called "Sant Ji" until 8 years of age. Then he was called "Balygeshwar" along side "Guru Maharaj Ji". (Some in India still recognize him as Balyogeshwar from the early days). Then he was called just "Maharaji". All these names can be explained and are supported by sources. Can we at least agree on that first? Then we can look for ways on how best to present the information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Jossi do you ever read what I actually write before trotting out some knee jerk response which shows that you haven't? Read again and you'll see I was saying why I think his popular name(s) should be made clear first thing. PatW ( talk)
I'm OK with John Brauns' version of the intro [18] - which I think is my last version of the same. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, Jossi has given us sources for the use of "Sant Ji", a name that you deleted from the article because it was unsourced. Could you please restore it now? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help) (the one mentioned by Jossi above, I found this one to be published in 2006
[20])Momento wrote: "I object to putting temporary Hindi titles in the lede". Apparently "Guru Maharaj Ji" was also a temporary title. Are there any legitimate reasons to exclude these widely-used names from the intro? If not can we please agree on adding these names to the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned above Sant Ji was a redlink, that is: was: I just started it as a disambig page. For as far I can tell "Sant" is not a part of the name properly speaking (as The Honourable would not be part of someone's name, properly speaking - only very few people were successful in making a given epithet/honorific become their actual name, compare Augustus/ Augustus (honorific)); "Ji" on the other hand is a name shared by many (among which Prem Rawat), some of whom are also "Sant" (see disambig page I created).
As for the Prem Rawat article, I resume my previous argument: the "Sant" tradition is explained in the article. "Sant + second part of the name Maharaj Ji", is a combination self-evident from the article as a name that can refer to Maharaj Ji. In other words, I don't see the "principle of least surprise" as a valid argument to keep Sant Ji in the lead section. There's no real confusion to be avoided. Apart from that, Sant Ji is less often used than (for instance) Balyogeshwar (that's my personal appreciation, after going through quite some text external to Wikipedia on this person). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, so we still don't have any mention of "Sant Ji Maharaj". Current footnote 20 says: "A three-day event in commemoration of Sri Hans Ji Maharaj, the largest procession in Delhi history of 18 miles of processionists culminating in a public event at India Gate, where Sant Ji Maharaj addressed the large gathering." I suggest we add to the text it references (in the "Childhood" section), "...then known as Sant Ji Maharaj..." Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"Balyogeshwar" should be included in the lede for convenience in further research. Until the middle of 1973, Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature lists Prem Rawat as "Balyogeshwar: Boy Guru." I believe this was done to avoid confusing him with Baba Ram Das's more famous guru, also called "Guru Maharaj Ji," and more formally known as "Satguru 108 Neem Karoli Baba." Wowest ( talk) 08:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We have ...and gave way to an exclusive focus on "Knowledge", a set of instructions about living life. We know, and the article says so, that the Knowledge is the four inner techniques, not a set of instructions about living life. Any problem with clarifying that? Rumiton ( talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Francis, I don't think edits like this one [21] ("all evil should be attributed to the mind") are ultimately helpful. As a statement by itself, it lacks context. It implies a kind of criticism that the authors quoted (who do explain in neutral terms what is meant by "mind") do not express. The more edits of this sort we have, the more the article will look as though – as I read somewhere the other day about Wikipedia – two people had fought over a keyboard, alternately achieving possession of it and entering a few words, until their opponent grabbed it again and entered their text. This is exactly what happened here; Momento has added a balancing statement from the same article, but the sentence still seems to me to be a sentence of two halves, more indicative of our conflict here than of what the scholars in question said. Unless we strive for middle ground, it will never end. Jayen 466 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, really, I don't see why we would need to get into fragmented discussions again. I don't like the disruption caused by that either, and have pointed it out multiple times. The Van der Lans and Derks edit was explained above in #Teachings Section, and extensively discussed there, nobody objecting to my final assessment of the situation there. Yes, there I made a reference to this:
Which was an earlier version of the article, directly linking to the full relevant Van der Lans & Derks quoted text in the footnote (so, Andries, please stop complaining I'm not doing my utmost to show what is going on); And also the pro-Rawat camp stop complaining the scholarly opinions have been removed. Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them (that's about the time when I insisted on Jossi he'd take a more relaxed approach to editing the article, and I still appreciate his reaction to that suggestion) - I only tried to find a middle ground. Msalt had moved the Van der Lans and Derks footnote, clueless about what it was doing in a paragraph on criticism of the content of Rawat's teachings. There's no reproach there, and Msalt will have no problem I wrote those words (I'm confident) - but how could Msalt not have been clueless: the Van der Lans and Derks footnote had been stripped from everything that would have made clear why it was where it was before Msalt moved it. So I explained what had happened, above in #Teachings Section, and went for the middle ground: not making the quote in the article too long (some might object and remove it as had happened multiple times before), and not too short either, at least make it an understandable sentence. I was glad Momento added the somewhat longer explanation shortly thereafter, [22], because that really made more sense. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them ???? No, Francis, no. I reverted your edit: Your edit dismissed more than a year's worth of edits by many editors, to your last version. Stick to the facts, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this section is getting at, or what middle ground is being suggested. But this discussion points up a continuing problem. So many changes are being made that footnotes are constantly being separated from what they reference. The article is being "worried" constantly, esp. by Momento, who literally appears to have made several edits a day for months if not years. For example, this edit [23] separated three sources from a statement by inserting a sentence in the middle, then adding a source for the statement after the 3 sources. No one can readily figure out what happened, and statements are often removed for being "unsourced." How can we stop this? Msalt ( talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
InformationI have been doing research about Prem Rawat and his students, and =about his detractors, and I found some information which may help bring some balance in the attempt to shape a fair article. While Prem Rawat has been known to have students that were overly passionate about his teachings, his detractors also appear to be, at times, overly determined in their profile and actions. My research indicates that Prem Rawat has had for about 10 years a small group of active opponents/detractors who have resorted to unethical and even illegal methods to prevent him from sharing his message of peace, and to prevent people interested in this message to sustain their interest. The members of this small group appear to be the same people who are now battling here on WIKI effort to inject a negative bias into the Wikipedia entries about Prem Rawat. I have done some research into their objectives and methods, and would like to summarize my findings. At times, they have manipulated the media. One of them from Bristol, UK, posting under the alias Andrew Carpenter, gave an interview to the leading Bristol Evening Post on June 17, 2003 and managed to get a full page cover article with his in silhouette to protect his anonymity. He claimed that he had discovered grave financial irregularities in the accounting of the Elan Vital UK Charity, which promotes Prem Rawats message of peace in the UK and that he had just filed a complaint with the UK Charity commission. This "Andrew Carpenter" also posted several "articles" in IndyMedia websites with misleading reporting. He indeed filed a complaint with the charity commission, but the investigation found no wrongdoing by Elan Vital: the complaint was frivolous, the journalist was duped and Elan Vital was found by the Charity Commission to be in good compliance with rules and regulations. Similar fictitious tax complaints have been sent by this small group to regulatory authorities in India, Australia and more. In each and every case, they resulted in the complaint being dismissed by the authorities. There are indications that this Andrew Carpenter is one of the detractors participating in the discussions about this WIKI article. Similarly, as already discussed here, in San Francisco, a member of the detractor group posed under the invented name “Satchianand” pretending to be student of Prem Rawat and made outrageous statements to a young inexperienced journalist with the Daily Californian, and these comments were published in a negative article on April 30, 2003. On the forum/chat room on the internet where they gather, they have made threats against Prem Rawat and his family. Some postings incited people to drug and kidnap members of Rawats family, to poison the water of the resort where he holds events, and even to broadcast false alerts that anthrax had been found in the conference hall. One posting even included a picture of knives saying these were intended for Prem Rawat. The small group also published the private phone numbers and floor plans of Prem Rawats house, and more. Several of these detractors have been found to have broken the law and some have been incarcerated. One of them, from Brisbane, Australia, admitted to stealing information from a computer belonging to a student of Prem Rawat. He was also found guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced to two months in prison. Another one was arrested in the largest drug bust in the history of Queensland and spent 8 months in jail. A US person was found guilty to have forged internet domain names to divert traffic away from legitimate sites. More recently, the forum used by this small group was shut down by the ISP after it was discovered that it was being used for “phishing” which consists of acquiring private information including credit card and bank account information. A journalist in Australia, in an authenticated affidavit signed in 2005, acknowledged having been duped by the detractors group and stated: “The goal dos the group are often obsessive, malicious, and destructive in nature. Through the use of the internet, they interfere with the rights of people to experience their own spiritual discovery ad for the purpose of harassing individuals who are students of Rawats. The groups actions have included the contacting of employers of students of Prem Rawat, letters to regulatory agencies and the media with unsupported allegations and rabid personal attacks on the character of individuals. … and the internet publication of false and defamatory stories about Rawat designed to cast him in a false light.” My sense, after conducting the above research, is that the topic of Prem Rawat appears to attract people with polarized and extreme views, and it is incumbent upon neutral editors to uphold the WIKI standards and ideals and ensure that balance, fairness and NPOV prevails.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabellaW ( talk • contribs)
I have, while conducting research, found many hate postings containing hateful statements, threats and harassments at http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech1.htm Are you denying that these postings were ever made? I also see a connection between a participant in WIKI discussions and this "Andrew Carpenter" ( http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-14218076.html) see: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-india/2006-March/0322-d4.html I can also provide the link to the affidavit by the Australian journalist,this is a public document from the Supreme Court of Queensland. http://www.elanvital.org/faq/JMG_AFFIDAVIT.pdf I can also document that this other person was arrested with $25Million of drugs as well as unsecured and unlicensed firearms. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/neville2.htm Copy of newspaper article: http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/PDF/ackland_drug_bust.pdf Regarding Mr. Fresco, my research indicates that he was not named in that lawsuit, instead he was a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabellaW ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Some text and sources for Sant Mat, from the article of the same name. (I have researched this subject quite in depth in the past)
The boundaries of the movement were likely not sectarian and were devoid of Brahmin concepts of caste and liturgy. The poet-sants expressed their teaching in vernacular verse, addressing themselves to the common folk in oral style in Hindi and other dialects such as Marathi. They referred to the "Divine Name" as having saving power, and dismissed the religious rituals as having no value. They presented the idea that true religion was a matter of surrendering to God "who dwells in the heart". [6] [7]
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Francis, the other portions that you tagged with {{ cn}} are sourced to Galanter and Hunt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Francis, you are breaching the 1RR probation. Please self-revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, Momento reverted the same text twice in 10 minutes. [27] and [28]. Is there a reason you have not warned him for 1RR? There certainly appears to be a double standard in your administration here. Msalt ( talk) 18:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've read a bit more about Rawat, I find the teachings section a bit bland. It doesn't really capture what is unique about him, in my opinion, and so I'd like to suggest two major points that seem to be distinctive and exactly the kind of summary info a good encyclopedia article would contain. I have a bunch of sources, but at this point I'm more interested in working out a consensus summary that every one can agree on. I don't think there is any reason that this would need to be a point of contention. The points are:
1. It seems that a major innovation of Rawat was offering a direct sensory experience of transcendence as captured in the four elements of the Knowledge, as opposed to the more abstract transcendance offered by other religions and spiritual philosophies. A couple of quotes struck me along these lines -- one devotee told a writer “Our Knowledge is not a religion, but an experience.” And Rennie Davis quoted Rawat as saying "“Don’t believe me unless you have proof”.
This is not only a fascinating contrast with the other-worldliness of most religions (and answer to criticisms of them), but it goes a long way to explaining why this teaching would be so popular at that time in world history, a time when many were reclaiming direct experience over highly refined abstraction.
2. The concept of lila, which I understand to be "divine play" or "joking". It seems that many of the contradictions of Rawat that outsiders so quickly jumped on, were seen by many insiders as a form of lila, a joke that they were in on and the outsiders didn't get. This is a big part of what the Foss and Larkin article is about.
It seems to me that even a quick teaching section should include these, and that the article would be much richer and deeper yet NPOV. Thoughts? Msalt ( talk) 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In the Divine Light Mission, the guru taught that humanity is inherently divine. For people to attain this divinity, they must gain knowledge, which came from the teachings of Guru Maharaj Ji, who is of the line of Perfect Masters.
The movement that originally started as the Divine Light Mission is now reformed in its beliefs and teachings. Elan Vital bears little or no similarity to traditional Indian religious concepts such as reincarnation or heaven. The emphasis is in present-tense experience of life in the here and now.
Maharaj ji teaches a simple self-discovery process, involving four simple techniques to turn the senses within and appreciate the joyful basis of existence beyond thoughts and ideas. He denies criticism that his teachings represent instant gratification, but sees it instead as an ongoing learning process that can enrich an individual's life.— Edwards, Linda (2001). A brief guide to beliefs: ideas, theologies, mysteries, and movements. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. p.278-279. ISBN 0-664-22259-5.{{ cite book}}
:|pages=
has extra text ( help)
As I mentioned above, I moved the discussion of whether Rawat is divine to this section, where it fits more logically. Also, I am going to change the following line because it implies that scholars are endorsing the view that only Rawat can provide the keys to his meditation techniques, which is POV at best and certainly not what the scholars say:
"Prem Rawat teaches a process of self-discovery using four meditation techniques to which only he has the keys".
You could say something like "techniques to which he CLAIMS only he has the keys" but I think it's more encyclopedic just to describe the techniques. Hence
"Prem Rawat teaches a process of self-discovery using four meditation techniques (Light, Music, Nectar and Word)."
This is much closer to what the sources say. Msalt ( talk) 05:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't fit there. What is the logic? The teachings are unrelated to these claims. Janice Rowe ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, here's another idea. The "Westernization" section already contains a discussion about Rawat reducing the "Perfect Master" language with its deistic overtones. Would it be better to move the controversy over Rawat's deity (or lack thereof) to that section? These two sections really present two different viewpoints that might be better merged. The one currently in Leaving India seems to say "some said he claimed Godness, but he didn't really, but you can't stop those devotees, can you?" (I'm paraphrasing.) The Westernization section seems to be saying "OK, he was kind of Goddish in the Indian phase but dropped that during Westernization." (again, paraphrasing). Can we reconcile those and put them all in Westernization? I think that makes the most sense, now that I look at it. Msalt ( talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
One of Momento's sudden burst of undiscussed edits inserted the phrase "taught to him by his guru" into the first sentence of this section. "Guru" is original research; the only source we have says his "father." Furthermore, even if you could show that Shri Hans had a guru relationship with his son at age 6, it is confusing to the reader to use that term instead of the plain meaning of "father". As we're saying that Shri Hans taught him Knowledge in these very words, the reader can easily pick up that meaning as appropriate. But if you say "guru", no reader could be expected to understand that to mean his father. I also fixed the placement and citations for that phrase. Msalt ( talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I added the phrase "collectively known as Knowledge" to that first sentence as well, to make it clear that the term refers to those meditation techniques. Otherwise, the reference to Knowledge with a capital K in the last paragraph of this section is confusing. Also, I'm fine with Momento's move of the teachings criticisms to this section, as long as that doesn't ruin it as a WP:SUMMARY per Jossi's comments, but s/he placed it in the middle of the narrative of the development of Rawat's teachings (ie "1) R started as this. 2) critics say.... 3) Then R changed to that". I'm going to move #2 after #3 to keep that narrative clear. Msalt ( talk) 08:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
^ Reporter at Montrose, Colorado, 25 July, 1972: "I was told that probably the best question to ask you, out of sincerity, is: 'Who are you?' Maharaj Ji: "... really I can't say who I am. But, though, there is a very basic thing, what I feel about myself. And that is that people have been claiming me as God or as Jesus or so on, and, ah, many television people have been asking this question, and this is an interesting question of course. I thought maybe you will be interested in the answer. I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge, and it's ideal of humanity. I don't want to form a small sect or a religion. It's an open thing to all. It's for all casts, all creeds, all colors. And man is human, and it's OK he can receive it. And it's something that is internal, something that does not interfere with any religion. And this is the highest thing that I am teaching, about the people of this time, today. I don't claim myself to be God. I don't claim myself to be something like that, but I can claim I can show you God." "
Well, we used to have:
So, I don't know why the Van der Lans & Derks footnote was moved around in the article just now, and linked to a sentence where it is no reference for... [32] -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I was pondering about the framing of "lack of intellectual content" as a criticism. Is it? If we are to mention these opinions, we ought to counterpoint them with the fact that Prem Rawat has always focused on an direct experience, a feeling, which he often refers as "very, very simple". Is that bad? Good? It does not matter. Rather than frame these opinions as criticism, these should be framed as opinions and attribute these opinions to those that hold them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I added some more information about the teachings, and fixed bias on the introduction. Janice Rowe ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
When it always touches me as somewhat gossipy, how much space in the article is given to the subject's apparent wealth, I wonder why the fact that he teaches free of charge, and always has, is nowhere mentioned. To my understanding it certainly bears more notability than all this discreetly invidious subtext about house and debts and such. I imagine that a serious reader might use WP with a wish to not get fed mostly superficial mainstream attitudes, no matter how extensively published. Could editors agree on mentioning and properly sourcing this item in the Teaching section?-- Rainer P. ( talk) 23:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Janice has made a change to the lede which, although not perfect, is an improvement. The criticism of Rawat's teachings for being - simplistic, intellectually unremarkable etc - need context. And that context is - he gives "an emphasis of individual, subjective experience, rather than on a body of dogma" (Hunt). I think this is an important point as all Sant guru's took the same approach. Momento ( talk) 05:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
re. "change to the lede which, although not perfect, is an improvement": failed to see the improvement while, again, references were severed from what they were actually referencing, and text inserted not covered by these references. Also deformation of the text covered by the actual references. See also edit summary of my revert of the intro. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
He is considered an iconoclast who plots his route by pragmatic decisions to meet the demands and challenges that occur in his public career as a teacher. striving to convince people of the value of self-knowledge. [8] Rawat claims that practicing Knowledge will allow the practitioner to experience self-understanding, calmness, peace and contentment. Practitioners describe Knowledge as internal and highly individual, with no associated social structure, liturgy, ethical practices or articles of faith. [9] [10] [11]
Other thoughts?Ron Geaves considers Rawat to be an iconoclast who plots his route by pragmatic decisions to meet the demands and challenges that occur in his public career as a teacher, striving to convince people of the value of self-knowledge. [12]
Sources listed in Globalisation, charisma, innovation and tradition |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Re. lifestyle epithet:
First we had "sumptuous" to sum that up; Jayen just changed to "luxurious"; my choice would still be "sumptuous" if confined to a single word (while "luxurious" doesn't quite capture the despicable and nonspiritual from his mother's official statement). When allowing more than a single word "materialistic or opulent" would do for me, closer to sources. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Last paragraph of the lede should would be best if updated with the wording entered by Janice: Rawat teachings have been described as lacking intellectual content and as emphasizing the superiority of direct experience over intellect., sourced as per available sources, and followed by the "luxurious" lifestyle text. Or something along these lines.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"opulent" without "materialistic" wouldn't do for me, since we're summarizing two sources here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)When allowing more than a single word "materialistic or opulent" would do for me, closer to sources.
Re the lead, I just read this page without knowing the subject, and found it odd that the lead doesn't mention the Divine Light Mission at all, when it seems to be a key topic in the body of the article. I don't want to join in editing here since it seems quite hotly debated, but purely to provide context, how about adding He was formerly the leader of the Divine Light Mission. to the end of the first paragraph? From what I've read here thats (hopefully) an uncontentious statement. -- Bazzargh ( talk) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Mangalwadi
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).