Talk:Elan Vital

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.

Boy, for all the editorial sturm und drang this article has been through, it sure is short. --Gary D 10:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The four techniques

Jossi and other followers, I know you do not like it that the article gives a description of the four techniques but they are documented, relevant facts and should hence go into the article according to NPOV guidelines. I really think that this is important information that will help outsiders to understand what this is all about. Andries 11:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andries: I really don't understand what you are trying to do.... Please take it easy witrh your edits. The descripotions of the four techniques will be merciless edited out by followers and you know that. Let's leave this out of this article and let's focus on the Critics page -- Zappaz 22:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


If followers continue to remove, relevant documented facts from the article then they should be blocked. Andries 22:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Andries. I reverted the edit because it is NOT RELEVANT to this article. This article deals with Elan Vital a nin for profit organization. They do not teach these techniques. Prem Rawat does. If you continue posting the techniques I will report your definitively bias and POV. -- jossi 22:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I read the four techniques information, and it was very interesting. I think I am hearing here two issues regarding its inclusion: first, whether it is sensitive or confidential information that should not be disclosed at all; second, whether it is relevant to this article on EV and should be disclosed here versus elsewhere. As to the first, I tend to lean toward full and free information; if it's out there already and its disclosure is not specifically harmful to someone, I think we should get it into WP. As to the second, I don't know enough about the EV organization to know whether the four techniques are relevant to it. Is EV a yoga instruction group? If so, this material might fit here. Or is EV instead a charity or political group? If so, this material probably doesn't fit here. For that matter..., heck, there's a lot I don't know about EV in general that the article isn't telling me currently. For instance, I know there's a hot button dispute over whether EV is or is not the successor to the DLM group, but I don't even know why that issue is important. It seems to me like that would be just a minor, neutral detail, but the "pro"s are vehement it's not and the "con"s are vehement it is. I, and many WP readers as ignorant as I, don't even know what the fuss is about. I have to believe a lot more can be said to explain EV, stuff that would go in a wonderful second paragraph. What the heck is EV, anyway? --Gary D 03:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Gary: hope my last edit explains what Elan Vital is. regarding the techniques of Knowledge, it will be an afront to hundreds of thousands of people to have them published in Wikipedia. I kindly request that these are not posted, and most definitively not in this article. -- jossi 03:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Jossi, if the four techniques are not explained the article stays very vague. Do you seriously believe that these are not relevant to the article? Andries 04:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Andries, read what Gary says. EV is a charity/non-profit, and hence this is not the place for it. I am working on a new version of the main article Prem_Rawat/temp1. Go there and see how I am referring to the techniques. For the time being I am puting a link to the section on the main article that deals with the techniques. -- Zappaz 06:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, but it is a charity that supports the work of Prem Rawat whose work it is to teach the four techniques. I agree that there are good practical reasons not to include the four techniques i.e. to prevent edit wars but there are no good reasons when you read the NPOV guidelines. Andries 16:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I really do not understand your persistance for pushing this issue. Please have some consideration and read what Gary D and Zappaz are saying. Given that we are all now working to develop the main article, and agreed on a metodology for doing so, it is futile to continue this discussion. This article has a link to the "techniques" section in the main article, where it belongs. This has noting to do with NPOV. It has to do with apropriateness, brevity and context. -- jossi 17:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Jossi, if brevity is the problem then I could make a separate article in Wikipedia Knowledge: the four techniques. What do you think about that? The section on Knowledge in the Prem Rawat article is incomplete. I think that it is more logical that it is here than in the Prem Rawat article. Remember that Elan Vital is a charity that supports Prem Rawat's work i.e. teaching Knowledge: the four techniques. Who said that Prem Rawat should be the main article? It has been the main article until now, I agree, but why should it stay that way? Andries 17:18, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Andries, what is it with you? why the urgency to post the descriptions of the techniques? It will offend me and many, many other people, very greately if you do so. Can you respect a kindly made request not to do that? . Please give it up... Let us focus on the main articles. There is a lot of work to be done rather than dealing with this right now. -- jossi 17:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The problem with editing the Prem Rawat article is that it is very tedious because most of my edits get reverted. In contrast, writing the article on Knowledge: the four techniques is something I can do quickly. Jossi, people have not been nice to my religious views and they turned out to be right. Why should I break NPOV guidelines by omitting essential information only to spare feelings of followers? Sometimes the truth is painful. Andries 18:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Andries:
  1. If your edits gets reverted is because they deserve that. That is the way the Wikipedia works.
  2. This issue has nothing to do with your religious views (????).
  3. Of course you can do that quickly. Copy & paste from a website is always easy and a copyvio as well
  4. Gary D, Zappaz and myself have made clear points about the subject.
  5. I have no more to talk to you about. Do whatever you want now, but expect my merciless edits. -- jossi 18:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the article is beginning to fill out nicely. As to the two issues surrounding the four techniques, I have "split my vote," so to speak, and am backing a different faction here on each issue:

  • First, as to the information appearing at all, if the information is informative and encyclopedic, and it does appear to be, I think it has a place in WP. WP covers a number of groups that feature formerly secret information, including the Masons, Scientology, and Mormonism as to their internal rituals, and TM as to its mantras. This is a larger WP policy issue than just the present article, and as I understand that policy, the fact that adherents may find the inclusion here distressing is not grounds for suppressing it, presuming the disclosure has previously been made to the public and WP is not disclosing it for the first time. I'm sure many people find much material in WP distressing in other ways as well, such as unfavorable biographical information, but that's all part of the information game. WP might always change its policy, and then we would have to go in to those other articles and remove any material that was formerly secret or that distresses adherents, but for now, as I understand the policy, material like the four techniques information is fair game for inclusion.
  • Second, as to where that information should go, it doesn't look like it would go here, in this article. It doesn't seem like EV is itself teaching the yoga technique, but is rather a support, archival, and dissemination group, so I would think the four techniques material is more closely associated with Prem Rawat himself. However, I actually think Andries' idea of a separate article may be the best, because it appears that these four techniques may be those same four kriyas of the father, Hans. I'm also wondering if the older brother might be teaching these four techniques. As such, they would transcend Prem Rawat personally, and would be more of a shared family heritage. So, then, my first choice vote would be to include the four techniques information in a separate article focusing on the family's yoga and its techniques, and my second choice vote would be to include the information in the Prem Rawat article.

--Gary D 23:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: I see that Zappaz has now made a place for this in the article Kriyas. I choose to see this as an olive branch of accommodation, so Andries, I urge you to tread gently (as in, quietly and humbly) in this area of premie sensitivity if and as you move forward with inclusion of the four techniques material into that article. --Gary D 00:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I can see your point, and I think there is a way to accomodate everyone, including Jossi, I hope. As there was already an article on Kriyas (aka techniques) referred to from the article on Prem Rawat's father Hans_Ji_Maharaj, I included a short description of the techniques on that article with an external link to a page in which the the techniques are described. I am researching now specific mentions of these techniques in various religious books to augument the article. By the time the Prem rawat article is completed, we will have a substantial article on the techniques that we can link to. -- Zappaz 00:53, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Gary for the undrestanding. Andries, please show restrain and note that a cut & paste job will not be acceptable. Do some research and let us make a great article on the techniques, I found already references on a contemporary book from Carl Jung. Good research will be appreciated! -- Zappaz
Zappaz, thanks for your step in the good direction but I think that we should follow Wikipedia guidelines that say that we should avoid external links if we can as well write the information in Wikipedia. I have to think about the redirect to Kriyas. Andries 18:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Andries, what you say is correct about writing the information in WP. That is exactly what I did: (a) Did some research, (b) wrote original text. What you attempted to do before was a cut & paste job that IMHO, does not offer neither context, nor value. Want to help with this article: add value. Do your research and help out to make this article a great one for the readers. The Kriyas article has the potential to became that, if we all pull together. I am continuing my research and found a ton of mentions of the Kryias that I am now trying to validate with a trip to the Library (yes, sometimes Google has its limits.) --Zappaz 19:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Religious organization?

Andries: you added: in spite of its claim not to be a religious movement. I searched the Elan Vital website and found statements about being an organization that does not discriminate about religion, but I did not find a statement in which they claim that they are not a religious movement. Can you show me were did you find that? Thanks. --Zappaz 20:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I can not find it so quickly the official statement but I have found the statement by Glen Whitaker the spokesperson of the UK who said that "Followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion." I also read it in a press article. Andries 20:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Let's be careful with our own POVs seeping into our edits. I know I do that myself sometimes. --Zappaz 21:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Prem Rawat/Elan Vital relationship question

I have a question that I think the article should answer, and that might have a bearing on the discussion going on over at the Hans talk page regarding use of the term "guru": What is the organizational relationship between Prem Rawat and Elan Vital? Does he run it? Does he control it? Does he advise it? Does he have a position or title within it, and if so, is that title "guru," or something else? Further, are the pro and the con groups agreed on whether he does or does not do any of the foregoing, or is his relationshipt to the organization itself a topic of debate among the communities? This would all be useful information for that favorite "second paragraph" of mine. (Maybe even the first!) --Gary D 21:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, Prem Rawat does not run Elan Vital. Elan Vital is just a small organization with a few full time employees and a board of directors that are not paid. The work of Elan Vital is mostly in fundraising for creating and disseminating materials that carry PR's message. The also organize speaking engagements for PR . He does not have a formal position that I know of, neither he receives compensation for these speaking engagements. You can read all of that in their website http://elanvital.org/about.html and in the Foundation site that carries his name http://tprf.org/prem_rawat.htm . The critics think otherwise (no surprises here!) and call him the leader of both these organizations and that nothing happens without his approval. There is a paper by Ron Greaves (a scholar and a follower of PR) in which he states that PR does not like organizations at all. A comment about this existed in the version before I splitted it. Quote below. --Senegal 22:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
According to Dr. Ron Geaves (see references), Maharaji has never been concerned with creating a particular religious movement and neither has ever considered himself bound by the teachings or practices of any of the world religions. He also says that there is a body of evidence that suggest that Maharaji himself maintains to this day a strong antipathy to organizational structures or at least was aware of the tensions between his inclination to function without a formal organization and the requirements of some kind of legal structure to support the promotion of his message.'
Version before the split
Thanks for this, Senegal. It sounds like there is indeed a pro/anti dispute over the degree of PR's control over EV (maybe Andries or Jim can confirm this), and if so, it sounds like we should document that dispute in the article. --Gary D 00:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would warn here that calling it a "dispute" already denotes POV. The critics will make any attempt possible to lump everything into one pile (the man, the message, the followers and the organizations), so that they can focus their criticism in one place. That is a known strategy in the anti-cult movement and apostate groups. The issue with this NRM is that there is indeed very little "organization" per se. That is what my research tells me:
  • There are not group activities such as prayers, chantings, retreats, etc.
  • People mostly stay in touch via satellite broadcasts, the web and the ocassional live event in which Prem Rawat speaks
  • People ask him questions via a website http://www.askaquestion.tv/ that he answers at these events
So I do not see much of an organization today, although in the early days there was a bigger bureaucracy, mostly dismantled in the late 80's.
So the issue at hand is critics talking about "control", when that "control" is meaningless, as there is really not much to be controlled... For example, being 503(c) non-profit, Elan Vital and the other organization (the prem rawat foundation) have their finances audited (See profile by GuideStar [1]). So if ther finances cannot be "controlled" by PR, what can be? an office building with 5 employess? See my point? -- Zappaz 03:18, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There was indeed a larger bureaucracy/organisation in the early days (1970's). Nowadays there is no much left of that. In the article we should mention this fact: that most of the critics, if not all, started their involvement in the 1970's and as such, they tend to judge the movement and PR himself from the perspective of these early days (including the claim that PR "controls" Elan Vital.) --Senegal 04:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The one thing that keeps bugging me on the critics claims, is that there is little or no evidence that many of these are valid. I mean, all the references they provide point back to the ex-premie site and their own accounts or testimonials. I have yet to find one external reference, beyond what Zappaz and Andries provided in the Reference & Biblio section in the main article, namely Merton and Barret books, that substantiate their claims. On the other hand, Elan Vital puts online court orders and affidavits that prove that some of their claims of harassment by the critics have substance. It could be interesting to contact the EV to see if they have information about the claims of harassment they make against the critics and if they have any documentation on these.--Senegal 04:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It will be interesting to see what Andries and the crew have to say about it. Many of the items listed above (decrease in organization's size over time, current size of staff, some of the numbers from the financial reports, etc.) would themselves be good to include in the article (and some of it already is); this sort of factual detail is the meat of any good organizational article. The control issue, meanwhile, would boil down to who calls the shots, as in, could the board ever meaningfully disagree with PR? Have they done so? Would we want to profile the president and his leadership direction? How is this group different from The PR Foundation (which I presume PR is personally central to, or is he)? Actually, I myself wouldn't find it negative or shocking if PR did have substantial input into EV, considering the group's purposes and activities. Without meaning to offend anyone with my analogy, I mean EV is sort of like a fan club, so you would expect the central personality to be heavily involved. At any rate, I would encourage everyone to more or less let the other side's viewpoint fall where it may, and dig into loading up the article with more organizational facts and figures. --Gary D 07:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good points, Gary. I will attempt to add to the article as per your suggestions. Regarding the PR foundation: it carries his name, it has a welcome letter from PR, etc. so he surely is involved at least on direction/mission/vision, etc. That, is interestingly lacking in the EV website. That says something, I guess. I need to check these facts, but my impression is that EV, as it organizes speaking egagements for PR, at least it has to consult with PR about these, invite him, get his approval for these, etc. There is another interesting website contactinfo.net that seems to be the website of the volunteers/students. I counted at least 100 organizations/websites/phone lines around the world being listed there, probably all small catering to local volunteering. http://www.contactinfo.net/contacts.cfm --Zappaz 15:41, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] edits

Removed allegation about sexual scandal. This is one isolated incident in 33 years of operation. Not worth mentioning in an article that is so short, otherwise it's NPOV suffers. In any case, this and other allegations are well covered in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article, that is going through an in-depth editing process as we speak. --Zappaz 04:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 11:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Elan Vital
Elan Vital is one of the organizations that supports the work of Prem Rawat, known also as Maharaji by his students. This organization exists in several countries with the purpose of organizing events in which Prem Rawat is invited to speak. They also engage in fundraising and in some countries they broadcast public addresses of Prem Rawat.
According to Elan Vital's website, the Divine Light Mission changed its name to Elan Vital in 1987. The Divine Light Mission, a new religious movement was criticized by the anti-cult movement in the 1970s[2]. A group of ex-followers, that call themselves ex-premies became vocal critics and label Elan Vital a cult. In turn, Elan Vital considers them a hate group due to alleged activities of harassement leveled against them [3]. One of those vocal critics, Mike Finch has replied to some of these allegations. [4].
References: