User talk:Rainer P.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome, Rainer P.!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

Also, here are some pointers to learn more about this project:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your question about an order by Rawat (or DLM leadership?) to destroy publications, I read that this was a verbal order. I think you can should check the archives of the ex-premie forum 8 for details. I had asked a question there about it. Andries 01:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rainer P. Would you mind offering some input on the rewrite of the lead (topmost) section of the article Prem Rawat. I see you've already made a recent edit. I'd really appreciate it if you could find the time to comment further on that part of the article in the talk page Talk:Prem Rawat Thanks. Mael-Num 10:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Moved from Talk:Prem Rawat

I think it's o.k. to leave it like this. Again: "swear off tobacco, alcohol, cut their hair short etc." has nothing to do with following Prem Rawat's teachings, and he himself is a perfect example for that. I remember him saying: I'm not an ashram premie. Also, living in an ashram was never part of the teachings. To follow monastic rules in a monastic situation has other connotations. If you own a gas-station, you should prohibit smoking there, for evident reasons. That does not imply that you yourself have to quit smoking, or that your employees or customers have to become non-smokers. They just should not smoke there. Monastic rules have a considerable history and rationale. But they are solely contingent to the monastic condition, and that is/was not part of Prem Rawat's teachings. The law prohibits drinking while driving, for safety reasons - not for moral. That does not imply that the secretary of justice has to be an anti-alcoholic. So it is misleading and a bit sensationalistic to editorialize contemporary traditional general monastic rules into the lead section of an article in such a way that supports a misconception concerning the actual teachings - which have, again, nothing to do with lifestyle. Does that not make sense? Maybe after sleeping.--Rainer P. 12:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)--194.25.103.127 12:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, your response makes perfect sense. I think I may still want to take a nap, though. Mael-Num 13:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Rainer says:- "Also, living in an ashram was never part of the teachings." "Following Prem Rawat was never a matter of lifestyle"

This is untrue, utterly sinister and misleading nonsense I'm afraid. No doubt on Wikipedia there are pages where Holocaust deniers attempt to promulgate their revisionsim. Well I'm not going to let Rainers equally unconscionable, although considerably less serious, lies pass unchallenged. I was there and his lies make a mockery of those who sincerely gave their lives to Rawat as per his teachings.

Let it be known that the ashram 'way of life' was, during the seventies, a major part of Rawat's teachings, albeit rather less 'obligatory' than 'Meditation, Satsang, Service' etc. He certainly convinced me and plenty of others that it was virtually an 'obligatory' way of life if you were single, sincere and commited to doing the best possible thing with your young life at that time. Rawat's teachings do not just constitute his current so-called Knowledge gift but can also be described by the words that came out of his own mouth during his speeches. His very words constitue his practical teachings over the years. Furthermore, even if Rawat's current teachings do not involve recommending a particular lifestyle to followers, that is no reason to omit the historic fact that for a considerable period of time he taught that to surrender one's life in his ashram was the greatest commitment and sacrifice a follower could make in their lives- and it was a 'lifetime opportunity' that was a gift from him and not to be missed. In short he actively taught that the ashram way of life, as offered by him, was an EXTREMELY important part of Knowledge and he ranted on about it at endless meetings where presumably we could be rightly described, as well as anytime, as to have been directly subject to his teachings. This is the truth...and there are many printed examples of his own words that testify to this.

I am certain that I am not alone in finding Rainer's misrepresentation personally offensive, since I followed Rawats teachings throughout the seventies with absolute sincerity and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he taught me that I should 'surrender my life' to him personally in this very specific way that he wanted. Personally I did not want to live in an ashram in the least...he persuaded me in his speeches that it was something I should rightly do. I suppose that following Rawat's teachings so completely ironcally accelerated the process of seeing the whole set-up for what it was...abusive and dysfunctional. Does Rainer understand how someone like myself could find what he says offensive I wonder? If you'd asked any one of the sincere premies at the time whether they were sitting glued to Rawat's words for mere entertainment, or to derive some wisdom from his 'teachings' - nobody would have denied that they were being taught. Some people actually took him at his word and took his 'teachings' seriously unlike Rainer who apparently did not get the gist. Ironically I suspect he flatters himself now as someone who did though.

I moved into in Rawat's ashram because I personally heard him many times teach, in the late seventies, that if you were a sincere, single 'Premie' that to move into his ashram was really your only 'genuine' course of action. It was a HUGE part of his agenda that people should 'dedicate their lives'. It wasn't just the innocent little 'personal choice ' option which Rainer suggests was somehow separate from his teachings. Rawat was insistent about the ashram being the best place and way of life to 'practice Knowledge'. Again the way of life was inseparable from his teachings- it was a serious option for all premies -single or otherwise. I personally saw couples breaking up and many, many people giving up careers to follow Rawats adamant recommendation, often to their eventual bitter regret and almost always with a lot of attendant angst at the time. I even witnessed Rawat saying in a meeting with us 'ashram premies' that we were the really privileged ones compared to those 'out there in the main hall'. The clear implication was that he was giving us a Great Opportunity to surrender our lives which made others commitment to him and understanding of his teachings insignificant by comparison. Thus he divided and conquered us. I suggest that Rainer is prepared to make 'lies of omission' because he wants to present a whitewashed picture of his Master where his 'teachings' now and,' always were', just what suits his agenda ie. an innocent little meditation with occasional inspirational from his speeches or something completely uncontroversial. My assertion that Rawat used fear to dominate his followers and make them give up their lives to him is no doubt something followers will tirelessly deny. But that remains my experience.

Of course now his 'teachings' are not the same. Why not just explain the truth of how they've changed? But the point is that Rainer is quite innappropriately and unashamedly obfuscating the FACT that Rawat once very heavily promoted (= taught..right?) the ashram lifestyle. Maybe he is shy to mention that Rawat backtracked and closed them when he realised that they weren't working and that it was damaging him and all those inmates he'd played the bossy 'Pied Piper' to. Also Rainer paints the incorrect picture that Rawat didn't moralise about the 'evils' of those things he denied people who lived in his ashrams. And he maybe does not like the fact that some people (to him an 'insignificantly small number of critics I suppose) today feel Rawat was indeed hypocritical for HIDING his personal penchant for things he forbade others. But some do judge Rawat as hypocritical, and for some rather good reasons. He publically denigrated people for being into relationships or sex and basically anything to do with the 'World', yet he was as keen to savour the delights of the flesh, ambition, power and money as anyone. In Kissimee he mocked premies for being into sex like 'Jack Rabbits' etc. He was massively into guilt-tripping people about personal ambitions, desires etc. Furthermore he unleashed his 'initiators' (most fanatical followers) whom he'd personally verbally beaten into submission in intensive Malibu private meetings, with his specific instructions to go and apply pressure on premies within commumities around the world to 'surrender their lives to Him' in 'His Ashrams'. Most revealingly he had an elaborate system of sworn secrecy (X-rating of close followers) specifically so as people would not learn of his own personal behaviour and find it 'confusing'. Once in the eighties, before I was permitted to Rawat's residence where I would be in close proximity to him, I was myself asked to not divulge such information myself for that very reason! (some people "might find his private behaviour 'confusing' I was told by his envoy). Clearly Rawat even then acknowledged that people might be put off by observing his private life. People who are embarrassed about their private behaviour or want to portray a different public persona are often anxious about being perceived as a hypocrites.

I've thought about this a lot. Rawat put huge demands of 'giving up' wordly ambitions and pleasures onto young, impressionable, sincere people like myself who trusted him implicitly and he, and current followers, are still somewhat forlornly trying to divert from, or make a virtue out of the fact that neither he nor many of his less sincere followers could ever make such sacrifices themselves. They even blame the victims of this 'teaching' (which now might well be described, in these more enlightened times, as religious indoctrination.) Can anyone who knows Rawat imagine him allowing David Smith or some such bullying henchman to 'inspire' (guilt-trip) a member of his own family, a son or daughter, into giving up all their money, relationships, their own family to live as a celibate monk or nun for the rest of their lives ? Never in a million years!! (Maybe premies consider that Rawat and his family were 'renunciates' in a previous life or that he's 'above it all' by some Karmic escape clause). Don't forget Rawat actually mocked ashram premies who just wanted to see their families at Christmas "The only remaining tie you have with your families is the one they gave you for Christmas". It is hypocritical for someone to exert such huge pressure onto people into surrendering their lives in such a total and devastating way when they themselves wouldn't have a hope in hell of mustering that kind of commitment! Please accept that I, as someone who was once absolutely commited to Rawat and his teachings, have drawn my own conclusions and by rights, and my conscience I must express my objection to what I 've read here.PatW

Sorry, Pat, I cannot believe I'm more of a liar than you are. I was there, too, and it seems I had a very different experience and a very different developement after the ashram episode - which I remember as an exquisitely beautiful time. Maybe I don't lie. Maybe I am just a different person. BTW, especially being German, I have a hard time to understand what makes you conjure up the holocaust in this context - purpose? Think I'm Adolf Eichmann? Wherever you are, come back to earth.--Rainer P. 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello PatW. Long time no hear, hope you are well.. Please move these comments to your talk page or to Rainer P's page. These pages are to discuss the article and not to discuss our personal experiences or opinions on the subject. Thank you for your understanding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi. Rainer's argument for ashrams not being part of his teachings is also comprised of opinions and personal experiences ie:-

"I remember him saying: I'm not an ashram premie. Also, living in an ashram was never part of the teachings. To follow monastic rules in a monastic situation has other connotations. If you own a gas-station, you should prohibit smoking there, for evident reasons. etc.............s a misconception concerning the actual teachings - which have, again, nothing to do with lifestyle."

Should he move those opinions too? There is a clear danger here of your opinions of what should be moved being selective according to your bias. I think I have shown that I was sincere in attemting to improve the article in the past and I feel I have a right to strongly argue to expose weak or unreasonably biased arguments here that will make this article worse by omitting relevant information.

I admit my response also contains some personal experience...I maintain that is not entirely innappropriate... but otherwise it is largely an attempt to reason why the ashram lifestyle WAS clearly a part of Rawat's teachings. My intention was to establish some consensus about this so that the article might reflect this understanding. Also Rainers logic is infuriatingly biased, missing the point about hypocrisy, and it completely begs the kind of response I've made this time. For example his argument about the non-hypocrisy of a gas-station owner not having to be a non-smoker is a highly simplistic comparison for a number of reasons. The fact is that Rawat as 'Satguru' was perceived and portrayed in premie documentation as being 'Divine' and beyond these desires and yet, apparently was not, and yet he told other people to give up all that stuff. But that's just a smokescreen from the real point which is that Rainer totally omits the fact that, as I've clarified, Rawat is documented as advocating the ashram lifestyle as being a a wonderful opportunity, his gift, of being able to surrender one's life to Guru Maharaji in this lifetime. So that is why living in an ashram was absolutely a very important part of his teaching. Tell me Jossi, do you think the Ashram way of life was a part of teachings? Hope you're well too. I'm fine..very busy but fine. PatW 18:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat's teachings are his words, past, present and future. The fact is that Rawat told premies that the only way to live their lives if they were single, was to join the ashrams. It's also true that DLM Int'l headquarters in Miami Beach during 1979 processed many divorces for married premies so they would be free to work at the DECA project. How do I know this? Becasue I worked with the attorney at DLM processing those divorces. This was after I was finished at DECA, where I had worked everyday directly for the two directors of DECA, who reported directly to Maharaji. i saw Maharaji every single day, up close and personal. It beggars belief that anyone could say (with a straight face) that Maharaji didn't dictate a lifestyle in the 1979s. In the Rawat article the word DECA is mentioned, although very briefly, as if no one ever existed there who was a devotee of Rawat. The hundreds of DECA premies that were transferred to Miami from ashrams around the world, were there to work at DECA for no wages (ashram premies) to provide him with his first jet aircraft, the B707. The Broadripple Hotel, that used to be adjacent to the Fountainbleau Hotel on Collins Ave. was where we lived -- it was the one of the official DLM ashrams in Miami, because that's also where all of the DLM full-timers and the many of the initiators lived. I lived there. All of the initiators/instructors were mandated to be ashram premies during the 70s. And people wonder why the Rawat article gets so contentious, with this kind of rubbish being thrown about surrounding our lived as premies. Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
These views may be true and accurate, and for my part I totally agree with your opinions on the reason for including this hypocrisy. However, it's kind of a sticky point because we would need a fairly clear citation to a reliable source that shows an "acceptable" critic saying specifically, "This is wrong because Rawat is being a hypocrite". Without that, opposition to such criticism can Wikilawyer such a statement into oblivion with claims of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and whatever else their imaginations lead them to. It's the name of the game: cite your work. I'll look for what I can to this end, but I'm a neophyte when it comes to the subject. If you think this sort of addition is important, find a good citation and use it! Mael-Num 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
And off the top of my head, Jan van der Lans appears to be saying something like this in the cited section on him. I don't speak Dutch, nor do I have the original cited material. Andries is, I believe, the source for this critic. We might do well to ask for his assistance. Mael-Num 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate your comments. The idea of embarking on an arduous Wiki politically-correct attempt to improve this article fills me with abject horror. It is my impression that tons and tons of such fairly referenced critical info has been posted on these articles about Rawat in the past years and virtually ALL of it has been systematically (almost robotically) removed. I simply doubt that anyone in their right mind has the patience or time to try to do this again in the face of such doggedly determinated followers. In my opinion the only way forward is to draw attention to the woeful way these articles can turn into a partisan commentary when such a determined party put all their resources into the long-term transformation of an article. All this Wiki- law has been enforced (rightly or wrongly) by Jossi and the result speaks for itself.PatW 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand your horror. I cannot believe the partisanship I've confronted in editing this article. The opposition doesn't even try to keep up appearances of objectivity. You are right, I'm afraid. The only way forward is to throw some light on this dank little corner Jossi has built. I've started that with the most mild of approaches, a WP:RFC. There are additional steps I know of and am willing to take it to. I'm confident that I can present a strong case and a clear representation of what's going on here. I'm trying to patiently wait to see if reinforcements arrive through the RFC first. All I can say is, try to stay tuned. Things may get better. Mael-Num 08:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mael-Num, but I'm not trying to edit the Rawat article, anymore. I appreciate your efforts. I've been around the block with Jossi/Momento so many times it makes me have a pain in my tummy thinking about trying to do it again here. Pat's correct in saying that virtually all of the criticism, including the entire article "Criticism of..." has been expunged from Wikipedia by Jossi and Momento. Although John Brauns, who owns EPO, agreed with merging it with the main article I disagree. It was the ideal opening for the cult members to pounce on the article and remove all the history of Rawat's life that he doesn't want the public to know anymore. They've worked arduously to whitewash Prem Rawat's life including rewriting Wiki guidelines and policies in order to suit their needs to push former members out of the editing process and to justify removing criticism. I know what the truth is, but I'm also aware that my personal experiences in the cult would be considered original research. Btw, the Elan Vital error Jossi/Momento keeps pointing out to you (without explaining it -- weird, eh?) should probably read that Rawat founded Divine Light Mission, not Elan Vital. There wasn't the name change to EV until 1983 in Colorado (the non-profit corp.'s home state) and 1986 (I think) in California, which is the state they do business in.
The fact is that the only thing that makes Prem Rawat notable is his notoriety. He's really an unknown person except to his followers and the only people that remember him among the general public are those who remember that chubby, boy guru from the 70s. All of the press coverage he's ever received has been negative, and rightly so, because he's a cult leader. That's why he never, ever talks to the mainstream press one-on-one -- he does indeed have a past. Also, the new book that Jossi/Momento have been touting is really a vanity press thing. It was published byMighty River Press which is owned by a premie from Philadelphia. It's the only book that the publishing house has ever put out. They like to keep it in the "family.' I don't know if Cagan is also a premie, but the only people buying that book are mostly premies, I can guarantee you that. In other words, I'd be very surprised if it made the NYT best seller's list! lol. Best Wishes. cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 03:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/i/User_talk%7ERainer_P._e09b.html"