Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

Stick to the point

As a general rule, I suggest that each of us endure at least 3 personal attacks before complaining about it. That ought to break this cycle of "he attacked me" -- "No, you attacked him first" -- and so on.

Also, you have to make at least 3 separate edits (without complaining about someone's 'personal attacks') before complaining about another user.

Why don't we all follow this rule, eh? --Uncle Ed 21:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK with me. Thanks for the mediation. --64.81.88.140 23:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And by "edits" I mean edits to this talk page! --Uncle Ed 13:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Killing the Cyclist

Andries,

Here are the references you asked for:

Rawat Killing the Cyclist

[1]

where Dettmers first discloses what happened and:

[2]

where he talks about it further.

representing himself as Hari (God) in 1990

Rawat Scolding Premies for Forgetting that He's Really Hari (God)

[3]

--24.64.223.203 22:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Jim)

P.S. Can anyone explan how I can edit my profile to include my name?

Thanks

-- Jim

(Logon and go to Preferences, There you can change your alias.)
Your interpretation is really interesting. I am quoting from the transcription of the speech (highlights are mine):
They say, "Oh yes, because Kabir saw a sort of redness..." But what sort of redness was it? Such so-called gurus have marred the reputation of this institution. It has been ruined. Actually the guru is such a personality about whom it is said:
I bow down to the lotus feet of my Guru Maharaji who is the ocean of mercy and is actually Hari (God) himself in human form.
And whose words are like sunbeams to disperse the accumulated darkness of gross ignorance.
So Tulsidas says that he bows down to such a Guru Maharaji, the Master, who is really Hari (Supreme Power) in the form of man.
So the main thing to understand here is that he bows down to the feet of that guru whose utterances, whose expressions are able to illuminate. And what is that which is illuminated by his words? It is the heart which is illuminated. His words are able to sever and dispel the spidery web of illusion, infatuation and ignorance.
This I have seen myself and realized in my own heart. Yes, in my own heart!
Interpreting the above as Scolding Premies for Forgetting that He's Really Hari (God) shows a strange narrowness of mind, to put it mildly. --64.81.88.140 23:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
.140, I made a similar comment about that interpretation and got blasted by Jim (and he still holds my interpretation against me). In any case, the claims of divinity have been widely presented already. Andries or Jim can add the above to the article, but expect a rebuttal along the lines of what .140 is saying. The expressions of Guru as God are so pervasive in Indian culture that are found in almost each and every one of their scriptures. The western interpretation of divinity is quite distinct from the one used in the Far East. Quoting Tulsidas is almost a given in satsangs, politicians speeches and day to day colloquy... You can check the research I have conducted on this matter on the Techniques_of_Knowledge article in the references section.
Regarding the alleged unfortunate accident with the cyclist, do not see what that adds (Dettmers says that everyone, including Maharaji considered it to be an unfortunate accident), but Andries, feel free to add a short description of the incident if you wish.--Zappaz 00:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't be silly, Zappaz. If you read the whole section, Rawat is talking about "the one who is able to lead you, to escort you to this Knowledge". Obviously a reference to himself. He then talks about how other pilots chat him up casually on the radio, "Hey guru, how are you?", forgetting what the guru really is. He then uses the Tuslidas quote to illustrate how the guru is actually none less than God himself. There is no other reasonable explanation for the entire section:

And in this bhajan it has been mentioned that even your son will accompany you up to the cremation grounds to kindle the funeral pyre. After that he will leave you. He won't accompany you further. You cannot do so. You are simply alone and in this aloofness if anyone can be your true companion - and I have tested it in my life that if there is anyone who can prove to be your real companion, that is the one who is able to lead you, to escort you to this Knowledge. That is your true companion. That companion will prove to be your eternal companion because he has given you such a precious thing which will be always with you.

Just see, today this word 'guru' has become a ridiculous term, a sort of a joke and people do not know what is a 'guru'. When I fly a plane in India, I often listen to the radio in the cockpit. There are talks going on between various pilots in the vicinity. Somebody would address: "Well guru, how are you?" Because they do not know the true meaning and implications. They don't understand the glory of a guru and Master. Because they have forgotten altogether. They have made such pseudo-guru who have put the whole system to disrepute.

--Jim_Heller 00:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, as I said before, Wiki itself translates Hari as God. Just because Indians talk about God all the time, and quote poets and supposed saints like Kabir and Tulsidas, doesn't mean that they don't mean God. The fact is, Rawat is clearly, undeniably reminding people that the guru -- i.e. him -- is just what Tulsidas said he was: God.

--Jim_Heller 00:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I am not silly, Jim and I am absolutely serious and stand by my interpretation. I know that this is hard for you to appreciate, but nonetheless it is my interpretation based on my knowledge of Indian culture and their scriptures. --Zappaz 00:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's break this down.

First, do you agree that Rawat was referring to himself when he was talking about the guru? I've already said why I think there's no issue there but let's hear what you say.

Second, do you agree that he was making the point that the other pilots who talked to him so casually on their radios were forgetting the real meaning of "guru"? I say that's also beyond question. How about you?

Third, do you agree that he then quoted Tulsidas approvingly to make the point that the guru, like Tulsidas says, is the embodiment of God in human form?

Fourth, do you think that the Indians mean something other than the divine being who supposedly created and runs this whole show when they say "God"? If so what? What could it possibly mean that the guru is God in human form other than that the Guru is divine?

--Jim_Heller 02:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jim: This discussion is becaming tedious and futile. I have made my position clear in this matter at least twice. As I said above, if you want to add that passage to the article, please do so, but expect a rebuttal from me or others that differ from your interpretation. Discussions here, although sometimes interesting, they waste time and energy that could be spent in copyedit, adding text and refining what is there. I note that we have yet to see one edit from you, and time is running out. Don't expect editors to spend infinite time in these articles. --Zappaz 03:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ZappaZ had made it clear before, that he wants to present the POV of Rawat for what reason ever ;-) ; so every argument you give him, he will try to disprove it by getting sophisticated about it , and if that is not possible, he tries to minimize the damage that your arguments could bring to Rawat. This does not mean, that he really believes in what he is writing, that would be an insult to his intelligence, i may suppose. But don't count on his humanity, Jim, if you bring more evidence, alike the killing of the cyclist. Xenu
I agree with Zappaz that this is already mentioned in the article:
"Critics charge that claims of Prem Rawat's personal divinity are still being made in India, pointing to excerpts from some of his addresses given there in the early 1990s [4]."
It may be too short though. Andries 04:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambiguous referencs to divinity

I read the 'scolding premies' thing, and it seems both to confirm and to deny that Rawat is saying he's God.

I don't think, based on this source (which I assume is an authentic transcript), that Wikipedia should come right out and assert that:

  • Prem Rawat used to call himself God and taught his followers that he was divine.

On the other hand, I don't think the articles should assert that:

  • Prem Rawat never referred to himself as God or taught his followers that he was divine.

There's sufficient ambiguity in that one source.

Perhaps a contrast with Rev. Moon would help. Critics used to spread the, er, 'charge' that Rev. Moon said he was God.

Skip the next 2 paragraphs if you don't care about Moon or don't think this example could possibly relate to Rawat:

In Christology, there is the concept of the Trinity which asserts that Jesus is God. Christians also believe that Jesus was (or still is) the Messiah; the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary defines Messiah (in one sense) as equivalent to Jesus.
In the 1970s, it became common knowledge that Unificationists believed that Rev. Moon was the Messiah. The argument could then be made: Rev. Moon is the Messiah. The Messiah is God. Therefore, Rev. Moon is God. Unificationists weren't making this argument, but critics thought they were.
I eventually uncovered a passage from one of Rev. Moon's speeches where he said that no man could be trusted 100%, not even him, and that we should trust God. This seemed to me to be sufficient proof that Rev. Moon didn't regard himself as God, even though he probably regarded himself as the Messiah. Also, Unification Christology teaches that Jesus is not God, and that the Messiah must be a man, citing the New Testament passage in Timothy, "There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."

I don't think Rawat or his followers have clarified the divinity issue as clearly as the Unification Church has. Perhaps we Wikipedians will be able to sort it out, but for now it looks ambiguous.

So I think the article should leave open the possibility that Rawat may have hinted that he was divine. Zappaz, do you have any objections to that? --Uncle Ed 13:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"May have hinted"? What a joke! Sorry, Ed, but this is where your being a Moonie and editting this article enters the realm of the absurd. No one could rationally deny that Rawat is reminding his premies that the guru, the real guru, is "really Hari (God) in the form of man." Zappaz can't do it, that's obvious. And neither can you.

-- Jim


a word to zappaz's knowledge on indian culture. it is tradition in india for gurus not to refer to themselves as god or godman, in the first person. the disciples are the ones that are encouraged to tell other people that he is the one, based on the fact, that the one who has conquered the ego would never speak that out for himself. even the sentence "he could have meant his guru maharaji (hans pal) as lord, would clearly imply what the disciple who has prem rawat as his teacher should do.it is quite logic. happy bending. thomas


This discussion is going nowhere. Ex-premies are bending backwards to prove that Maharaji said he his God. Their motives? to discredit him, nothing else. Let them do it and write about it in this article. Let them quote from translated transcripts from Hindi until they go hoarse. That is their prerrogative. For Ed's benefit I will just offer this: Two video clips in which he clearly spells it out: http://www.geocities.com/me140ip/videoclip.mov Some other quotes:

  • "I’m me. I am a human being. Many things have been said about me. Many of these things have come from people’s own emotions, good or bad. I’m proud to be a human being. I am very happy that I have this life. I am also happy that I can feel joy and pain like everyone else. I’m happy being me. Some people would love to put labels on me, but I am just me. [5]
  • My efforts have always been to help people understand and feel the feelings within. People through the years have tried to place me in a mold, and from the very early years I have not been able to oblige them. When I was very young, people were looking for the 'old silver haired guru with flowing white robes.' I was only eight. When people were flocking to India for their search, I was in the West. When people were looking for sophisticated discourses, I spoke of simple things. When people wanted nirvana, I said, 'You need peace.' When people asked, 'What is your qualification?' I said 'Judge me by what I offer.” (auto-biographical account)
  • I remember coming to the West and talking to people. Some had the idea that once you attained this ‘high’ state of being, you would become super-human. You would be in a perpetual state of peace with no confusion in your life, ever. Even at my very young age, I understood that this was not the way it was supposed to be.” :“Knowledge is about having a passion for life, falling in love with life. It is about making a continuous effort to learn and grow. It is not meant to take you away from all the experiences of living, it is about accepting and enjoying what it really means to be alive. It's true that I can help people feel something that is beautiful, something that exists inside them. I consider it a gift. But, to become above it all - I have never pursued that, nor do I want to. This is one of those bizarre things. When people saw me at that time, they really didn't understand what it was all about.” (auto-biographical account)

Ed, and other non ex-premies: You will see now the barrage of explanations and counter rebuttals the ex-premies will launch against the above. That is their bread and butter. That is what they live for. They have spent 20 more years finding ways to discredit Maharaji and his students. That is expected and will be thoroughly ignored by me. --64.81.88.140 16:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

calm down jose

140, I completely agree that Rawat NOW claims that we over-zealous followers projected divinity on him. No argument there. But that's the whole point, don't you see? As all the many quotes on EPO prove, he's lying. And as the satsang above proves, he was playing this game well into 1991 when his organization published the piece. You can kick and scream, deny, deny, deny but the evidence is all there. Satsangs like the above were specifically uttered to remind us that Rawat was divine. Any fair, rational read would lead to that same conclusion.

-- Jim

and please don't get so hysterical about that. in the end you are in a conflict that you have ever went so far discussing this at all, because you know this is not what rawat would like to see. thomas


Jim, after watching the video clips posted by anon .140, I think that the best you can do in the article is to state what you said above, e.g:
Ex-premies asserts that although Rawat denies that he is a Messiah, a prophet or God, they believe that he is lying and that he made and still makes public statements to remind followers that he is divine. A rebuttal to this may continue as follows: Supporters say that Rawat has been consistent in declaring over the years that he is just a human being with a message of peace and a practical way to experience it. And finally a counter-rebuttal as follows: Ex-premies claim that this is hypocrytical and an atempt at historical revisionism.
In any case, the allegations about claims of divinity are already profusely presented in the article.
--Zappaz

Zappaz, I do not understand you edit, age Sixteen or Twelve

"They note he used to dress up as Krishna, and at the age of twelve promised to personally establish peace in the world [6]."

The external link says 1973, so that means fifteen or sixteen. Andries 17:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At the time of the Peace Bomb address he was twelve (1971)--Zappaz 17:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


This sentence is misleading because it's addressing two different issues:1) his dressing up as Krishna; and 2) the promise to establish peace, etc. I suggest the following:
They note that at the age of twelve Prem Rawat promised to personally establish peace in the world (with same link as above), and that he used to dress up as Krishna on stage at live events, at least until 1979-1980, when he was age twenty-three.
(Or pehaps break them up into two sentences.)
There are plenty of photos that show him dressed in various Krishna costumes and wearing a crown, at least through 1979 when he was 22 years old. He didn't dress up as Krishna at his very well-attended 23rd Birthday Party in December of 1980 at the Miami Beach Convention Center, however. If memory serves, he wore a tuxedo.
Another Ex-Premie 17:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, please explain

Why the insertion "what critics interpret"? How can someone not interpret the sentences hereunder as a claim of divinity? I had already asked you before but you did not answer me. I may miss something so please explain.

"Guru Maharaji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (operator). Guru Mahara Ji is Shiva (destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Maharaji is the Supremest Lord in person before us." [7]

Thanks in advance. Andries 18:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have explainded this to you before. In Indian tradition you will find declarations of guru as god or guru as greater than god to be most common. You can read about similar expressions throughout the main Indian scriptures: in the Ramayana, the Upanishads, in Sikhism. In this discourse (that by the way does not have neither a source, nor a date and is missing the beginning and end), like in many other early discourses, he is speaking about his Guru Maharaj ji, or master Shri Hans Ji Maharaj. Throughout the text he referes toHim and not to me or I. For westerners not accustomed to Indian hyperbole in speeches, this may be strange, I agree. That is why I have NPOVed that text. You can change the NPOVing a bit by stating that "what some may interpret" instead of "what critics interpret". --Zappaz 18:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I have tried to explain this to you but you don't seem to get it. It doesn't matter if lots of gurus make similiar claims. This article is about Rawat and, as the evidence shows, he is calling himself divine. If you want to add that lots of other gurus claim to be divine too, go ahead. The point is he did. As for his referring to himself in the third person, so what? He's obviously talking about himself. He went in and out of that kind of jargon continuously.

--24.64.223.203 19:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


okay, thanks for your explanation. I do not find it convincing but I'll leave the sentence more or less the way you edited it. Andries 18:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How to handle the divinity issue

It seems that some people regard the "scolding premies" speech as more than just "hinting" the Rawat considered himself God. Okay, say that in the article:

  • On the basis of (this speech), critics assert that Rawat used to promote the idea of his own personal divinity. The view of these critics is at odds with contemporory followers, who assert that critics are misinterpreting their master's words.

Will this satisfy both Jim and Zappaz?

This is what I propose:
  • Critics asserts that although Rawat denies that he is a Messiah, a prophet or God, he used to promote the idea of his own personal divinity (link to speech, with date and source). Supporters say that Rawat has been consistent in declaring over the years that he is just a human being with a message of peace and a practical way to experience it and that critics have misinterpreted his words.
--Zappaz 19:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The words "now publicly" should be inserted: "Critics assert that although Rawat now publicly denies..." Andries 19:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
According to that video clip and his biography (see Prem Rawat/temp1) he has been saying that all along. Adding "now" to that sentence, is misleading IMO.
.140: what are the dates for the speeches featured in these videoclips? --Zappaz 19:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, I disagree, in his 1979 Mishler said that he persuaded Maharaji to rectract his claims of divinity. Andries 19:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please read the biographical article at Prem Rawat/temp1 that Gary has been working on. Also note, that although we do not have the dates of the clips posted by 140, my guess is that these are from '85 and '99, so your proposed "now" will need to be subtantiated with dates. --Zappaz 20:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
140 you probably still have the song "you are my saviour" from "one foundation" that we used to sing in front of rawat, when he wore his krishna crown or garland. could you please supply us with that kind of information?thomas
user zappaz , i could provide you with a videoclip, maharaji with krishna-crown dancing in front of the followers singing "lord, please dance", him definitely enjoying this? but somehow i doubt that you are really interested, how comes?thomas

A dilapidated house in Malibu?

The article reads as follows: The (sic) say that parcel for his house was purchased at a time in which it only had a dilapidated house in the property, and when property values in that area was at the lowest.

Not only is this hysterically funny, it's inaccurate. It doesn't jive with both Dettmers's and Misher's accounts of the problems they had with Prem Rawat in 1976 when DLM was facing an IRS audit. Mishler gave Rawat notice he had to leave the Malibu mansion and move into a small house in Denver. Rawat refused. The properties in Denver and Malibu had been purchased by DLM for Rawat who was the legally named "Chief Minister" of Divine Light Mission, a church in the U.S. They knew it wouldn't be acceptable by IRS standards for a minister or reverend to have a mansion on a bluff in Malibu. If it was so dilapidated, why didn't Rawat want to leave it?!?

There are shots of this "dilapidated property" in a movie distributed to and watched by premies right after the birth of Rawat's first daughter. "Family of Love" it was called. The property didn't look so "dilapidated" in that movie! Beach front property on the Malibu bluff! Furthermore, who do you think donated the funds for this "dilapidated" house on beachfront property? Followers of Prem Rawat, that's who! Independently wealthy investor!

This is just hilarious! Spin on, PWKS! LOL!

Another Ex-Premie 12:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Btw, here's the link to the real story about the dilapidated house in Malibu. This is Dettmers testimony:

"My real difficulty centered on Maharaji’s role in this church and specifically the manner in which it supported him. Let me put this in context. In 1976, Maharaji was a US permanent resident. Because he married an American in 1974, he became eligible for US citizenship in 1977. In the interim, he had to spend at least six months out of every year in the USA. To satisfy that requirement, DLM purchased a small three-bedroom bungalow in a residential community in Denver for Maharaji. It also purchased an estate in Malibu as well as a motorhome and several automobiles including a Rolls Royce for his personal use. And it paid for the food and clothing for him and his family as well as anything else he needed or wanted."

"After reviewing all of the numbers we had compiled, our lawyer became very concerned that the Chief Minister, which is what Maharaji was in this structure, consumed a disproportionate amount of the church funds, according to IRS guidelines. Applying the rules that govern churches, Maharaji’s residences were classified as “parsonages”. Our lawyer opined that the bungalow in Denver was appropriate under the circumstances. However, he could not see how DLM could justify the Malibu estate. He also felt that a Chevrolet better suited the position of Chief Minister, and certainly not an expensive motorhome or a Rolls Royce. Finally, he said that Maharaji should have been paid a salary by the church, and that he should have paid for his and his family’s personal expenses, including food and clothing, out of his salary. He was afraid that DLM may be perceived by the IRS, not as a church, but more like a scam set up to benefit a private individual. He frankly told me that he did not see how we could survive the audit which was now only a few months away. Clearly, a crisis was upon us and I immediately called Bob in Malibu to inform him of my findings. As I told him of our situation, I was aware that Bob, as the President of DLM, as well as the other Officers and Directors would be held responsible if the IRS established any wrongdoing."

http://www.ex-premie.org/best/bof10302000222548.htm

Another Ex-Premie 12:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

zappaz declared that he was doing research for 10 month on the subject, though he takes part here only since 7 or 8 weeks. i am pretty sure he knows all the material,that is presented here.it is simply that he ignores it. now that you bring it up, the bending of facts will continue. the whole article on critics on prem rawat becomes more and more an article of critic on the critics. this is indeed an interesting tactic, and should be monitored more precisely. i know one place for sure were those tactics are used and taught and that is scientology. thomas
This not the real story. That is the story of Mr. Michael Dettmers, an apostate a disgruntled ex-officer, a lier and an hypocrite. If these accounts were true, the IRS would already have done something about it. --64.81.88.140 16:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So that's it? Anything said by someone who has left Rawat is automatically a liar? It's a shame you think that way. What's the "real" story?
Another Ex-Premie 19:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Less smoke, more fire

I want to remind everyone that the task at hand is to expand this article to include all grievances and criticism. Beyond an initial effort by John Braun that unfortunately lasted just a couple of edits, and small edits here and there by Andries (with some attempt at NPOV'ing by me), not much has happened to the article for the last two weeks. Heated discussions, yes... but little or no text.

There is still time to expand the article. I encourage the anons, Jim and the newcomers to add as much text as they need. This will be a much better way to expend your energies.

Regarding the Malibu mansion: the stated valuation of $25 million dollars is probably a current valuation. I do not see any evidence that in 1973 the followers were so rich as to donate $25 million. If I took a guess, I would say that price of land in Malibu at that time with an old house on it, would not exceed a couple of hundred K. This could be confirmed with a real estate agent, and I may do just that... Also, the current mansion may have 25,000 sq ft. but no one is presenting what was the size of the original house when it was purchased. So, that paragraph needs both substantiation, sources and NPOVing.

I understand that at that time, the house and other assets were given as gifts to PR by his followers, I do not think anyone is denying that, neither that many of the ex-premies may feel upset that they gave their money as gifts or donations. This explanation is also missing fron the article.

Concerning the Bell helicopter, I understand that it was sold several years ago and that he does not own any Rolls Royces.

--Zappaz 17:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

on the latest edits by RichardG.

  • Some ex-premies post anynomously. Some do not, like Cynthia, (PatD I believ), Jim, Mike, John but do not reveal their real names in every post so it is hard to see it. Some ex-premies say that the reason for posting anonymously are the threats and insults they receive.
 ::Hey Andries, this is totally unfair.... The ones using threats and insults are Jim and co. Check out what they did to Geaves with that anonymous website. Playing the victim when you are the attacker is an interesting tactic. -64.81.88.140 21:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I do not know. At least one ex-premie complains about threats and insults that he received. Andries 18:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Rick Ross is not a deprogrammer anymore
  • "They" do not maintain a website. There is one (and probably not more than one although I do not know) person who does this i.e. John Brauns

I will revert. Andries 19:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

more tweaks

First section, clarity about claiming to be an organzation for one purpose but not for another. The back and forth about when people leave (is that the right word?) shortenbed to the fact that people leave at different times. What was there was utterly confusing: people have left at different times. Period. We should try to encourage people to read things into it. No citation for numbers of people left, so cut. Facts are good things.

2nd graf, subject verb agreement, tense consistency. Also some of the counter-counter-counter charges deleted. Guilding the lilly and trying to get the last word only gums up the works. Someone deleted reference to Rick Ross as professional deprogrammer. restored. This is naughty: he does this for a living, he's been found legally liable for his activities in this regard, , and if you want to cite him as an expert, you should do so honestly. This guy was apparently the "expert" consulted by ATF before the Branch Davidian massacre in Waco, and you saw how nicely THAT worked out! (yeesh! Why the anti-rawat people want to cast their lot with this guy is beyond me...but that's their call, not mine).

Divinity: mostly grammar, a few clarity points. Someone snuck some nasty bits in there that have been cleaned up.

Financial: no cite to Rolls-Royce, and the anti-rawat pages tell stories that the Rolls in thier photo archive was borrowed. Mishler "plan" is confusing and uncited. Besides, what is it supposed to mean? He had a plan that would explain the welath, but he quit before implemented? Same with the dilapidated parcel business: where's the cite? Also, one thing to say, supported by evidence as it is, that the assets are controlled by advsors, that's fair, but "this is the same way other bad people do it" is conspiracy-theory stuff. Show the facts, let readers figure it out: no need to beat them over the head with what the facts "must" mean.

about cars you may ask Wolfgang Peters who lives in Hamburg,Germany. He was taking care of maharaji's car park for several years and can give accurate information. Just ask the movement for his contact address. Petra

Miscellany: "falsely" magnify? As opposed to truthfully magnify? (LOL!) Less lawyering and POV, please. :) Richard G. 20:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please read the talk page incl. archives before making changes

RichardG. I noticed that you changed at least two items that had already been discussed on the talk page i.e. the article by Introvigne and Ross who was a former deprogrammer. You changed it back without giving a detailed rebuttal to what I and others had written on the talk page of this article. Can you please do that next time to prevent frustration on both sides and waste time? Thanks in advance Andries 20:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gary D restores again; Richard, please take note

Richard, with this talk page scrolling quickly and me perhaps archiving too quickly, you probably missed the notation that this page is currently under an informal "no substantial deletes" truce, while the "anti" editors complete their work. Hence, I restored some deletes you performed on my adds a few days ago. The original talk entries looked like this:

"Two items cut from the financial section I would argue are important, and so have restored them (obviously they will be grist for the discussion mill eventually, but please be aware we do have a sort of informal anti-substantial-delete moratorium in place on this article for the moment). First, the Mishler item on his proposed investment plan [Note by Gary D: which comes from the Mishler radio interview transcript] supports the critics' charge about where the money originally came from that PR now lives on as an investor. Second, the material on holding corporations was not repetitious but is instead surrebuttal to the supporters' rebuttal argument above it that because PR does not hold legal title to these assets, they don't count toward being his or toward his lifestyle being luxurious. --Gary D 02:16, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)"
"That was the agreement, Richard... Let us give the critics the time and space they need to add more text if they want to. My understanding is that by end of this week, we shall review the article and hopefuly reach concensus on its content. :--Zappaz 04:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

As to the Rolls-Royces, we had this on the talk page:

"...there is currently an allegation about "luxury fleets of cars including Rolls Royces used by Rawat and his entourage". This is a utter fabrication with no corroboration. Why it is included? because an ex-premie wrote about it on a website? An 'anything goes type of approach, will do no good to this article. --64.81.88.140 20:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)"
"The Rolling Stone article discusses PR being asked in a 1973 news conference about (plural) Rolls Royces, and the reporter saw him driving a Mercedes 450 SL; the 1974 Ramparts Magazine reporter listed six cars, "mostly Rolls Royces and Lincoln Continentals"; the San Francisco Examiner, quoted in The Realist magazine, talks about PR taking delivery of a Mercedes 600. This passage in the article has been toned down now at any rate, so we're probably doing okay. --Gary D 09:39, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)"

MY BAD...didn;t meant to violate someone's truce! *slinking into the corner, tail between my legs* As to the cars, I was understanding that these were lent to him by followers at various times. Have seen no UCC filings or auto registrations showing ownership, but will let it go...thanks, hanging loose... Richard G. 19:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Roger that, your slinky tail duly noted. We actually haven't seen any decent quantity of "anti" editing for some days now, so I think it's about time we close the moratorium and begin the edit. And, beware the UCC thing, the ex-premie group may take that as a challenge cuz they got a zillion pages stashed out there somewhere, and we'll end up knee-deep in flaming exegesical diputes over curling yellowed public records. --Gary D 20:44, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
"Then you need to give it time context: In 1974, .... This is 30 years ago. The current text reads as if this is a current fact. Also note that there is no such a thing as an "entourage". Nowadays he flies himself and drives himself.--≈ jossi ≈ 19:01, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)"

For these reasons, I am restoring these three items, pending the imminent "group consensus edit" to this page. Always willing to take a hint, however, I have also rearranged and reworked the financial section to improve the flow of these restored items and make the logic of their relevance more clear. --Gary D 07:43, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)