Talk:Past teachings of Prem Rawat/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.
  • Thanks Albert D for the very comprehensive and detailed article. It reads well and provides a good historical overview IMO.
  • I have gone through each section and NPOV'ed them. Thus, I have removed the NPOV check notice.
  • Some sections may belong to the current teachings article, for example the role of the teacher and the relationsohip student/teacher. These are still current. --Zappaz 04:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz,

May I ask, do you contribute to Wiki under any other names? Do you ever accept payment for working on an article? Have you been paid for working on the Rawat articles? Are :there Wiki policies on either issue?. -- Jim
These conspiracy theories are laughable and demonstrate again the pathological aspects observeved in apostacy. --Zappaz 03:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Zappaz,
Is it really that far-fetched that some nefarious cult like Rawat's would try to pay someone already well-versed and familiar with the Wiki ropes to do their PR work here? I don't think so. And don't forget, your arguments in defence of Rawat are patently stupid. So you have to factor that in, huh? In any event, I was just asking. Fairly reasonable questions too. What, are you saying that one needs to be pathologically paranoid to wonder whether Wikipedia has a policy about posting under more than once name? Or, worse, being paid to lobby for a certain version of a controversial article? These are reasonable questions, my good friend. Maybe you don't know the answers, maybe you do. But they're not bad questions. Now, would you please answer them?
--24.68.220.3 21:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) Jim


Jim and Zappaz, using a sockpuppet user account is not appreciated but not explictly forbidden. There may be legitimate reasons for it. I do not believe that Zappaz uses sockpuppets or is paid by Elan Vital to present a whitewashed picture of Prem Rawat. I understand quite well, what I believe is, the root reason of Jim's question i.e. his (and my) lack of understanding that an intelligent person who is not a follower, like Zappaz would voluntarily spend a lot of time defending Prem Rawat who misguids his followers and has harmed some them and whom Jim (and I) consider incompetent or a fraud beyond reasonable doubt. Andries 21:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Thanks, Andries.
Andries, I understand that there are some people who actually advertise their services "editting" articles on Wikipedia. Are you aware of this? I would think that, especially if there was any controversy over the article, if a person WAS paid to work on it, common decency would require them to disclose their obvious conflict of interest. Not that they couldn't work on the article, of course, just that anyone else trying to do the same would know who and what they're dealing with. In some ways, these Wiki articles, at least the contested ones, seem to be endurance contests. Well, if one party's paid to fight, they're obviously going to prevail. It's all just hourly billing at that point, isn't it?
I'm curious, Andries, why do you say that you don't believe Zappaz is either using a "sockpuppet" (a term I infer means an alternative identity) and why do you think he's not being paid by EV? By his own account he's put in extensive time researching and working on this article. Why? He says he's been in touch with EV. What do you think THAT contact was all about? Zappaz is dishonest. I've already proven that. He dealt with evidence contrary to his theory in a most obviously dishonest fashion. The question is "Why?" I know I'd be a nut if I alleged that Zappaz was being paid by EV based on mere speculation. But there's nothing "nutty" about asking if there's some hidden interest on his part. Indeed, as you yourself suggest, his efforts and attitude are rather suspicious.
--24.68.220.3 21:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) Jim


  • The only thing nefarious around here is the ex-premie hate group
  • The consipracy theories are either funny or very sad, but outrageous nonetheless
  • Andries bias, his and stuborness in pursuing this subject as well as his collusion with the ex-premie hate group is, for lack of a better word, pathetic.
  • Fact is that the ex-premie hate group is not interested in neutral articles. Their agenda of hate precludes NPOV as they have explained so many times already.
  • Question: Why do they post here so many words and contribute nothing? Answer: Because of their obsession and their proclaimed hate.
--203.200.122.1 16:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
oh my dear i hear, the word hate flowing so indigantly out of you, is there nothing in your personality to stop that? While you point your finger at somebody, four of them are pointing to you.Surdas 20:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
.122.1 If the current students had not tried to present a whitewashed picture of Prem Rawat and his past then please believe me, I would have written positive things about him and not only negative things. But because the followers are so persistent in pushing their point of view, which I consider biased, I feel I have no option other than to push back. I do not like people getting misled and possibly making costly mistakes because of that. Andries 17:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How many fingers are pointing at you now, Surdas? I am not indignant, quite the contrary... just stating the obvious. My personality has nothing to do with it. And by the way, it seems that you were once a follower of Prem Rawat, as he used that analogy quite often in the past. :-) --203.200.122.1 14:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
true, true, but nobody seemed to ever have used his brain/mind at that time, because the analogy is pretty stupid, except you have a malformed anatomy. Actually it is three fingers pointing back, your thumb is probably somewhere between the same direction as your forefinger and a right angle, but hardly backwards. Surdas

I gave the article a disputed warning after I noticed that a sentence that I had removed was re-inserted i.e.

"This resulted in an environment that now seems anachronistic, but was culturally accepted in the 1970s, where many Indian rituals and cultural traditions were being embraced by the younger generation. "

This is an interpretation that should not be stated as a fact. The vast majority of the younger generation did not embrace Indian rituals. Anachronistic, you mean Hindu. Andries 17:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, Andries. You cannot use {{totallydisputed}} as a weapon. The article is well written and detailed. If you have any specific issues with some text, please try to edit them instead of deleting. I have NPOVed the above paragraph.≈ jossi ≈ 17:14, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
I deleted a sentence that I did not agree with and that I think is factually incorrect and then somebody re-inserted it. Then I think that the inserting the disputed label is appropriate and the right procedure. Andries 17:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I have to admit that editing is better. Andries 17:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who is 80.3.64.7 and why are you editing the page anonymously?

I see that someone who is not logged in is trying to make some points about Indian history and proposing advice to people who might want to "invest" time in Prem Rawat and his teachings - why are you doing this behind a computer ref? Who are these "some critics" that feel these absurd socio-babble about distancing from all things Hindu, etc? Facts are that while Rawat's teaching came from India, they were never from Hinduism. Terms and "trappings" were definitely Indian in nature, but why continue with that when it is clear the message is universal and not limited to India or anything Hindu? The evolution away from that is most natural and clearly admited. Chuck 19:56, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh great, just what we need, another revisionistic cult member! Tell me, Chuck, did you ever read Shri Hans' book Hans Yog Prakash? Are you saying that the precepts and edicts contained therein are not classic Hindu spiritual teachings? Or what, that this wasn't the basis for Rawat's own teachings, then and now? Really!

Jim 4/10/4

I have deleted the following: Some critics feel that the 'distancing from all things Hindu' that Rawat and his current supporters exersize exempifies a sociological trait that Indian guru's and indeed, politians and salesmen universally display - the desire to boost their own autonomy or 'uniqueness' of their product by drawing attention away from it's prosaic roots. Critics say that people who are inspired to invest trust in Rawat as their potential teacher might also benefit from the broader perspective gained by investigating the Indian roots of his message. It is not only inaccurate but too general and opinionated. It hides behind the "some critics say" line but that would not fool anyone... would it? Chuck 20:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

This way of editing is leading nowhere

I think that every edit has to be referenced otherwise we will be just changing each other's edits endlessly. Andries 21:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andreis - I totally agree with you.Chuck 22:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andreis - in my last edit, I deleted a phrase that you seem to be using more and more in this article - writing that people were not told to take something literally insiuates that everyone must be told how to think. This was never the case. People could and still can think whatever they want and interpret what they see and hear however they please. I wanted to make sure we at least agree on that point. Chuck 22:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chuck, I will think about it but at the moment I think that the burden of proof for the assertion in hindsight that things were not to be taken literally is on the person making this assertion. Andries 07:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
????? Can you please explain what you mean? ≈ jossi ≈ 09:23, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
If I say "chair" many times and twenty years later say that I had always meant "table" and that people who listened to me are blamed for taking things literally and "misconceptions" possibly due to culture then the burden of proof that I really meant table instead of chair is on me. Same for "Lord of the universe". the text of arti, "Guru is greater than God" etc. Andries 21:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Staying on purpose

This article was supposed to be an historical discourse on PR's teachings. The original article submitted by Albert needed just some adjustments and NPOV'ng that I performed, and was pretty good, and succinct already, The counterpoints being made by the 'anti' faction have already been covered in detail in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article, so I do not see the reason to repeat these points again here.

Please note that the article is already way beyond the 32Kb limit, so I would encourage succinctness and avoiding repetition of points already covered in one of the ancillary articles. What we need now is synthesis, not expansion. --Zappaz 04:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having reviewed the Criticism of Prem Rawat article, I agree that most if not all of the recent back-and-forth should be incorporated in that article and not in this one - they have little or nothing to do with Past Teachings. Chuck 15:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Chuck_J & Zappaz, I basically agree that this article is not the place for criticisms on Prem Rawat but this article contains supporters' interpretations of his teachings that I (and I think other critics too) consider biased and unfair and that put the blame for misunderstanding his teachings on his (ex-)followers. These interpretations just ask for rebuttals, and yes, these rebuttals will put the blame on Rawat. If these supporters' interpretations are removed then the rebuttals can be removed too. I hope that these interpretations will be removed and think they should because Wikipedia should present facts in the first place, not so much opposing opinions. Andries 18:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could you please state which sections of this article are "supporters' interpretations"? Once you do that I will be able to respond. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:21, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Religion and Prem Rawat

I have removed an unfounded and opinionated claim that "Religion of the personality of Prem Rawat is begining in some circles". From an academic point of view, there is absolutely no evidence that could in any way enable someone to characterize the pursuit and practice of Knowledge as a religion. Both Prem Rawat and his followers have repeatedly stated that they do not want or need to either offer or create a new religion and the facts have amply demonstrated that "Knowledge" is both compatible with and independent of any religion. As it pertains to the religion of personality, is a preposterous and fallacious allegation without roots. While Prem Rawat's message may be seen as being the ojbect of excessive consideration, saying that his personality is the object of a new religion is gratuitous, baseless and without merit. Chuck 00:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Andries' edits on 3 November 2004 21:37 EST

I tried to minimize deletions though the article has now become very messy partially as a result of that. Here is one deletion

  • "many elements against Hinduism"
    • like what, please give example, please keep in mind that there are many different sects in the group of interrelated religions that comprise Hinduism and that Hinduism is very diverse so this will be very difficult to prove.

Andries 20:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted your addition

Andreis - I have reverted the sentence you added - "Critics say that the assertion that this is common in Indian culture is baseless and that it may even offend Hindus.". Which critics? The statement, "Guru is greater than God" is a common Hindu statement- there is no question about that. Doesn't that make it common in Indian culture. I am not sure why you want to qualify this point - happy to understand further what you had in mind Chuck 01:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chuck, sorry, I do not believe it. Do a google search on "Guru is greater than God" and you will find hardly anything. Andries 03:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So if Google does not show a match that means it is not a fact? What kind of researcher are you, Andries? Take some time and read the provided refrences in the Techniques of Knowledge article. The amateurism your are demonstrating in your copyediting is becoming quite a pain in the behind. Do your research properly and I will take your edits seriously. Until then, I will assess your edits as tainted by your lack of rigour. --≈ jossi ≈ 05:25, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, I know quite a lot about Hinduism and the phrase "Guru is greater than God" was completely new for me and I still can not find any other group who says the same. And also please take into account that in Wikipedia the burden of proof of an assertion is on the person making it so please give reliable, scholarly references for your assertion that this is common in Indian culture. Andries 07:24, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Read the references provided in the Techniques of Knowledge Article. And there are hundred of references. Do you want me to compile a list?≈ jossi ≈ 09:56, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Example 1:
"To a Tantrika, his or her guru's position is supreme, even more than God for the Guru is the door opener to God. This is said in the scriptures. The Guru is more near and dear to a Tantrika than Goddess Herself. God/Goddess has many things to deal with, but Guru is concerned only with your welfare. The Guru's position is more helpful to the disciple than God. If within your society, you want a natural growth of the disciple's regard for the guru and the Absolute, Truth, such room must be allowed in your constitution, if the constitution is to live at all." [1]
Example 2:
"Without the True Guru, no one has obtained the Lord; without the True Guru, no one has obtained the Lord. He has placed Himself within the True Guru; revealing Himself, He declares this openly. Meeting the True Guru, eternal liberation is obtained; He has banished attachment from within. This is the highest thought, that one's consciousness is attached to the True Lord. Thus the Lord of the World, the Great Giver is obtained." " Guru Nanak, Asa di Var, Pauri 6, page 466 -
Satisfied? ≈ jossi ≈ 09:59, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
that only proves that prem rawat/knowledge is a sant mat branch, it never shows that this assertion is common use in india, what kind of a researcher are you? thomas
Jossi, I will look at the reference at Techniques of Knowledge but I am unconvinced by the references that you have provided here. Tantra is just one of the forms of mainstream Hinduism, and besides the group you mention is just one (probably small) organizaton within Tantrism. There has to be more proof for such a general sweeping statement. I thought that I knew all the Hindu groups in the Netherlands but this one was really new for me. Thanks. Andries 14:46, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andries: I think that I provided enough substantiation of that statement for the purpose of this article. You can ask a scholar about this. I have, and I got this response: "Guru greater than God" and similar statements is present in many Indian scriptures. I could get more details if needed be, but I think that it will not change anything and only prove that the satement is correct as is.≈ jossi ≈ 15:06, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, which Indian scriptures and where? You seem to forget that the burden of proof is on the person making a statement. Andries 15:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, and this is not mentioned in the Svetara upanishad, as somebody, with ip 64.81.88.140 wrote in the article guru. I checked the upanishad. Please do not insert the inaccuracies that followers use to defend Prem Rawat in non-Maharaji related articles. Andries 15:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i checked what you said about the guru article. our good old friend 140 is trying to spread faked information, so that our other good old friend jossi can refer to it. i want to remind jossi about his own statements on his user page; how fond of wiki he is. it seems all to be a bunch of lies, and his only purpose seems to be, writing articles as positive as possible about rawat, not cringing to use deception. thomas
I think that you and thomas should relax a bit and stop being so worked up about this. You guys keep coming up with conspiracy theories that are so laughable that are not worth responding to. Regarding the statement in question about, I will prepare a more detailed reference to Indian scriptures as soon as I have some time. It will be a real pleasure to have you both quiet for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:41, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
you cannot admit a mistake, can you? Not taking responsibility for his actions is one of the main aspects that is criticised with Rawat. So in this you seem to be a good student of your master. You give a damn about the accuracy of wikipedia, when you do things like this. it is of course more convenient if nobody talks about that. Do you think, bringing up a maybe more accurate compiled list of quotes later, will justify the attempt of trying to fool people? See, i was once a premie like you, i understand where the priorities lie when Maharaji is your master. You may not see a major wrong doing with this because you are serving a more important goal in your opinion. But most of the people in this world do not have this attitude and they never will. Never ever. sorry. thomas
What are you talking about? Are you deranged or something? I have been courteous in all my dealings with you so far. But my patience is running thin, wilth all the innuendo about lies and the silly conspirancy theories. Before judging me, have a look at yourself. Have you contributed anything at all to this project? No: ZERO. First make an effort to contribute and then pass judgement onto others. And for your information: I do care 100% about the accuracy of WP. Very distinct from people like you that will not accept the NPOV nature of WP. As I said, my patience with your impertinence and with Andries lack of rigor is running thin. I will prepare a list of references for the statement we are discussing, with the hope to put this at rest once and for all. ≈ jossi ≈ 12:37, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Deranged? I cannot completely exclude this, i have been in a cult quite a while. Something that i have learend there for example is, that GU means darkness and RU means light, and the GURU is the one who leads you from darkness to light. Now i was told that this is not true. Guru means "heavy" or honourable. And if you split it, gu means something like crap(cameldung?) and ru means "scream", confusing that is.Now there are 3 possibillities to rule that.
  • you will provide a list, that proves that rawat's version is right
  • explain that the premies misunderstood this
  • ignore it
thomas
Jossi, please also provide references for all the other general statements about "Indian culture" (mainstream Hinduism) and I think it is untrue and unfair that you accuse me of lack of rigor. You support an unreferenced assertion "Guru is greater than God is normal in Indian culture" so you have shown lack of rigor, not me. And Thomas did contribute to the project by translating Prem Rawat and Criticism of Prem Rawat into German language. Andries 13:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guru as greater than God

Hi folks, I am back! I can see that things have evolved a bit and given the current debate about this term, I will offer some references that may clarify this: In India, many saints have sung the glory of the Guru. Some examples (sanskrit is transliterated, as I don't know how to convert these glyphs so that that they show on the page, oh well...)

  • Sahjo Bai
Raam tajun Pei Guru Na Bisaron
Guru ke sam hari ko na niharon
I can afford to forget God but not the Guru. I can not equate God with Guru.
  • Brahmanand
Bhagya Bade Sadguru Mei Payo, Man ki duvidha door nasai
Brahmanand charan balihari, guru Mahima Hari se adhikai
It's my great fortune that I found Satguru, all my doubts are removed.
I bow before Guru. Guru's glory is greater than God's.
  • Kabir
Guru Govind Doa khade kake lagun panv
Balihari Guru Apne, jin Govind diyo lakhay
Guru and God both appear before me. To whom should I prostrate?
I bow before Guru who introduced God to me.

Also, the Upanishads are filled with expressions of the glory of the guru and Nanak's poerty, the same.

BTW, we could have a long debate about this, but in India, ask anyone and they will tell you the same. The 'Guru is greater than God' statement is indeed very common. Maybe this is a foreign concept to our Western minds, but not in India...

Hope tis helps. --Zappaz 12:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

hi Zappaz, it may be, that the reason why Andries never heard of it, is, that Sai Baba and his activities are mainly located in South India, where there is a cultural drift compared to the north. There the main focus seems to be the cult around kali and shiva. this is because these "cults" are considered older in history than the vishnu/krishna/rama stream, which was imported from the north by the immigrating arians, that had a lighter skin, and that later built the major part of the brahman cast system. BTW Sai Baba adapted the Krishna Cult as well, with him as the focus point, because this is an easy and convenient way to exploit his followers. Ramakrishna on the other hand, was engaged in almost all aspects of both main streams.He brought up some disciples from which one, Swami Vivekananda got much recognition when coming to the west. Can't we ask some native indian(please no premies in this case)if it is really ALL India? thomas
i am just fumbling through my issue of the upanishads and cannot find much about guru, not to mention "greater than god", could you please help me with this?. thomas
So, Kabir, Sahjo Bai, Nanak, can be considered belonging to the sant mat path, nanak even as one of it's sources. Shri Hans refered to Brahmanand as well. it seems to be a similar thing as with the handling of the term mind. With the help of the upanishads it could be stated that "guru is greater than god" is valid for a wider range of indian culture, across the sant mat and its derivatives. thomas


Hey guys.... Hinduism is a vast progression of numerous, diverse philosophies and scriptures. One can't truly point to one set of scriptures and say they are the ultimate, that they trump all others. I mean, from a metaphysical, religious point you could point to "The Vedas", but even this is an ambiguous term. Some people think of the physical books, others the idea of a "[timeless] knowledge" (thus, all scriptures embodying truth are 'Vedas'). Thus, I don't think pointing to one scripture, or one definitive Tantric Agama, or the Upanishads, will confirm the debate one way or the other. All I will say is that the Guru is given an extremely special place in Hinduism. The Guru is not 'greater' than God, and this is sort of an odd thing to say given the many different views of God in Hinduism. Some don't even believe, ultimately, in "God" (not ALL, but certainly many Advaitists, propose a non-God divine ground). The parable-like nugget anecdote my mother always told me was that if God (in form, saguna brahman) were standing next to your Guru, and you were in front of both of them, your duty would be to first prostrate to the Guru, since he led you to God.
God is truth. Knowledge (both experiential and academic) is a means of attaining truth. The Guru imparts knowledge, gives 'shaktipaat,' plants the seed, as it were, in the seeker. Thus, the Guru is the conduit to God. In fact, the mantra " Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru devo Maheshwara / Guru Sakshaat Parabrahma Tasmai Shree Guruve Namaha" is a potent reminder of the primacy of the Guru who becomes, as it were, God, who is the vessel that rafts one across the sea of Brahman to truth.
The Guru is great in the context of God... God (particularly in Dualist metaphysics and belief) is not great in the context of the Guru, but is great in and of himself. I really don't feel the situation's either way, and everyone would do well to recall that there are several schools of thought in Hinduism, so there's no single answer. There is, however, a general, common answer. I don't know anything about Prem Rawat though. Hope that helped. I'd be willing to come up with more hermeneutics, but scripture-quoting seems merely to become a cycle of back-and-forths with quotations, which rely on the 'correctness' of the scripture and not the reality of Hindu belief. Recall that Hindus frequently worship the Guru as God, since all gods (Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Ganesh, etc.) are ultimately part of a singular rubric (whether that rubric resolves into a singular Godhead, like Vishnu, or into a godless divine ground, as certain orthodox advaitists would have it), and Gurus are similarly sacred in regards to their pupils. I myself have no qualms in equating Shri Ramakrishna with Ganesh, insofar as devotion to either one will lead to my salvation.
Wait... one last thing.... there was a young boy in a village, and he saw a great Sanyassi who was passing through. The Sanyassi was renowned, and known to have spent years in contemplating Truth, in living a pure life. So the boy asked him, "I want to see God." The sanyassi was unfortunately impatient with the bo., and dismissed him, telling him to worship a goat that was grazing nearby. The boy did so, and the Sanyassi left the town. A year later, stopping by the village again, the sanyassi noticed the boy and recalled with amusement the fun he'd had. Lightheartedly, he asked the boy whether he'd communicated with God yet. THe boy eagerly said, "Yes! Wanna see?!" and proceeded to worship that very goat, from whom the figure of Vishnu emerged. (Here's the moral:) Vishnu smiled at the stunned Sanyassi, who'd in all his years of orthodox asceticism and immersion in scriptures never directly communicated with God. Vishnu said to him, " It is not the outward form, but the inner urge which leads to God. Your object of focus, whether an icon or a clod of dirt, will yield to you knowledge of God as long as your desire is pure."
Does this story connect to the topic at large? Yes. The point is that pinpointing the precise nature of the Guru, and his relationship to God, is an exercise in hubris. We can't do it. The Guru is great, he is divine, and is a means to God, but we cannot slot that idea and define it, pin it in one place. Different people achieve God through different means. Some may view the Guru as ultimate, others as superfluous, according not only to their school of thought but their individual proclivities and beliefs. This is a strong Hindu idea that exists practically across the board, and may serve to illustrate the fact that there isn't, to the Hindu, one straightcut, authoratative answer to the question that is being so furiously debated right now. Indeed, the only dependable assertion here is that the status of the Guru depends on one's particular school of thought, though in general all Hindus revere the Guru above all other humans. The Guru is not 'greater' than God, but is great because of his proximity to God. He leads you to God and thus should be respected first. Remember, paying your respects to someone 'first' doesn't make him better than those who follow: Hinduism is NOT linear or binary. We progress from the gross to the subtle, the physical to the noncorporeal, the concrete to the abstract, in some ways, from the Guru to God. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:31, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and THomas, the Sikh idea is pretty similar. The Guru is ultimate, but he is ultimate because he is the doorway to Rabba (God), not because he is inherently great. The Guru derives his greatness from his proximity to God, not vice versa. Also, one can afford to forget God because the Guru will lead you back. The Guru's glory is greater than GOd's in the temporal sense for he has struggled, found truth by piercing through the veil of ignorance. But one shouldn't lose sight of the ultimate REASON the Guru's great (he knows truth, and God is truth). Lastly, Kabir, Sahjo Bhai and GUru Nanak are not representative of pan-Indian beliefs on the Guru; they're relative latecomers (15th century --->) to the Indian scene, and their followers are not nearly as numerous as those of the Vedas. Peace~ --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:35, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
thanks a lot. no matter what will be written in this article about that quote in the end, this was the first reasonable explanation about this topic.thanks again.thomas
Thank you LordSuryaofShropshire for the detailed explanation. I am glad you took the time to share your understanding with us. Much appreciated.
In the context of this article, the discussion here is that Thomas and Andries as well as other ex-followers are accussing Prem Rawat of claims of divinity. Me and other supporters are of the understanding that early speeches onf Prem Rawat (when he was a child and later as a teenager), contained statements that taken out of the context of Hinduism, have been grossly missunderstood. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:42, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)


Thanks, LordSuryaofShropshire for your help here. May I also congratulate on your excellent article about Hinduism? --Zappaz 22:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Haan's article can be classfied as a study

The book series in which the article appeared is an official publication of the Free university in Amsterdam. Andries 18:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is the problem in calling it an "article"? It was just that, you know? A study has to present a methodology that Haans did not demonstrate from what you have told us. You need to also present his qualifications. Who was Haan? A student, a professor, an amateur, what? ≈ jossi ≈ 08:05, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
hmm, I guess you are right. Anyway it is an article with notes, bibliography and reviewed by professors (among others Kranenborg) in religions of the Free University. Andries 08:11, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mind in Indian Culture

"Indian culture makes a strong case about the dangers of the mind, and by that it means not the reasoning ability of a person, but the possibly self-destructive aspects of the psyche."

This general explanation of mind in indian culture is wrong. This is more the explanation of the Sant Mat Tradition, and especially the one of Prem Rawat (Mind is like a shark, total pitch darkness, etc.) and was pretty much overstressed.

You can find a more accurate definition on mind in the Yoga Aphorisms by Patanjali commented by Swami Vivekananda. Surdas 08:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Surdas,
  • I do not recall Prem Rawat ever saying Mind is like a shark, total pitch darkness, etc.. Please clarify.
  • Also, note that "mind" and its negative connotations when not still and in peace are widely presented in Indian scriptures (Nanak, Kabir, Guru Arjan, the Sutras, the Upanishads etc.) . So, I would appreciate if you could ground your assessment that the statement is wrong. Thanks. 203.200.122.1 14:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
122.1, Prem Rawat said that the mind is an enemy though he may not have literally used the word "Mind is like a shark [..]" See http://gallery.forum8.org/mind.htm And by the way in Wikipedia the burden of proof is on the person making a statement if it is disputed. It is not Surdas' duty to disprove the statement. Another thing, the words "Indian culture" should be replaced with "mainstream Hinduism". There are Muslims, Jains, Parsis, Sikhs etc. in India too. Andries 17:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have never found any statement that the mind is negative, only statements that it is limited in having certain experiences. I can point this out for you, if you want, in above given aphorisms from Patanjali. Will you point out for me,in those scriptures that you mentioned, that the mind is dangerous and negative? There are definitely expressions about negativity in hindu and sanskrit scriptures, but to my remembrance they are very distinctive in the different stages of negativity/evil. Nanak and Kabir stand in the Sant Mat line,or at least, are claimed to do so. I mentioned that, in the Sant Mat and releated Radhasoami religion the simplification and unification of mind as source of all evil, may have a tradition, but this is more or less a small branch of all indian religious tradition, which cannot stand IMO for a general attitude in indian culture concerning the mind. You will hardly find that in the sutras or upanishads. But more like:

"Words cannot describe the joy of the soul whose impurities are washed away in the depths of contemplation, who is one with the Atman, his own Self. Only those who experience this joy know what it is. ... As water becomes one with water, fire with fire, and air with air, so the mind becomes one with the infinite Mind and thus attains Freedom."

And yes, i do remember, that rawat said those things(shark,dark, etc., then again something up here, pointing behind his head) about mind, and even other things about maya, and what about the boat, that we should not rock, because otherwise we could fall into the sea, again full of sharks? No remembrance on your part? By the way are you a current follower, when did you receive knowledge? I know that most of the contributors have knowledge about those things but do not consider to share that in the article, why? Surdas 17:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I made a small edit to clarifyi the fact that the negative aspects of "mind" are presented in certain aspects of Hindu traditions and not just generically in "Indian culture" as suggested by Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ 08:03, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)


Removed by Andries on 10 Nov. 2004

  • (weasel, advertisement like statement): "and his message was praised by leading academics and public servants as “unique” or “noble.”"
  • (Section titles should be free from dubious interpretations): “and other flowery name”

Andries 20:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Andries, I am reverting the first one. Academics an public servants have called his message both "unique" and "noble". References: http://www.maharajiblog.net/press_releases/index.html ≈ jossi ≈ 20:27, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, I will think about it but to me it sounds very uninformative and as a weasely way of advertising. Andries 20:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What is "weasely"? Why do you keep accussing me of "advertising"? I can accusse you exactly of the same: advertising your anti-guru bias.
I wanted to thank you for inviting LordSuryaofShropshire to the discussion. It saved me hours of research and he has proven that what was written in this article was based on correct information.
Why don't you ask him about Arti and about the negative aspects of "mind" as presented in Hinduism scriptures? . ≈ jossi ≈ 21:05, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Weasely is a normal Wikipedia word for an unattributed opinion. The sentence only proves that some academics are either polite or that they are his students. I mean, most gurus have academics as followers, so I think it is uninformative. Andries 21:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Replaced by Andries on 10 Nov. 2004

  • (very POV statement): "contrast between his youth and his wisdom" replaced by "child guru"

Andries 20:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits Nov 10

I reverted some of the edits by Andries, as these didn not make sense and were not explained. Other edits were either corrected or adjusted for grammar and clarity. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:00, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)


I do not think that aarti for living gurus is very usual

That is why I inserted the word "some". Jossi, if I am mistaken then please provide references for this. Thanks. Andries 21:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is explained in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:13, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I may miss something but I do not see the explanation it but that is probably because I consider all those unreferenced assertions unconvincing. Andries 21:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You will never be convinced, Andries. Accept this simple fact. This is an article about the past teachings of Prem Rawat, not about what Andries finds acceptable, or not. Just read your early comments about the 'guru is greater than god" in light of what LordSurya wrote. Just accept the fact that your lingering around this article is just for one purpose: to promote your anti-guru bias. You want to disprove anything positive about Prem Rawat, because of that bias. Your bias colors everything and that is why I will continue challenging your lack of rigor. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:27, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, but I can ask for references for statements that I find doubtful. It is not true that I disprove of everything positive about Prem Rawat but I do not like to see a white washed picture about him. If I was the only one writing the Rawat related articles then I would write positive things too. Andries 21:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sure, you can ask and I will oblige up to a point. And by the way, I am not the one that wrote this article and by just looking at the history, it seems that at least 1/2 a dozen people have been contributing. So, your statement above is fallacious. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:52, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean? Should I ask somebody else for references? Albert D? Andries 22:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

asking to cut off limbs to test sincerity

Rawat even talked about it. See http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/8203.html Oh sorry, it was not a Mahatmas but initiator. Will correct that. Andries 21:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then you will have to also write what Maharaji said about it. OK? This is an article about the past teachnings of Prem Rawat, not the interpretations of initiators, mahatams and the like. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
But the article contains many statements about the mahatmas and initiators. Should they all be moved to Techniques of Knowledge? Andries 21:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You can re-add the statement about cutting off limbs. Simply add after that that Maharaji never asked that. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:49, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
maybe i can get a report from somebody who actually did cut his hand off, inspired by initiator matthias bretscher, which shows how hard it was to get rid of those concepts. if that would help? thomas
Jossi, Rawat spoke about an initator, not about Mahatma but you wrote Mahatma in the article. Andries 11:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, why did you remove the "doctor of the mind quote"?

I mean, it is logical that Rawat attracted people with pscychological problems with his claims to bring inner peace and great promises. Where and when and how did he warn against that? Andries 22:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/s/Talk%7EPast_teachings_of_Prem_Rawat_archive1_2e32.html"