Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 16

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.
Archive 16


Contents

Linking to copyvio

Please do not link to web pages that contain copyright violations. See Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking to copyrighted works. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I have replaced the webpage with another that does not break copyrights. Andries 21:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Andries, note that the new page you linked to as "Excerpt" does not include excerpts of the book. It includes comments from some people about that book and a link to the same copyright violation page. Please remove, Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Why? The webpage that I now inserted does not break any copyrights and is useful to the reader so it is a good link. I will try to change the description a bit. Andries 22:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Andries, the page you linked is not an excerpt of the book. It is commentary on the book made by ex-premies. It includes a link to an obvious copyright violation. I woud argue that it is not appropriate to link to it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I will think about it, but it untrue that it breaks the guidelines that you linked to. Andries 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Think about it, but note that I sincerely think that it is a mistake: (a) it links to a page that is not related to the citation, and (b) contains a link to an obvious copyvio. Unless your intention is to bypass the policy by linking to a page that links to a copyvio, I do not see how this link can remain in the citation. For the record, pls note that I read the book last week, and found it fascinating. But linking to a web page that contains an obvious copyright violation (10 full chapters!) is not good as linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was my intention to bypass the alleged copyright violation by linking to a webpage that does not break any copyrights. Andries 23:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
...only that the page you linked is not related to the cite. It only contains comments by non-notable individuals on the book. Same as it will not be useful to link to the reviews of the book at Amazon.com. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts and in contrast to what I wrote hereabove, I do not think that the excerpts provided on the website violate copyright. Andries 00:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
So, are you arguing that transcribing more than half of a book and posting it on a web page without consent from the publisher is not a copyright viloation? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Half of the book? Far, far less. The book has 240 pages. Andries 00:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

(outdent)How many chapters the book has? How many chapters are posted? Definition of fair use (my emphasis):

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]

Don't take my word for it (not that I need to ask...). You may want to ask at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have undone my revert. You are accountable to your own edits, not me. Once you find out the difference between fair use and copyright violation, you can delete your own edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph about "irony" re executives

I removed the following paragraph:

The irony is, of course, that those who promoted these claims to divinity were executives in the organization—Bob Mishler, Mike Dettmers, Mike Donner. Both Dettmers and Donner now suggest that Rawat made this claim, yet it is likely that, as custodians of the belief systems of the organization, the claims to divinity originated, or were otherwise promoted, by them.

This is far from NPOV and it's also wrong and misleading. Rawat was the genesis of his claims to divinity and all followers, important or not, simply parroted those claims when giving satsang which, of course, all premies were expected to do. It was simply a case of Monkey-See/Monkey-Do. None of the executives mentioned ever claimed to have any particular insight or vision about Rawat's divinity. None of them claimed to be any further along the path than other premies or to be more enlightened. These guys simply parroted Rawat as all premies did in our various communities. The only "irony" here is that, as happens with all cults, followers try to scapegoat the followers for all mistakes and embarrasments.

The point is, as demonstrated in the 1982 The Age article, Rawat was the one claiming that he, and he alone, was the "chosen messenger" of this "age". He alone placed himself in a lineage of "prophets". Even his attempt to show how humble he is -- by comparing himself to Jesus! -- reveals the game he was playing. --24.69.14.159 04:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in a different place with additional material. Why? You state that this analysis is wrong and misleading, yet you offer no argument why this is so. Your argument is simply that everyone parrotted Maharaji. Yet that is not an argument, simply your point of view from a self-proclaimed position of dislike of Maharaji. Premies did not parrot those claims in satsang. How do you know that Rawat was the genesis of claims to divinity? Any evidence? Did he place himself in the lineage of the prophets? Or did he say that he was the "chosen messenger"? Big difference. There were people who came before Jesus who claimed the same thing. Being a messenger (of what) is different from being the deity that sends the messenger. Let's face it Jim. Your experience and knowledge of knowledge is a frozen frame from the 1970s, and after 30 odd years, is hardly "unreconstructed". Errol V 12:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Errol, with all due respect, you are not making any sense at all. How is Rawat claiming that he was the one and only messenger for this age who was chosen to show people the source of divine light inside different than saying that he was a prophet? But you don't just say it's different. According to you, there's a "big difference". What is it? Please explain because, for my money, that's exactly what a prophet is: a unique and important messenger of God. As for my experience being "frozen", let's not forget that you're anonymous and I'm not. Unless you're willing to come out from the shadows, I'd ask you to avoid any mention of my own personal life as much as you do or don't understand it. It's called fairness, Errol. Get it? Finally, as I said, there is no evidence that Mishler, Dettmers or Donner promoted Rawat's purported divinity anymore than any other premies let alone that there's some irony involved if they did. This is just wishful thinking of cult members trying to scapegoat anyone but their leader for everything and anything. I've got news for you, EV (nice name, by the way!). It ain't gonna happen.

Jim Heller, still posting from another computer, 9:47-ish, West Coast Time.

Glad you like my name Jim. Must admit to a wry smile when DUO became Elan Vital. Now to your messages. A messenger is different from God. Should be self-evident. Thus, a claim to divinity is a claim to "godhead" (whatever that means). A prophet is not god. A claim to be a prophet or to be a messenger is not a claim to being god. Your anonymity or lack thereof is your own choice. You choose to be involved in EPO and have taken part in public lampooning of Maharaji for almost 10 years now. I'm not at all anonymous. Try a google search. Finally, the published material that I have presented clearly indicates that Mishler was in effective control of all that happened in DLM and DUO. To say then, that he simply was a parrot on the one hand, but also an autocratic CEO beggars belief, and asks reasonable readers to believe that he was nothing but a robot as well as a high-powered, driven executive. Doesn't gell, Jim. I've got a few early speeches by some of those executives. I'll get back to you with further information. Errol V 23:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Discarding the trappings

Throughout these pages, much is made of the Mishler interview. However, it is clear from statements made by Jim Heller on this page that he has no copy of the interview. It is my contention that the so-called "transcript" has no validity as it may well be a constructed version of the interview. As stated above in the discussion about this, all references to the Mishler interview must refer to an "alleged transcript". This was not disputed in the discussion above. Errol V 12:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Errol Vieth,
Before you theorize any further on whether or not Heller, I, all former and current followers of Rawat who knew of this interview for the last 27 years, yet said nothing before to cast aspersions on its authenticity, are all either too lazy to care, mistaken or liars, perhaps it might do you good to call KOA yourself and find out some hard facts for yourself. Theories are a dime a dozen. Hard facts tend to be believed by most before essentially groundless theories. The hard facts are that I heard it, Heller heard it, Stirling had it transcribed, thousands of followers were silent about it for 27 years, despite the fact that it had been aired in 1979 and published as a transcript in 1995.
I personally remember talking with Stirling as he complained to me about having to pay something like ₤100 of his own money to a transcription service to have the bloody thing transcribed. Sure it may be easy for you to sit back in your easy chair and theorize without spending a red cent of your money or time while trashing others with your amazing theories. I spent hours and hours summarizing the topic index, HTML'izing it and uploading it. All of these hard facts seem to me to be a bit more substantial than these theories I am hearing about this guy Melton who doesn't even know what year Mishler left Rawat. I would suggest, please, that you might at least try to refrain from theorizing that people are liars unless you might happen to have some very hard facts to back up such theories.
-Scott P. 13:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
And what I'd like to ask Errol -- AGAIN -- is where is the evidence for the claim you made a couple of times now that, when the Mishler interview was first presented on an ex-premie site it was accompanied by an explanation that it wasn't genuine? Come on, Errol, you can't just make repeated allegations like that. As they say in Wikipedia, put up or shut up.

-Jim Heller (from another computer) Saturday morning, 9:30-ish, west coast time.

Melton wrote that "Mishner" as he spelled it left in 1977. Jossi wrote 1997 which is probably another spelling or type-error. Andries 15:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (amended)
Sorry guys. You are the ones who have to put up or shut up. Put up evidence that the transcript that you refer to is an accurate version of the interview with KOA. Given the recording's importance to you case, it is beyond belief that you would "lose" it, or that you would no longer have access to it. For your case, that interview was gold. Without the tape, you have no case. Further, you have kept the oral version of a telephone interview that someone had with Mishler. Obviously, the person making the call to Mishler was the one who made the recording. Yet you cannot produce any evidence that this transcript is real!! Sorry, but under any rules of evidence used in any encyclopedia, material must have a reputable source. This does not. So, the transcript is only "alleged" to be real. It's only fair that readers realise you can't back up your story. Errol V 23:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Errol, if you don't see how it's incumbent upon you to back up your claim that EPO first presented the Mishler interview as fake, then there's no point talking with you about anything. After all, you're bound to say anything without any sense of responsibility. The ball is very much in your court. If you can't back up that claim, you need to retract it if you want even the slightest bit of credibility.

--Jim Heller 00:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim. No, the ball is in your court. I believe the transcript to be fake for various reasons, as stated above. I have challenged you to present the original, but you cannot. If you cannot support your claims, then the rules of evidence apply. As I said when we had our original discussion about this, I would be really happy if the tape could be found. The truth would have won through. And there should be no problem with this. Given its importance to your case, you would have kept it. After all, I notice on the ex forum that you have found a letter from Linda Goss, from 1997. If you keep that kind of trivia, then I would be astounded if you did not keep a tape that was critical to your arguments. Errol V 10:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

EV, please show proper counter-documentation before deleting documented sections, also documentation for inserting other improperly documented sections.

Dear EV,
You have just deleted a certain section without providing any proper documentation for your deletion. You have also just inserted a section without providing any proper documentation for this either. Regarding the Mishler transcript deletion, please document before deleting. Regarding your deletion of the section referring to Rawat's earlier claims to divinity, please provide ample documentation that all proof of this was fabricated before deleting this. Thanks,

-Scott P. 15:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Same standards as for the Mishler interview

Are we now going to write "alleged" for all information that has only been maintained by DLM and Elan Vital archives? If we follow the same standards as for the Mishler interview then we should do this. Andries 15:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


I have removed EV's wording "alleged" from the discription of the interview.
EV, both Jossi and I have contacted KOA and are awaiting answers to your concerns about the validity of this interview. For the past 27/ 11 years nobody else has called the validity of this interview or transcript into question. Would it be possible for you to wait a couple of weeks longer for the reply from KOA to come before you make such assertions? Please?
Thanks,
-Scott P. 16:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


An alternative is to contact Melton about this matter. After all he wrote about Mishler's criticism. I understand that some contributors incl. me have great problems and objections to some of Melton's writings, but that should not be an impediment.
Andries 10:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Finally, definitive proof of the accuracy of the Mishler Interview transcript

Please read and comment at #RFC_summary

After all of this amazing concern expressed about the accuracy of the Mishler Interview transcript, here is a definitive proof of its accuracy. In order to get this proof, I have had to sequentially contact three different individuals, as KOA does not keep audio files back so far, and they have gone through at least two station directors since 1979. Here is a statement from the former director of the station in 1979, stating that he recalls his station performing the interview, and that it appears to him to be an accurate transcript. I hope that this will put whomever's concerns for accuracy to rest. If not, then I would suggest that this matter could be posted for general comments in the "Request for Comments" section of Wiky. These sudden demands for "proof" of a document that has stood published and unchallenged for over 10 years, and that has at least two individuals willing to provide notarized statements regarding its accuracy, was entirely baffling to me.

The email that I received from Jim Hawthorne, who was the News-KOA station director in 1979 in Denver, Colorado is as follows:

 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:10:20 -0800 (PST)
 From: Jim Hawthorne <jimhawthorne@******.net>
 Subject: Re: The 1979 KOA broadcast on the Mishler interview.
 To: Scott Perry <scotwperry@*****.com>
 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20060321184703.03144eb0@*****.com>
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
             
 Dear Scott: Yes, I personally remember the interview
 was live, with live telephone calls. The transcript
 you provided (at http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/mishler.htm), 
 appears to be accurate.  
             
             
 Sincerely yours, 
             
 Jim Hawthorne

If anyone might wish to contact Mr. Hawthorne personally, please email me and I will gladly provide his full email address. Please be aware that whatever standards of verification that may be attempted to be applied to this transcript may also be conversely applied to all similar one-source documentation from Prem Rawat/ EV.

Sincerley,

-Scott P. 02:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Scott, the person I spoke with at Koa, told me a somewhat different story. She said that they do not keep records from these years and there is no way to ascertain that the interview took place, or if the transcript is accurate. Please note that I am not asserting that the interview did not take place or that the transcript is innacurate. What needs to be said in the article is that the source is not KOA, but a website of critics and that there is no official transcript available. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Scott. Given that you feel so strongly about this, I would ask you to make the necessary corrections to the citing of this source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Scott, you speak of notarized statements by two individuals? Can you explain what does that means? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Dear Jossi,
I had to speak or email with:
  1. The KOA receptionist.
  2. The KOA personnel director.
  3. The former KOA station head from 1981 (Jim Lawson).
  4. The former KOA station head from 1979 (Jim Hawthorne).
Who did you speak with? Nearly all original audio files of such old radio broadcasts are routinely destroyed. This is not a requirement of Wiky for all such old radio broadcasts. Jossi, if you wish to continue to argue this, please place a request for comment at in Wiky RFC area. Citation done. Notarized statements by self and Heller.
-Scott P. 04:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I spoke with a person that is in charge of archives at KOA. As for the addition of your own page, that probably falls in WP:NOR and would argue that is not acceptable as a source (can you imagine what will happen in Wikipedia if editors started writing webpages and cite these as sources?). Please note that I am not arguing that the interview did not take place, or that the transcript is a fabrication. But we ought to inform readers that there is no official transcript. I kindly request that you delete your own citation and that you add the fact that there is no official transcript available from KOA. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, it is not Wiky policy to require that any radio interview transcript older than 25 years have it stated that the original audio file is no longer available. It seems to me that an endorsement of the transcript by the former KOA station head would render the document as somewhat official. Please place an RFC if you wish to continue this discussion. I will gladly remove the citation if you might simply let this sad dog of an attempt to rewrite history lie.
-Scott P. 04:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Scott, but this is not acceptable. If you provide a transcript as a source, and the transcript is not official, you cannot cite from it as if it was. You can say that the interview took place, you can give the date and the location, but citing from it as if this is an official transcript, is not acceptable, I will glady ask for an RfC, if that is what you want. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I will wait for your confirmation that you want me to ask for comments by placing an WP:RFC. I am not so sure that you would want this. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have just placed the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy, and listed this section of this talk page as the section in question. Thanks.
-05:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A note to editors

In my experience editing Wikipedia for the last few years, I have yet to see an article about which there are competing views, in which a side manages to "win" and the other side to "lose". The four content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT are a very strong framework and able to repel POV pushing, and assist in the development of articles that are factually accurate, verifiable, and encyclopedic. "Edit warriors" always lose in Wikipedia.

Given the above, I would kindly ask all editors:

  • Do not add your opinions, inferences, deductions, assessments, to the article, etc.
  • No one is interested in your partisan opinions, so do not place them in the talk pages, you can keep these to yourself, or discuss them on USENET or discussion forums.
  • If you quote from printed material, provide a source and avoid the temptation to add your own analysis of what the author meant. Let the cite speak for itself.
  • Do not delete material that has been properly cited and/or referenced. Other editors have worked hard to research the subject and provide these references to comply with WP:V. Please respect their effort and discuss before deleting.
  • I would also encourage editors to have patience. Sometime it takes time to find supporting material, or to reply to a request from an other editor.
  • Do not game the system to bypass the spirit of policies.
  • Do not disrupt Wikipedia just to make a point. See WP:POINT.

Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

While you're reminding the rest of us, Jossi, mind if I remind YOU of the following from the same sources you cite? viz ...
* All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.
  • It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
  • As the name suggests the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
  • … when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence.
  • … we do not try to decide or claim that an opinion is "true" or "false". We state instead, neutrally and factually, which people hold what views, and allow the facts to speak for themselves. Remember, Facts are never subject to consensus.
... and thank you for your consideration Revera 18:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, these point are covered by WP:NPOV. These provide an excellent framework for Wikipedia, and has worked for this and other articles the subject of wich has competing views. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Errol V must be stopped

This is the latest version of what I can only call wishful-thinking on behalf of followers desperate to create a myth relieving Rawat of responsibility for anything:

The irony is, of course, that those who promoted the claims to divinity were executives in the organization—Bob Mishler, Mike Dettmers, Mike Donner. Both Dettmers and Donner now suggest that Rawat made this claim, yet it is likely that, as custodians of the belief systems of the organization, the claims to divinity originated, or were otherwise promoted, by them. As indicated above, Mishler had complete control of the organisation and thus any claims about Maharaji's divinity are likely to have come from him.

Errol has no evidence for this proposition and, as we all know, there is none because it's sheer poppycock. Jossi, even you must admit this is reckless editing. I suggest that you try to control your fellow followers, if you know what I mean. Jim Heller, from a West Coast computer, right around 10 in the morning, Saturday, 11/3/06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.14.159 (talk • contribs) also editing as —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs)

There is no need to use pejoratives or innuendo. See no personal attacks. You have been banned already once. I would kindly request you refactor the sentence above so this discussion can remain within the boundaries of civility. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, what do you call Errol's false claim that EPO ever presented the Mishler interview as fake? Is that not the very kind of "innuendo" you're concerned about? Why don't you ever criticize fellow followers? And as for pejoratives, what do you call Errol's taunt that my perspective's "frozen" etc.? If you're going to play cop, Jossi, which you seem to want to do (how many people did you block last year?), you should at least try to appear impartial.Jim Heller

BTW, how do I post from separate locations? Jim

You already have a username: User:Jim Heller. Login to edit. As for your comment about critizicing editors, I provide what I hope are constructive comments as the one I have placed above such as "Note to editors", to all editors involved in this and other articles. In regard to my "playing cop", that is my work as a sysop of Wikipedia: one of the tasks is to fight vandalism and block disruptive users. There is a link on my talk page under "Admin transparency" that shows my activity in this regard. You may want to read Wikipedia:Administrator. As for your comment above, I ask you again to refactor the offensive comment out of this page, so that we can maintain civility. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the comment. Now, will YOU please answer my questions about Errol's offensive innuendo and comments? --Jim Heller 19:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing these comments. I have not seen any offensive comments from Errol in this page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jim Heller that the claim that Mishler, Dettmers and Donner, in particular, promoted PR's supposed divinty is without foundation. I have not read anything to support such a claim.Momento 20:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless we find letters or other documentation in which they did, I would agree. Note that Mata ji and ther elder brother promoted Maharaji as divine in the West until they departure to India, in the many satsangs they gave. For example, in "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji", Mata Ji calls Maharaji "Supreme Master" , "Lord the of whole universe" and other titles. If we can find documentation that Robert Mishler, Donner and others did the same we could then write about it, but until then, I agree we should not.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this comment - "Those in charge may have maintained in their own minds a distinction between the young living man, his deceased father, and the lineage title itself, although that distinction appears to have been lost on some who believed Rawat was referring to himself when using that phrase" - has the same flaw as the one discussed above. It seeks to suggest that the beliefs of the "executives" or "those in charge" was different from the beliefs of the followers. I see no evidence of that. My understanding is that there was a wide variety of beliefs as to who or what PR was that had more to do with an individual's understanding than their "position" in DLM. I will modify this sentence if there are no objections.Momento 21:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Belief that Rawat was the LOTU was widespread. I read many times that he was called the LOTU. Andries 09:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You have been reading maybe the same material, and from the same source, Andries?. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Momento, you wrote "I agree with Jim Heller that the claim that Mishler, Dettmers and Donner, in particular, promoted PR's supposed divinty is without foundation. I have not read anything to support such a claim." Just because you have not read it does not mean anything. In fact, Jim did not make the claim you say he did; just the opposite. He claimed that M, D and D did make claims about M's divinity, but that they were just parrotting what they had been told. The discussion is above. Please get the facts straight, although I guess you "had not read it". It still exists, nevertheless. Errol V 23:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that many people made many claims for and against PR having a particular attribute but I haven't seen anything to suggest that M, D & D stood out as being the major promoters. They may have been executives but I do not see them as "custodians of the belief systems of the organization" or that "the claims to divinity originated (or were otherwise promoted) by them". My understanding is that if anyone was custodians of the belief systems, it was the Indian mahatmas. Nor do I agree that "Mishler had complete control of the organisation and thus any claims about Maharaji's divinity are likely to have come from him". My understanding is that claims of divinity came with PR from India long before M, D & D. And to be clear, the word "divine" in its basic sense means ‘associated with or derived from God’; that is, not God him/her/itself. Any priest, liturgy, religious art etc can be said to be divine without suggesting that the person, act or object is God or godlike. Momento 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that if Maharaji claimed to be divine, he did not mean that he was godlike, but he meant that he could be like a priest? Sounds good to me. In that case, if Mishler said that Maharaji was divine, he probably meant that he was like a priest. If someone else called M. divine, he meant the same thing. OK. I can buy that. Certainly is a different interpretation of divine that others on this page and on the EPO site have been claiming. But I will go along with you.

Andries, you said above that you have read that many times M. was called the "Lord of the Universe". Could I suggest to you that there was only a short period of time when this was so. And secondly, if people's perception was that PR was something special (I refer to the letter from Rennie Davis that you would have seen and to David Lovejoy's book referred to in the article), then that is their experience. The problem was then that some people took it upon themselves to interpret that experience for others. Then it turned into farce.

On the subject of the Mishler interview, I believe the transcript to be fake, as I argue above. If it is not, then I am happy, indeed ecstatic, to be wrong. The real truth will have then emerged. You ask me to hold off until you have checked with KOA. But it is only when KOA are able to verify that the transcript is indeed that of the interview that any mention of the transcript as a credible source that it should be included in Wikipedia as a reference. I've got some stuff from the 70s when Detmers and Donner were speaking. I'll work through it. Errol V 10:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I have changed the material about the Mishler interview. It now reflects accurately the situation. I would be happy to change it myself when the transcript reaches the verification standards expected in Wikipedia. Errol V 11:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Distinctions

Practice of Knowledge as taugh by Hans Ji Maharaj, was not "meditation". It included seva (selfless service), satsang, and bhajan (inner contemplation). That was the subject of the first address by Maharaji. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, can you explain the difference between 'seva, satsang, and bhajan', and 'satsang, service and meditation' to which I dedicated my life in 1978? Nigel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhurst (talk • contribs)
Probably none. I was referring to Maharaji's first address in which he speaks about the practice of Knowledge and not about meditation as user:Revera attempted to imply on a previous edit. That's all. Seeing that you are new to Wikipedia, I have placed some pointers in your talk page. (you can sign your comments with four tildes, like this: --~~~~. One recommendation I would make is to use the edit summary judiciously, as these cannot be refactored. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, it was indeed a "three-legged stool" of satsang, service and meditation that we were taught. But the techniques of Knowledge, you must agree, were meditation techniques. And one of his "five commandments" stated quite explicitly: "constantly meditate ...". Has the word become unacceptable to Rawat these days? And even if it has, this article on him should not just be about his current methods of propagating his teachings. The history of the way "Knowledge" was promoted is a fundamental part of his story. At the very least I would have thought the word "meditation" would appear more than once in the article on the four techniques of Knowledge, yet it's nowhere to be seen in the text of that article. You weren't a premie in the early days, so how come you presume to know better than those of us who were there just exactly what was taught? (and rest assured, I'll find the documented resources that are there, but it'll have to wait until later today) Revera 11:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
(later) - http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/DlightSant.htm#treasure will give you an idea how much emphasis the young Rawat placed on meditation. And this is from Part 1, chapter 3 of the book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?"
QUOTE - "Although four very practical meditation techniques are given, the techniques alone are incomplete, and cannot account for the total experience. The full meaning of the inner grace, love and overwhelming peace a person experiences when he receives Knowledge cannot be described. Does the full experience of love lie in a kiss?"
"People who have received Knowledge, called "premies" ("lovers of truth"), praise Guru Maharaj Ji as the greatest living soul and holiest human being on the planet, simply because he has given them the experience of Knowledge. This experience has the capacity to release every one of us from all frustration and anxiety, and return us to our natural states of being; instruments of love, compassion and understanding". ENDQUOTE Revera 12:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You are making too strenuous of an effort to prove something that I am not challenging (??). Please take the time to understand what I have said. I repeat: the first address by Maharaji ws not about meditation, but about the practice of Knowledge that include these three aspects that you have so well described. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The first address WAS about meditation, in that it was about "knowledge". And if you take the trouble to read the linked address in my previous post, you'll see that Rawat clearly stated that meditation was not only a fundamental part of "knowledge" he emphasised its importance OVER and above that of satsang and service, ending his address with the words: "So brothers, my meaning is that the Name which Guru Maharaj Ji has revealed to you should be meditated upon. I did not really want to say anything. I only know this, brothers, that we must meditate".
Your downplaying of the importance of meditation is perverse, to put it mildly. Or is just that Rawat doesn't like his students to use that word any more because it smacks of "Eastern mysticism"? You might not like it, but it's historical fact that Rawat spoke about meditation - and used that word for it, not just "going inside", or whatever phrase later became the politically correct way of referring to the same thing - and as such that fact should not be glossed over by the current spin and revisionism that you and EV appear to be trying to promote. Revera 16:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are making much of a do about nothing, really. I am not disputing that the word meditation was used in the 70's and 80's. I was only referring to Maharajis first address in which he did not referred to "meditation". Relax. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Relax? I thought you were the one who had to take a recent sabbatical to de-stress from the consequences of trying to spin your own version of Rawat's history?!! So, Jossi, kindly explain why you said: "Practice of Knowledge as taugh by Hans Ji Maharaj, was not "meditation"" - and why you deleted my reference to the word? Don't you think "meditation" describes the practice of the four techniques at least as well (if not better) than the somewhat odd phrase that is currently kosher - if you understand my meaning - in Rawat's world of "going within?"

Rawat as "The Lord of the Universe"

When I followed Rawat in the 70's, it was customary for Rawat at festivals (now called 'events' I believe) towards the end of each festival, to sit on his "throne" and don a Krishna crown, to sometimes play a flute and dance as Krishna was believed to have done, and to sit smiling while his followers sang songs such as "Lord of the Universe" and numerous other songs attesting to his divinity, to him. At that time, the only time that I knew of that Rawat had ever denied his divinity was in a quote where he had said, "I am not God, only his humble servant". Somehow this quote would always be displayed next to another quote where he had said, "Guru is greater than god, because guru shows you God".

Whenever we would sing these songs to the enthroned, crowned Rawat, there was always a very real sense throughout the festival hall that we were all addressing some sort of a special, divine being. Rawat never said anything to dispell any of the claims of the words of the songs that we sang to him. He merely smiled, and at times would motion to us, encouraging us to dance ourselves to the words of the songs we sang. The feeling in the halls was always electrifying.

Usually this, what I will call the "Krishna enactment interchange", was planned for the final night of a festival. For us it was kind of like an emotional "grand finale", like they do at the end of a fireworks display.

In Hinduism, the terms: God and Guru, in my understanding, can have Indian meanings that may differ significantly from the most typical Western understandings of them. I have a few Indian friends who have tried to explain these differences to me. In India, a Guru is often in some ways God, but in other ways just another person, though worthy of special respect, still not the same as what a Westerner would normally call God.

I'll give an example: I have this Indian friend who is a licensed practicing Psychiatrist in the US. Being in such a position, he knows full well that most Westerner's do not understand how these terms can get mixed up in translation. At one point when I first met him, we were talking about Guru's. I've travelled a bit in India on my own 'Guru seeking treks', so perhaps I may know just a tad bit more about this whole thing than the average Westerner. At any rate, when I first asked him if he had a guru, he said, "no".

Then I responded by saying, "I thought nearly every Indian has a guru, but I guess there are more exceptions than I thought." Then he told me the truth of the matter. I think at this point he probably realized that it would be safe to confide to me that he did have a guru, because othewise I probably wouldn't have believed him anyways!

He said, "Actually, my grandfather was my guru. My grandfather was the neighborhood pundit or priest, and I usually turned to him for spiritual guidance. Also, I did at one time try to follow a really 'big' guru, but that guru turned out to be a big phony. I spent something like 3 months in his ashrams, only to find out that he was a big womanizer." He went on to tell me about his grandfather's theology. Even though his grandfather regularly did all of the functions of a pundit, or Hindu priest, it turns out that his grandfather didn't really believe in a Supreme Being at all! He apparently just went through the priestly rituals in order to satisfy the superstitious curiosities of the people in their neighborhood!

Still, my friend considered his grandfather to be his guru. So, in India the term: guru, can have all kinds of mixed and sometimes seemingly contradictory meanings. I think in the West, we have come to take the one meaning which apparently overlaps with the one definition we have of the word: Savior. Thus in the West, a guru is expected to be either a Christ, or if not, then an anti-Christ. Perhaps this is just a sort of a Western - Eastern translation problem that has yet to be properly ironed out at some day in the future.

-Scott P. 16:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The term "Lord of the Universe" is not even in the article yet. I will comment on your talk page too because a lot of what you write is hardly related to this article. Andries 16:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
This ia biographical article and we have a limit (already exceeded) on the lenght that is appropriate for an article in WP. FYI, references to these and other Indian culturally related terms are presented in detail in Past teachings of Prem Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree strongly. The LOTU aspect is important and verifiable and that particular article Past Teachings of Prem Rawat falls far below Wikipedia's standards. Andries 17:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Then, fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is better to have the article deleted. I will make a vote for deletion. Andries 17:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
An AfD will surely fail, IMO, but you can try. Good luck. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The reasons that justify an Article For Deletion for the article Past teachings of Prem Rawat are 1. the fact there is little information from reputable sources about Prem Rawat's teachings. (in contrast to information about the teachings of the DLM) 2. Almost all information from reputable sources about Rawat's teachings is already here. Andries 17:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
As I said, you can try. I would prefer working on it and providing references, a process which I have started a few minutes ago. I agree that the article is not a good example of a "best of best" articles in WP (you surely would agree with me that there are many articles with these characteristics in WP), but with patience and our collective effort we can condense it, provide references, and make it better. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
But then please do not provide "references" that are retrospective revisionist analysises from the Elan Vital website or the TPRF websites. If only these kind of "references" cane be provided for the article Past teachings of Prem Rawat then it is a good reason to have the article deleted. Andries 17:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Shall we then apply the same standards to the allegations made by ex-premies in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, regardless whether that article is not perfectly referenced, at least a substantial portion is well-referenced. That is not something that can be said about the article Past teachings of Prem Rawat. Andries 18:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
So, give me a hand to fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is worth the effort until it has survived afd. Andries 18:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Just your average guru, Scott? You must have forgotten all about the "lion and lamb" (mis-)quotes then?

Image:KrishnaCrownb-w.jpg
300pxl

I think Andries' inclusion of selected opinion in the opening history of PR is unadvisable and not NPOV. There are numerous quotes of PR stating clearly that he is not God and his acknowledgements that his followers make claims about him to counter balance the LOTU suggestion. All it will produce is claims and counter claims. Please keep to indisputable facts; that is facts that no one disputes and that are not contradicted by other facts. I have removed Andries insert.Momento 22:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Average gurus, saints and sickos

Dear Momento,

I know that the pundit grandfather of the Indian psychiatrist that I mentioned above was certainly a rather 'average' guru, and that Rawat is not. That Indian psychiatrist also told me that he believed that most 'big gurus' are either drug addicts or mentally ill. In other words, he thought that the majority of those involved in the Indian-guru relationship with "big-gurus" were probably in fundamentally flawed relationships. Still the psychiatrist had his guru, his pundit grandfather. I think it is fairly safe to say that most Hindus do have a guru, kind of like most Christians have a God-father, except that the Hindu guru relationship usually has far more depth and meaning to it than the Western "God-child to God-Parent" relationship.

Personally, I think that Rawat has held up pretty well, considering the tremendous weight of the burden he is under. He is expected to be the "perfect father figure", yet he is just as human as the rest of us. I realize that my view that, "He is just as human as the rest of us", coming from an ex-premie, is probably, even to this day, met with some very mixed emotions and reactions. I expect such mixed reactions to such a view because Rawat's very message today seems to me to be a bit mixed. On the one hand, as I understand it, he still claims to be the only human who has this sort of a "monopoly license" to "reveal knowledge to mankind". On the other hand he is now claiming to be merely human, at least as I understand it. These two messages seem to me to be rather incompatible, but perhaps I am not 'up' enough on his current message. I don't know.

The most important thing that I see in this "perfect father figure" thing is that it seems to me that it inevitably creates tensions, as I believe that none of us here on earth are entirely perfect. Obviously the psychiatrist with the pundit-grandfather-guru didn't see his grandfather as perfect. To me, that was a healthy guru-devotee relationship. For me, as soon as words like "perfect", "only-one", and "Lord" start to get added to the mix, then problems would seem likely to follow.

-Scott P. 13:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Scott, the problem as I see it, is that there are a number of people editing this article who have never known how Rawat promoted his message in the early days. And by attempting to deny the experience of those of us who were there, they are - quite justifiably - being accused of revisionism.
Perhaps part of the trouble is that some of more active editors have never been exposed to the kind of ideas that Rawat actively promoted in those days. No doubt they might be shocked at what they read, if all they know is the more recent version of events that EV now propagates. Then again, they might not be. Let them decide for themselves. Here's Raja ji - the brother of Prem Rawat, speaking in 1977:
QUOTE
"Luckily we're all premies here and we can really openly talk about, you know, our problems. And the only problem 1 think every premie has is with his mind. Primarily the cause of all our confusion is our mind. The mind doesn't want to really get into it. And because the mind doesn't want to get into it, you know, it's like always a very good excuse for a certain thing.
And Maharaj Ji has been giving so much focus lately just to this trust we should have in him. And just for the faith we should have in him. And that's, for me, the most important, to have that trust that, "Guru Maharaj Ji, you are really my Lord." Like, whatever we sing in Arti, you know, like "Guru Maharaj Ji, you are my father, you are my brother, you are my mother . . . superior power in person." If we really believe in that, if we really let it manifest in our lives, we'll be, I'm sure, in a very good position; we'll be really A-okay. But that has to really manifest, obviously, for us. And the only way that can manifest is that we have to really get into meditation. Meditation is really important.
... and that's all I have to say, that meditation is really the key to all our problems, to everything in the world. If you can only just really get into meditation, everything will be really beautiful. Because if you are really meditating, you will automatically complete the circle of satsang, service, and meditation, and will really come from that right place. And then only, when we go through that darshan line, we can really communicate with Guru Maharaj Ji. Even that one second we have, we can really communicate to him that we really love him, that we are really there, and we are really his devotees.
We are his children, and all we can really do is try and try and try. And just try to make him happy. That's all there is in the world for us. Just try from our side, and whatever he does is fine then.
And all we have to do is just really play our part in it. Just really meditate, and really realize in our lives, as much as we can. Guru Maharaj Ji. The only thing our life — the sole purpose of our being here, to serve that beautiful Lord, our Guru Maharaj Ji. And that's all I really have to say. Thank you very much".
ENDQUOTE
Excerpts of Raja Ji's Satsang at the Court of Love Retreat, September 3, 1977
http://drek.org/pages/scans/divinetimes/1977_09/raja_ji_word_by_word.htm
- and can I recommend that they check this too, if they really want to know how it was back then:
http://drek.org/pages/scans/divinetimes/1977_09/maharaji_from_waah_to_wow.htm
Revera 19:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Convoluted theory about Rawat's divinity

After watching how the leaders of many groups where claims of the divinity of thieir leader are at least whispered about, I've noticed what I will call a certain cat and mouse game that's usually played about any such claims. What I mean is, typically the group leader will only imply that he is divine, but he will leave it up to his followers to do the heavy lifting of directly claiming that he actually IS divine. If I were trying to make such a claim about myself, why I'd do exactly that myself! Mind you, I'm a common mortal, please don't light up the Arti candles for me just yet!  : )

Nearly every religious group I've studied where any unusual or paranormal claim is being made by that group, this game seems to be played. For example, I can remember sitting in what we used to call Sat-Sang meetings countless times when I followed Rawat, and hearing fellow followers describing all sorts of miraculous events or quasi-miraculous events that occured surrounding Rawat. I must confess that even I myself had some pretty amazing experiences surrounding my involvment wtih him. In all of the talks I ever heard Rawat give, I never once heard him directly and clearly state that he had any specific paranormal powers. Imply, maybe, but directly and clearly state, no.

I now chaulk up my own amazing personal experiences to what I will call "the power of the spirit". What I mean is that I do believe that at times, when belief is strong enough, seemingly miraculous things can indeed occurr. So I don't entirely write off whatever seemingly amazing experiences some folks may have had around Rawat, when their beliefs were strong enough. I recall my initiation into Knowledge meditation too. Now that "blew my socks off"! But again, my belief happened to be fully primed in me at that time. I've since found that I can have some of these same types of experiences of amazing coincidences and events without having to have a guru.

Are these experiences that folks have had around Rawat experiences of the divine? In my humble opinion, yes. Do they actually originate from Rawat himself? Again in my humble opinion, no. I theorize that they are just glimmerings of the power of our own spirits, that we are only comfortable exhibiting under circumstances when we can imagine that we are not truly their authors.

By this definition of the miraculous and divine, yes Rawat IS divine, but also so are each of us each equally divine. I know that my friend Jim Heller may be about ready to barf right now into the nearest wastebasket if he is reading this!! ; ) Maybe not? Who knows?? But anyways, from a convicted theist, this is my convoluted theory about Rawat's divinity, for whatever it may be worth.

-Scott P. 20:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Scott, as you are probably aware. I followed another guru and what you wrote hereabove about Prem Rawat completely applies to my former guru too. Very similar analysises, as the one hereabove, have been written by former followers of my guru about their guru. Andries 20:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly Scott. As stated by PR in the Peace Bomb satsang "So dear premies, receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God, is within your own heart". From his first talks PR has always maintained that every human being is divine and that God is pure energy.
Momento 20:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
As much as I am enjoying reading everybody's opinions, please note that this is not a discussion forum. Maybe we can move these discussions to a user's talk page, or to a public discussion forum. Let's keep this page to discuss the article. Tank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to debate about whether or not Rawat ever claimed divinity, isn't the idea of having a common understanding of the meaning of the word divinity pertinent to such a debate?
-Scott P. 21:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
BTW here's an independent ancient but still helpful statement on the meaning of divinity from a fairly venerable source:
"The truly divine does not manifest itself apart from man. The supreme revelation of God appears in prophets and holy men. To venerate them is true veneration of God. The will of God, as revealed through them, should be accepted in humility; this brings inner enlightenment and true understanding of the world, and this leads to great good fortune and success."
From: Richard Wilhelm's and Cary F. Baynes translation "I Ching: Or, Book of Changes" [3rd. ed., Bollingen Series XIX, (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967, 1st ed. 1950)]
--Rainer P. 09:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Some gurus ask for us to venerate them, others do not. Eg.: Lahiri Mahasaya, the param guru of Yogananda. He taught that "A true guru will never ask that his followers surrender their free will to him in any way". I guess that it depends on the guru.
-Scott P. 14:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Without wanting to stretch Jossi's patience. Venerating a guru is not incompatible with free will The decision to accept someone as a guru and venerate them is an act of free will.Momento 19:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Scott, has Prem Rawat really asked his students to surrender their free will to him? Can you reference this? Did it not sound a little bit different? And do you think Yogananda did not venerate his guru (and his param guru)? What else can the relationship between a chela and a guru be but veneration? In which other human relation is veneration appropriate? (Sorry, perhaps too many questions. But you might want to answer the first one.)--Rainer P. 08:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, could you please justify your revert about surrender?

I think my edits about surrender in the lead section was good because

1. two contributors (Jim and Erol) on the talk pages requested it.
2. It is verifiable from a notable source
3. It represents a majority POV among scholars (Kranenborg and Melton)
4. The source is far more reputable than the description of Rawat's activities from The Prem Rawat Foundation.

Andries 19:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It does not represent any majority of scholars as you assert. We are citing 40 sources in this article and Kraneborg is the only reference. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Melton writes something similar, though he does not use the word surrender, I have to admit. And if it is okay to cite the TPRF about Prem Rawat in the lead section then it must surely be okay to cite Kranenborg. I mean, the TPRF is certainly not a majority voice. Andries 19:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there any religious scholar who denies that he made claims of divinity? We have two who say so. Andries 19:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a biographical article on Prem Rawat. The lead section needs to be a summary of the article as a whole, no a place to assert the opinion of this or that scholar. Otherwise the lead wil become the article (???). Three or four paragraphs was all was needed, but know it is expanding beyond what is recommended in the style guide. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed some TPRF statements from the lead as these do not contibute much to it and are better explored in the article itself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


The dictionary definition of the word "divine" is very broad. In its basic sense divine means "associated with or derived from God". Any priest, liturgy, religious art etc can be said to be divine without suggesting that the person, act or object is God or godlike. Ascribing divine qualities to a teacher or student of Knowledge of God is unavoidable. PR and his followers have used the word "Divine" to describe a travel agency, a thrift shop, a magazine etc. Momento 22:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record. I find Andries' inclusion of Kraneborg and Melton selective statements in the lead to be a disingenuous edit. In particular when these views and minority views. Minority views are explored in the article for NPOV, where these can be properly attributed, expanded and presented alongside opposing views, but have no place in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Minority views? Can you please explain that? Is there any religious scholar who disagrees with Kranenborg and Melton? The only ones who voice minority views are the ones who deny that Maharaji made claims of divinity. Andries 05:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You got the whole thing about minority views all wrong. The opinon of ONE person, scholar or not is a minority view whichever way you look at it. There are 20 or more scholars that do not have the opinion of your beloved Dutch reverend. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 11:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Most scholars have written about the DLM, not so much about Rawat and there is not even one who comes close to contradicting or denying what Melton and Kranenborg have written. In fact, some wrote things that are somewhat similar e.g. "near-divine status" (Barrett) "formally deified" Levine. And even if it is not a majority view, I also included the oppposing view, so I followed 100% a NPOV summary of the article. Andries 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Please stop from copying text, sources and citations from the article and re-pasting it into the lead. Responding to your comment I have trimmed the lead and remove a whole paragraphs representing the POV of the Prem Rawat Foundation, and you keep adding selective aspects into it. That is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 11:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Not, just selective Jossi. I really tried to make a summary of the section early westerners' devotion with all aspects that is now completely missing after your deletion. Please do not delete it. That is not acceptable. Try to re-write it instead. Andries 12:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC) (amended)
The issue I have with your edit is that it attempts to summarize what is probably one of the more contentious aspect of this article, without the benefit of the context, counter arguments and POVs of the different protagonists in these early days. I have attempted to write a summary that hopefully will invite readers to read the details in the article itself, without preempting the content itself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You should at least desribe that some scholars think that he made claims about himself too. And you should describe what claims he made. Andries 20:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I explained the reasons why we should not. Let the readers read the context in which these claims where made, the protagonits who made them, and the counter arguments to these claims. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries' and Jossi's edits are incorrect. PR's mother and the Indian mahatama's didn't arrive until later. PR's media attention in 1971 was based solely on his age, his message and his followers. I have removed it. I am very disturbed that a stable lead has been disrupted by POV.Momento 21:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

To Memento and Andries: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have several times adapted my edits signficantly in meaning to make it more acceptable to Momento's POV, but s/he keeps reverting. Andries 20:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I can not edit this talk page because of spam warnings. At least not the previous section. This section is okay. Andries 09:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


The issue I have with your edit is that it attempts to summarize what is probably one of the more contentious aspect of this article, without the benefit of the context, counter arguments and POVs of the different protagonists in these early days. I have attempted to write a summary that hopefully will invite readers to read the details in the article itself, without preempting the content itself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I will add some more context in the summary. I think that your summmary was very vague and hence unacceptable: in an encyclopedia we try to be as specific as possible. Andries 17:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


Lead Section

Yes, that is why we have the article in which we fully present the POVs, the context in which these were made, etc. The summary cannot but contain a sentence that does not preempt the NPOV achieved in the article, by Poisoning_the_well. That is indeed not NPOV and unacceptable ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, but to omit in the summary that his early western followers saw him as divine is something I will never accept. Andries 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You may perceive what I do as poising the well, but I perceive what you do as willingly and unnecessarily staying vague. Andries 18:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not my fault that his followers had beliefs about him that people now see as odd. One of the main reasons why he became famous is because people thought him to be divine. These beliefs that were once (and probably still) important and hence must be mentioned in a neutral balanced way in the summary and that is what I have tried. In contrast you have been extremely vague and evasive in your description and I think this is unencyclopedic. Andries 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
There is absolutely noting vague in the article in the section in which all these aspects are discussed. But the edit you have made pre-empts NPOV by most definitively "setting up" and preempting the NPOV that we all worked so hard to achieve. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, I think you are very unreasonable here. You delete the summary that is badly needed, but you offer no serious alternative. Your summary was extremely vague and evasive and hence unencyclopedic. Andries 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


BTW, your asertion that "one of the main reasons why he became famous is because people thought him to be divine" is your POV and the POV of the main detractors/former devotees. We need to find a way to present these specific aspects that lasted for a few years of Maharaji's life without "poisoning the well" for readers in the article lead. Fact is that ex-followers and you included are too focused in augumenting these claims for obvious reasons related to pushing that specific POV and then claim "revisionism" when context is provided. Not acceptable, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that made him famous (apart from his age and his claims of bringing knowledge). Andries 18:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that your last edit, and my addition are now sufficient to highlight these aspects and encourage readers to explore further by reading the pertinent sections. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the chronology of the above. Despite making it absolutely clear that he was human and not God in his first talks in the west, the media sought out extreme views and created their own. PR said in his first talk in the west in the UK in 1971 - "The world thinks, people think, that God is a man ....But no, God is energy" and during his first talk US in 1971 - "Some people think that God is human being but he is not. God hasn't got ears like us etc". The vast majority of early followers understood this clearly. Any person who claimed to the contrary was going directly against PR's teaching and therefore cannot be considered a follower. I am disturbed at the lack of scholarship being demonstrated by Andries in his edit 1) that he gave precedence to the erroneous later claims instead of PR's clear earlier statments on the matter, and 2) that he persists in trying to insert to insane ideas of a few people who didn't listen to PR instead of the majority who did.Momento 21:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And what about the peace bomb satsang in 1970? There he compared himself to Krishna. If they were crazy ideas then why did two religious scholars say the same. Clearly they were fed by PR. Andries 01:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, four points

  1. for your information Krishna was not God, Krishna was a Guru who taught about God. And PR was a Guru who teaches about God.
  2. please clarify what you mean by a "divine Incarnation". In the Peace Bomb talk PR says "So dear premies, receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God, is within your own heart", clearly we are also divine.
  3. for the sake of clarity please indicate in you edit that PR did more than "address" the claims, he denied them.
  4. and most impportantly PR stated very clearly that he wasn't God before the media and others started suggesting he was ie they deliberately falsified what PR was saying.Momento 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Momento, you will have a hard time convincing a Hindu that Krishna was not an avatar of Vishnu :)

I'm not trying to. I know Krishna is commonly seen as an avatar. But an avatar is different from God, a point that seems lost on Andries.Momento 19:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Momento, please, an avatar is an incarnation of God and Krishna is generally considered a purna avatar that is a full divine incarnation. This is getting silly. Andries 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Since God is eternal and infinite Krishna can't be God and that is the end of it.Momento 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you follow Daniella's excellent analysis of the Peace Bomb satsang, it is obvious that there are too many inconsistencies in the translation so I would not be too bothered about that. Nevertheless, the lead needs to reflect the known fact that during these early years, some of the students, the mahatmas, Maharaji's mother and the organizers associated divine attributes to Maharaji, while at the same time Maharaji in any opportunity given to him and when asked direct questions, he clearly put the burden on explaining these claims on these that made them. How to summarize it in the lead without preempting the article itself or "poisoning the well" for the readers is the challenge. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The Peace bomb satsang was not exactly the only speech in Prem Rawat compared himself with Krishna. If you mean with not poisoning the well being vague and evasive then I cannot agree. Andries 18:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This insert - During these years, a significant fraction of his early western followers attributed to him divine qualities, claims which the young Maharaji addressed in many TV and press interviews he gave at the time - is misleading. It ignores the fact that prior to any claims of divinity being made, PR (in his first talks in the west) had already made it clear that God was "pure and perfect energy and therefore he couldn't be God. The insert should address this important point. I have removed it until we can come to an agreeed wording.Momento 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Momento, in Hinduism it is not seen as contradictory that God can both exist as energy (called Shakti) and as an embodied incarnation (called avatar). Andries 09:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There may be no conflict in a religion that worships monkeys and elephant headed humans but I cannot see how an infinite and eternal power can be restricted to one temporary human body.Momento 10:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So we cannot report something only because you disagree with or do not understand Hinduism? That sounds unacceptable to me. Andries 18:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What I object to is your incorrect inference that PR is comparing himself to Krishna as God. Since PR believes God is "pure and perfect energy" and that "God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk", he cannot be suggesting that like Krishna he is God, because PR clearly believes Krishna can't be God either. The similarity between PR and Krishna is that PR said that the Knowledge he teaches is "the very same Knowledge Krishna gave to Arjuna". He compares himself to Krishna the teacher not the "God". Just as I can compare myself to you as a human but not as Dutch. Momento 19:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting quote from the "Peace Bomb". PR says "The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world". Here he is saying "The Lord" equals "the True Saint" equals "the True Guru Maharaji". While the definition of a "saint" varies in detail with each religion. a "saint" is universally acknowledged as being a human being who is recognised as being an outstanding servant of God. So when PR is refering to "The Lord" and "the True Guru Maharaji" he is meaning "human beings who are outstanding servants of God". Momento 20:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Early Western Followers

This section has suffered as a result of numerous edits and is now jumbled and difficult to follow. I am therefore rearranging what already exists in this section to improve its readability and to gather the various quotes together to better reflect the main types of followers - those early followers that claimed PR was God, those that thought he was a divine incarnation and those who thought he was neither. I have brought Sophia Collier's piece to the front as it encapsulates the main points. I have then started with "those who thought he was God" and dealt with it succinctly, moved on to "divine incarnation" with all quotes intact and then ended with those who saw him as a human teacher. I have deleted or added very little material but I have inserted a few words to better join the existing material. The result is more logical and easier to read but it is still too long and contains too many quotes. This section is supposed to be about Early Western Followers but it includes much other irrelevant material. Momento 05:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that your edits are flawed. Here are some examples in which you made the text worse. Other edits may be good, but I do not have the time to sift your bad edits from the good ones, so I will revert.
"Some early followers reportedly claimed that Rawat was God." This was and should be. "Some early followers claimed that Rawat was God"
"The fact that Rawat frequently praised his Guru Maharaj Ji and he himself was called "Guru Maharaj Ji," " This was and should be "Prem Rawat was called Guru Maharaj Ji and also used that title for himself. During the 1970s praises were heaped upon Guru Maharaj Ji"
Andries 08:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Take your time Andries. I'm sure you'll agree that your suggestion - "Prem Rawat was called Guru Maharaj Ji and also used that title for himself" is very poor.Momento 11:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, it sounds a bit strange, but the situation is also very strange, but it is important to write it down accurately. Do you have any suggestions? How can we say that he was called Guru Maharaji and also used that title for himself without making it a strange sentence? Andries 11:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

How about - The fact that Rawat frequently praised his Guru Maharaj Ji and he himself was called "Guru Maharaj Ji," may have led to confusion in the minds of some Western students.Momento 11:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

He did not always say "his Guru Maharaj Ji". He also said "their GMJ" or just GMJ. And your proposed version omits the fact that Prem Rawat also called himself GMJ. This sounds trivial, but in this case it is not. Andries 11:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can think of a way to say - Many times when PR was talking about Guru Maharaj JI, he was talking about his father or the position of Guru Maharaj Ji, not himself personally. I've got my new arrangement and the old one side by side on my screen. My arrangement is much more logical. Sophia Collier's piece is far more relevant than the Fajiranand incident.Momento 12:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I admit that the order of the paragraphs and some sentences probably needs to be re-arranged, but please do not change the meaning of the sentences while doing so. The differences in meaning may seem subtle, but they are important in this very unusual dispute. Andries 12:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Memento, would it be fair to say that, having "taken the mantle" of Guru when his father died and named Prem as his successor, Prem Rawat's intention was that, while he continued to worship his father as HIS guru, he did so because he was setting an example to others. The teachings were explicit in that there could only be one living master - and the young Prem Rawat had inherited the title of "Guru Maharaj Ji". He could speak of "Guru Maharaj Ji" in two ways: sometimes in reference to his relationship to his late father; but far, far more often when speaking of himself, in the role he had actively taken on. Revera 13:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I think PR worships his Guru because of his genuine love and understanding for his guru, not to set an example. PR still holds a festival in India celebrating his guru's birthday.Momento 20:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the tinyurl link because I believe that it caused an automatic spam warning. Please do no insert links to tinyurl again. Thanks.Andries 13:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
What is going on? Whhy the massive reverts by Andries after substantial attemptts by Momento to better the article without explaining these? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I did explain my revert extensively. Andries 13:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Where? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

My re arrangement of the exisiting contents has made the section much more readable and logical. Andries, your explanation for the complete revert was that you disputed two sentences. Small details that may have changed along the way can be addressed by small edits not a total revert.

No, they were not small edits for me. I do not have time to check every change you made. When I see a very flawed edit then I revert. Please try to re-arrange the article without very flawed edits. Thanks.Andries 20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I will try to help later. Andries 20:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries the edits you mention as "very flawed" were - "Some early followers reportedly claimed that Rawat was God". This was and should be. "Some early followers claimed that Rawat was God". I used "reportedly" because I haven't found any supporting reference. Please supply the reference and change it. Your second issue was with - "The fact that Rawat frequently praised his Guru Maharaj Ji and he himself was called "Guru Maharaj Ji," This was and should be "Prem Rawat was called Guru Maharaj Ji and also used that title for himself. During the 1970s praises were heaped upon Guru Maharaj Ji", doesn't make sense. I will revert to my major rewrite because it's basic structure is more logical and much more readable and we can deal with the details by discussion and consensus as per usual.Momento 21:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

References for that sentence have been amply provided in the article, for example by Time Magazine. Do I have to provided for every sentence even if the same statement has already been referenced elsewhere? That would give me and other editors a lot of work. Andries 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I added "claimed Rawat was God". I am not sure that was in Time magazine or has been referenced but posters on the ex-premie site insist that early followers did claim PR was God and so I think it should be addressed..Momento 21:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I went to Time's archives to check the article but haven't subscribed. Have you got a copy of the article to confirm the "his followers claim he is God" claim?Momento 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not have a copy, but if they worshiped him as the Lord of the Universe then of course they claimed he was God. Andries 21:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Momento, I do not think that giving a revert was fair to me: you could have re-arranged without deleting and changing the meaning of various edits. Now you give me the work of sifting through your many changes and sentences. Next time, please try to be more careful. Thanks. Andries 21:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I spent hours sorting out the illogical and confusing jumble of quotes and material in this section and you reverted it because you " do not have the time to sift your bad edits from the good ones". Next time, find the time or leave others' work alone.Momento 22:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

And I have to spend hours to check and correct your sometimes very non-NPOV edits and re-insert what you have deleted. Andries 23:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like you comment. Please give examples immediately.Momento 23:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I had to re-insert the comments by McGuire and DuPertuis and also the hereabove mentioned sentences. Andries 00:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You spent hours changing two sentences only you disagree with and re-inserting two comments?Momento 03:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, they were more than two comments. The above were just examples, but I have to admit that I exaggerated when I wrote "hours". Sorry. Andries 17:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't just an "exaggeration" Andries, it is an attempt to discredit me as an editor. The fact that I had to make two comments to you before you retracted your claim indicates that you were in no hurry to tell the truth.Momento 00:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Size of section

This section is becoming way to big and we are already beyond the alloted limit for a Wikipedia article. I propose to summarize the contents of this section and to spin off to a separate article as per content forking/Article spinouts. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree this section is too long.Momento 05:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think, in order to shorten this whole article, that two sections "Childhood" and "Succession" could be combined into "Childhood in Inida".Momento 07:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-wikipedia article by ex-premies

Thank you for the article by Finch. It is great. I understand that it was writen collaboratively by the small group of people that call themselves the ex-premies. It shows that this small group of people believe that they are right and that the Wikipedia community is being dishonest and extremely biased; its own rules are deeply flawed, and NPOV is useless "post-modern" shite, an utopian thinking and does not account for "market forces". . It is great that they took time to express their thinking about this project, etc. for all to see. Now we now that we are all wrong, the thousands of editors of Wikipedia, the thriving community, the the millions of people that consult Wikipedia daily, ladies and gentleman, we are all wrong. But this small group of people are of the opinion that they are right in all their claims. ROFL! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of this "essay" as an external link in this article on the basis:
  • Non notable individual
  • This article is a biographical article about Prem Rawat written under the content guidelines of Wikipedia. Bypassing the NPOV process by writing an "essay" and then link it from here, is disingenous. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a relevant article about the subject (Prem Rawat) and that should suffice. Andries 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not an "article". It is an essay by a non notable person published in his own home page. There is nothing you can do about that, Andries. Some discretion good judgement needs to be applied to what links we provide. That "essay" does not cross the threshold for anything, besides the fact that was written by a person whose only notability is that is is an ex-follower. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
We could also link to the main webpage about Prem Rawat if that is what you prefer. But it does provide information about Prem Rawat not supplied by other websites so it has added value and hence deserves to be listed in the external links section. Andries 23:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
This is totally unacceptable Andries. A home page of a non notable person, with no credentials for anything besides being against Maharaji and Wikipedia and that on top of that calls you, me and other dedicated editors prejudiced 'editors and fanatics, just because we care about this project and WP:NPOV. Let him and others have their own homepages in which they can say whatever they want. That is call freedom of speech. But Wikipedia is not the vehicle for the promotion of the spurious theories of non notable individuals. Period. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Most astonishing, Andries, is the fact that you very happily remove links to homepages that are critical of your editing in Wikipedia on the article about your ex-guru, but are very happy to promote the homepage of an non-notable individual in this article that criticizes our endeavors. You that so many times have accused others of "double-standards". As we say in Yddish, Chutzpah! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I disagree. Of course people have different opinions about Rawat and Dr. Finch is a notable ex-premie. Andries 23:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I admit that I for a short opposed linking to Gerald Joe Moreno's website in the external links section, but I quickly gave up, because I saw that I was wrong. 23:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
A notable ex-premie? Do you mean that from the 20 odd people that call themselves "ex-premies" he the most notable? You need a better argument than that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
removed as per above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Removed again. Please provide a valid argument for including a most definitively non-notable, personal website as an external link. What is next, any John and Mary's web pages to be linked from this article? Wikipedia is NOT a link farm to promote the personal views of non-notable individuals. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It contains unique first hand testimonies. If the subject were huge and many good websites existed (e.g if the subject were Jesus) then I would agree with you. But only a few good websites exist. Dr. Finch website is one of the few. Andries 06:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the Mike Finch link and will continue to do so. An article co-written by a group of Prem Rawat critics is hardly NPOV. Or are we going to also link to Jossi's site to read his new article "Mike Finch's links to organised crime"!(name omitted in error)Momento 19:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I'm having trouble getting my head round your arguments against including that external link. The subject of Prem Rawat is controversial, right, like it says at the top of this page? In such a case, the links in the External links section aren't supposed to be separately and individually NPOV, they're supposed to represent the controversy. (That's how the section as a whole becomes NPOV.) "External links" should contain links to premies' and to ex-premies' sites, for instance, and preferably divided clearly into those two categories, for the reader's convenience. Part of the job of this article is to describe the controversy. Its not supposed to solve the controversy, and not to take sides in it. That said, I agree totally with you that "Some discretion good judgement needs to be applied to what links we provide" and it looks to me like Andries agrees too. I've read the page the link in question leads to, and it seems to me to be a good, high-quality example of one of the sides in the controversy. Assuming that Andries is right that there isn't a vast choice of high-quality ex-premies' sites to link to, this one seems to me just right for including. Why do you want to fight something like this? After all, at my count just now, there are three links under "Critics", and eighteen links in the various "positive" categories. I'm not saying it ought to be fifty-fifty, but 18 to 3 is definitely not a good proportion for a controversial subject.
About your comment to Andries that "you very happily remove links to homepages that are critical of your editing in Wikipedia on the article about your ex-guru", of course I don't know what it refers to, but I have to say it sounds ... just weird. Are you talking about links to homepages that attack a particular, named, editor of this page, i. e. Andries? Is that what it's about? Because if it is, I'm nonplussed that you'd want to keep something like that—talk about self-reference, and personal attack, too—I'd remove such links like a shot, no matter which side I was on personally. But I probably misunderstood what you meant.
A small point, Jossi: please don't be offended, but I wish you wouldn't end talkpage posts with "period". I'm not supposing you mean any harm by it, but it just sounds very authoritarian and unwiki: "I'm the custodian of The Truth so don't talk back to me. The discussion's over." That's probably not how you mean to come off, right? Bishonen | ノート 10:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC).
I find you support of Andries, very puzzling, Bishonen. You even gave Andries an award for "his relentless efforts". Why don't you take some time and study Andries' contribs list over the last 2 years? Take a look. You may also want to take a look at the mediation process that I initiated to assist with the mess at the Sathya Sai Baba article.
As for your questions about the "essay". My points are very clear: this is an essay by an individual whose only notability is that he was a follower for 30 years and one day decided to become a critic and start writting "essays" on the subject. This is not an issue of "representing both sides of the controversy" in the links, we need to do that 'in this article and following NPOV. A longer list of critics' websites is at Criticism of Prem Rawat. Note that this essay" attacks dedicated editors of this article and WP in general by calling us prejudiced 'editors and fanatics. Is that not a personal attack, Bishonen? Nevertheless, I will not fight this battle. Let it be known what this small group of critics think of Wikipedia, its editors and NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Bishonnen suggests that with three links, the critics of PR are under represented. On the contrary, with all three links written by the same small group, they are massively over represented. Linking yet another ex-premie collaborative effort is unwarranted.Momento 20:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Momento, this is a dicussion we had in the past many times already. This rather insignificat small group of anti-Rawat people hold the belief that they hold a significant POV. They don't. One can only stand up to their claims and make sure that other editors are aware of the fact that they are only a tiny group of people with a bad case of folie de grandeur, using the Internet as an amplifier to their rather tiny voice, and attempting to use WP for the same purpose. Well, that is not going to happen, as long as there are editors that care and respect Wikipedia content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, the fact is that Rawat is now a rather obscure teacher, so is is difficult to see who is in the majority. And with regards to the majority, the only ones who deny that Maharaji made claims of personal claims of divinity are some current students of Rawat. The scholars of NRMs Reender Kranenborg and J. Gordon Melton explicitly wrote that Maharaji made personal claims of divinity. I have not seen one scholarly article that comes even close to denying it. The only ones who deny that Maharaji made personal claims of divinity are some current students of Prem Rawat. So with regards to that subject which is the subject of Dr. Finch' essay, the current students form the minority. And Melton also wrote that the DLM was constantly embroiled in controversy until it escape public interest. Is there any guru rating service who gives Rawat a high rating? No, there is none, but there are several guru ratings who give Rawat a low rating. In Wikipedia a majority is not based on the nr. of adherents, but by informed opinion. I will make a request for comments with regards to the inclusion of Dr. Mike Finch' website in the external links section. Andries 17:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The "obscurity" that you allege is simply mistaken and misleading. There was no time in the past in which Prem Rawat addressed as many people as he has in the last three years. The number of students is growing in every country, and the number of his appearances in public forums have also increased. Broadcasts of Prem Rawat addresses are available in many TV stations and satellite across South America, North America, Europe, Australia and India. None of these were available 4 years ago. The "idea" of obscurity is one promoted by the ex-premie group, for reasons that are can be explained easily as wishful thinking. As for the scholars/authors, there are two that make these assertions, but no one else. If an author claims that George W. Bush is homosexual, does that means that unless there is an author that denies it, that assertion is valid? Of course not. A significant majority of scholars and authors that wrote about Prem Rawat do not make assertions of claims of divinity. The fact is Andries, that during the 70's a lot of stuff happened. This article addresses in details all these fascinating aspects. If there is any missing information, lets ad it. There is nothing in this article that denies or affirms anything in this regard, as per WP:NPOV. The article simply describes the POVs of the protagonists and provide materials and content for readers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to call for an RfC. As said before, I will not fight the inclusion of Mike Finch's essay. Let it be known what this small group of critics think of this project, the non-negotiable policy of WP:NPOV, its editors and the editing process. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I leave the RfC listed, because Momento disagrees with the external link to Finch' website. I agree that this article is quite comprehensive. However, there are three aspects that are missing or not fully developed in this article i.e. 1. The Holy Family and the de facto leadership of the DLM that was in the hand of the Holy Family according to Melton and Kranenborg 2. Religious roots and influences on Rawat i.e. Sant Mat/Radhasoami according to Melton and Kranenborg, and Dupertuis 3. Speaking often about energy (Kranenborg). Andries 19:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
No need for the RfC, it is a waste of editor's time. If there is a revert war there are other ways to deal with that. As for content, you are most welcome to add any missing stuff. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose linking http://elanvital.org/faq/faq_opposition_i.htm from the critics section. People should know who PRs critics are. Momento 20:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, why not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Andries, I though that the ideas of Kranenborg about Sant Mat are addressed in the article already. Melton hardly touches the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Title, I think the title is normal standard of politeness

I though that the Dr. title is normally added to a person when writing about him. We do not usually write Mrs. Angela Merkel, but we write Dr. Angela Merkel. At least we mention it.Andries 14:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Angela Merkel is the chancellor of Germany, for pete's sake. But it is OK, you can re-add his title if you think that it is useful. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Andries, please stop adding links to copyvio material. Also note that Wikipedia articles are not link farms. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not know and am unconvinced that this was is a copyvio and please note that online references, instead of dead-tree references, are heavily recommended by the guidelines. Andries 15:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Dead tree references? That is a book avalable from Amazon from which nine chapters were blatantly transcribed and posted on the ex-premie site. If that is not a copyvio, what is it Andries? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @
Online references are always welcome, but that does not mean that yoy can violate the copyright of authors, scholars, and publishers. Add a reference, add a footnote with some text, but 'do not link to material that violates copyright! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Honorary title"

In my understanding, „Guru Maharaj Ji“ has never been a „title”, neither “honorary”, in the sense that it can be acquired, or bestowed or revoked by some agency (like "Dr."), nor a person, but it rather denominates a defined, very special and exclusive form of relationship. In a way like “Mama”; you have only one, yet there are many. Still there is no argument. You are not your own “Mama”, but you are to your children, and you know it, and they know it. It’s nobody else’s business. Or “friend”. If you have one, you know. There is no such thing as “honorary friend”. When “friend” dies, you sort of don’t have him any more. Still you can be “friend”, but only to the living counterpart it means something. Neither can there be a regulated succession. You know when you have found one. Prem Rawat has never claimed anything else. So, the seemingly inevitable term “honorary title” may perhaps add to the confusion that surrounds this amazingly mistakable issue by being slightly misleading. Maybe someone can come up with a better designation? A lot of confusion on these pages might be solved or averted. A challenge for all you passionate and powerfully eloquent posters, whose first language is English!? What do you think?--Rainer P. 17:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC summary

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no official transcript of a radio interview that supposedly took place in 1979. The only transcript available is one posted 10 years ago in a critic's website. An ex- statio director reponded on an email yesterday that he rememebers the interview. Editors are asked to comment:

  1. Is acceptable to cite from this interview as if it was an official transcript from the radio station?
  2. As there is no no official record of such interview, is it acceptable to state that the interview took place as a fact, or should be stated that "according to source XYZ the interview took place"
  3. When referencing this transcript, does the cite requires to be stated that there is no official transcript?
  4. Is it acceptable for an editor to create a web page in which he states his opinion on this matter and then use this web page as a source to support his edit?
Comments
  • Scott P.
    1. The foremost official of the KOA radio station in 1979, Jim Hawthorne, 1979 station director, has endorsed the transcript as accurate, in so far as he can tell. I do not know of any more official endorsement that would be possible for most radio transcripts of that age.
    2. There is also another copy of this same transcript that has been publicly available on the Usenet since 1996, available at Mishler Transcript Part I, Mishler Transcript Part II, and Mishler Transcript Part III.
    3. To date, no documentable or verifiable evidence has yet been presented by anyone that this transcript is innacurate. All that has been presented is a "supposed memory" of someone that he recalls once reading somewhere that this interview was a fabrication, and the claim that since a certain pro-cult historian neglected to directly cite this interview in his works, that therefore the interview may somehow be inaccurate. Such mere speculation hardly seems to me to be convincing evidence that this transcript, or its source, may be inaccurate, as usually required by Wiky.
    4. This transcript was published and publicly circulated amongst the followers of Rawat for 10 years, yet prior to this year, none of them claimed to find any inaccuracies in it, or to question the accuracy of its source. It seems to me that this fact alone says much about the accuracy of its source, even without the endorsement of the radio station head himself.
    5. The fully html-ized transcript can be reviewed at the ex-premie.org site.
    6. For a more detailed history of the status of this transcript, please visit: Documentation & History of Mishler Interview
    -Scott P. 16:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The comments by Scottperry seem to be overthinking the question at hand. Maybe Jossi is asking for a little more skepticism in the presentation than is necessary too. I believe that the statement by the radio owner above on this talk page is perfectly good support for the fact the interview was conducted. We could cite it explicitly on the article, but that seems optional rather than required. As to the content of the interview, I changed the introducing phrase slightly to: A transcript of this interview was created by critical former followers. Readers can make their own judgements about whether "critical former followers" have been accurate in their transcription (we have no specific reason to think otherwise, but cannot specifically attest to it either). But the existence of the web site linked is enough to support the fact a transcription was made. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Lulu, thanks for your good input. A question for clarity's sake.... Are you referring to the link to the transcript at the ex-premie.org site, or to the link to the chronology? If not referring to the chronology, then what is your take about using this page as a support reference, as it is a recent creation on an individual's website?-Scott P. 00:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Both of the links followed the same sentence at the time of my edit mentioned above, so I took them as a unit. It seems sufficiently clearly documented to me that David Stirling indeed commissioned the transcript, and that a radio interview indeed took place with Mishler. Language such as that I used (which might, of course, be tweaked) can indicate exactly those facts, without committing WP to the specific accuracy of the transcript. I guess it does all strike me as a bit of a tempest in a teapot: Mishler in all likelihood did make comments critical of Rawat in the interview, even if there is a slight error in the transcribed words. But whether Mishler accurately reported his earlier conversations with Rawat seems to be the more significant question; and that question couldn't be answered even if KOA had an official transcript and we could link to the audio itself. Readers need to judge that question for themselves. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The source of the interview is obviously a USENET post by a David Stirling. All other copies were made later. For accuracy, the statement needs to include that a transcript of this interview was created by an ex-follower and posted on USENET. This is one verifiable fact. Amother verifiable fact is that the ex-radio owner attested that it was conducted. The "choronology" web page created by Scott, a WP editor, cannot be used as it is clearly WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it does not make sense to link to usenet when a indexed version is available at the ex-premie website. Andries 18:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It makes a lot of sense, as it the the original one made by Stirling, and it shows were it cames from: a USENET posting. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Untrue, Scott Perry says that it was e-mailed to him. Andries 19:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
That is not verifiable. What is verifiable is that the transcript was made available online in 1996 via USENET. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No one is claiming that the interview or the transcript is innacurate or fabricated. The "endorsement" you speak of, is unattainable, as this interview happened in 1979, and there is no way that anybody could possibly remember what was said and "endorse" its accuracy. What is being requested is simply how to define/characterize the source, as there is not an official transcript and the only transcript is posted on a critic's site. Having said that, please let's keep some silence and leave some space so that other editors can comment on this. This is what an RfC is all about. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I also contacted KOA a few weeks ago and they told me that they had the interview not in their archives. Many sources used in Wikipedia are not available from their original publishers anymore and maintained or archived by others. Andries 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hope the last edit I made, works. It does provide direct lnk to the original posting of the transcript, does not imply that the transcript is innacurate, only that there is no official version available. It also attributes the statements to Mishler, rather than be expressed as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been away for a while. It's interesting to see how much happens (or doesn't) in such a brief period. The discussion on this page must have other Wiki contributors and members of the public (who might wander onto this page, read, and leave shaking their heads in bafflement) wondering about what is going on. As far as the alleged interview goes, you are being very accommodating, Jossi. The fact remains that no evidence has been provided that the transcript has any validity at all, and in any forum apart from this one it would be treated as a very unreliable source, simply because it cannot be verified. That a station manager vouches for its accuracy after thirty years means little; such a claim has so many holes in it that it would never be even vaguely considered as a claim to verifiability elsewhere. I do not see any evidence that Mishler said any of this. My claim is that the interview did happen, but there is no evidence that this transcript has any relation to the interview. But you are aware of this. Errol V 06:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


I think we are certainly moving in the right direction here, but I still believe that calm, neutral and wise voices of people like Lulu, and hopefully of other neutral parties might be able to help us all more here. I would like to post a second RfC about this same matter for more neutral input on it. Otherwise, it seems to me that we just go back and forth, but get nowhere. Would that be OK with everyone else? If the neutral voices that might contribute here reach a clear consensus on this matter, would the page editors here be willing to abide by such a consensus?

-Scott P. 04:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


The current RfC has been there just for a couple of days, It needs more time. Let's let it run its course. In addition, given that the article is not diputing the authenticity of the interview and the transcript made by Stirling, I do not see the need to continue this conversation. As you said, time to put this dog to bed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Jossi,
Thanks for working in the direction tha Lulu suggested. Here are my two remaining concerns about the current presentation of this interview transcript in the article:
1. I am still a bit uncomfortable with the discussion of how "official" the transcript is in the body of the article. I think that it's probably a safe bet that few such supposedly "official" transcripts are ever created for any such radio broadcasts with such interviews, yet by locating this word "official" in the body of the article, it seems to me to give the mistaken impression that the verifiability of the transcript is still somehow "below-par". My personal sense, though some may disagree, is that its verifiability is now "above-par" for such an old radio broadcast about a topic that probably generates relatively little interest in the general public at large. By moving such talk about how "official" or "unofficial" the transcript may be from the main text of the article, to a footnote summary, I think that a reasonable compromise might be made. I accept the wording placed in the article about David Stirling being a critical former student. I would ask that unless we might somehow be able to more clearly establish that the verifiablity of this transcript is "below par" for such a transcript, that we might consider moving the wording about whether or not it is "official" to a footnote summary.
This proposal to move this wording to a footnote seems to me to also be in the spirit of what Lulu has been kind enough to recommend to us as well.
2. It seems to me that by deleting the link to the html'ized version of the transcript, that this may impede general research of the transcript, as the html'ized version is much more easily and quickly navigated and digested. Certainly it does not hurt to also include links to the USENET version, but I do not fully understand why you seem to be uncomfortable linking to the more "researchable" version as well.
If we could reinsert the deleted link to the html'ized version and if we could move the discussion about how "official" the transcript is to a footnote summary, I would then certainly be comfortable with our treatment of the verifiability of the transcript in the article.
Thanks,
-Scott P. 10:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the wording a bit, hope it works for you and others. As for the external link, I would argue that given that this person, David Stirling, was the person that took a tape and trasncribed it, we need to link to it rather to yet another version made later on. People that want to read it, can do so by following the links provided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Is acceptable to cite from this interview as if it was an official transcript from the radio station?
    Cite? Yes. As if it was an official...? No. Tom Haws 02:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. As there is no official record of such interview, is it acceptable to state that the interview took place as a fact, or should be stated that "according to source XYZ the interview took place"
    "According to..." of course. Nothing that is known to be disputed is a fact at Wikipedia. Tom Haws
  3. When referencing this transcript, does the cite requires to be stated that there is no official transcript?
    No, but it would probably be nice. Tom Haws
  4. Is it acceptable for an editor to create a web page in which he states his opinion on this matter and then use this web page as a source to support his edit?
    Borderline. Probably no. Bad manners. I can say, "according to Tom Haws at www.hawsedc.com, P is Q." But still it is a borderline matter of acceptability unless I am a notable source. Tom Haws 02:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Tom for your response and comments. What you suggest is quite close to where stand now with this. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Childhood

The end of this section contains (Sanskrit: बालयोगेश्वर = child master of yogis.) I have deleted the section between the brackets. The uncertainty has been flagged for a long time, and as no-one seems to know, it is better to remove this.

For the sake of style, and because it is clear that he did say this, I have removed the "it is said" from the second paragraph.

Permanent residence in the west

Someone has written here that "Rawat expressed his satisfaction with it [the Houston event]. Where does that statement come from? Errol V 08:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Linking to an editor's website is not acceptable

It is not acceptable to add a webpage as an external link, created specifically to support the POV of a Wikipedia editor. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:external links does not say anything about that. Except that it would be inappropriate if the owner of the website, Scott Perry, inserted it himself. Please show me a guideline that supports your opinion. Andries 19:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the fact that there is no oficial transcript is verifiable information and that fact should remain. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that statement is the result of your and mine original research and hence cannot remain. Andries 19:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Andries but you are wrong in both counts:

  1. External links are for highly relevant links and not a place to stuff personal POVs and persoanl homepages of editors of Wikipedia.
  2. The fact that the transcript is not available is verifiable and that is what counts. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
ad 1. clearly the view on the authenticity of the Misler interview by a protagonist is a highly relevant link. Andries 19:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Highly relevant link, created specifically to support the POV of a Wikipedia editor, his version of events that are 100% unverifiable? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, highly relevant, because Scott Perry was deeply involved in one of the documents that is very important in the Prem Rawat story. Andries 19:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Look Andries, what you are doing is disingenous. Because you cannot add Scott Perry's story to the article as it is information that is 100% unverifiable and a non notable source, you chose to include a link to a page that was purposedly created yesterday by an active editor of this article. That is not acceptable, Andries. Sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Again, I ask you to refer to a guideline to support your opinion. He is a protagonist in the Mishler transcript so he is a notable source. The intro on webpage with the transcript on the ex-premie website mentions his name. Andries 20:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. He says he is a protagonist, but that is 100% unverifiable, even if it is the truth.
  2. The fact that his name appears in one website of critics does not make him notable for this article.
  3. Being a critic does not make you automatically notable!
  4. A notable person that forwards criticism, and who's criticism is published by a reputable source is a different matter all together. But unfortunately this does not apply to Scott. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe that he is a protagonist with regards to the Mishler interview and I think there is very very good reason to believe it. That makes his webpage notable. With regards to the third point, I agree that Scott Perry's version of the story has not been placed by a reputable source. If it was then I would have not placed it in the external links section, but used as a reference. Andries 20:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
And why is it okay to say that Bihari Singh was a witness of the succession in the article, not just as an external link? Is that verifiable? No, it is not. It is just a claim. I think that you are once again using double standards when editing this article. Andries 20:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

>>> Andries, you forget that this article is a biography of Prem Rawat, and not a biography of Scott Perry, that is why accounts such as the one from Sigh posted in an official site is pertinent. If this was an article about Scott Perry, we could add his website as a reference. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so what? Scott Perry does not write about himself, but about a document related to the biography of Prem Rawat. The testimony of Bihari Singh has never been published by a reputable source, so if I wanted to be strict then I could argue for its exclusion. Andries 21:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not a "document". It is an opinion by a person who's only notability is that he is an ex-follower of Prem Rawat that took a copy of a transcript posted on USENET and re-formatted it for inclusion on his website. And that in the last few days, based on a discussion in this page about the authenticity of this transcript, proceeded to do original research (as per your argument) to find out information to attest to such authencity. That is exactly what this is, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No, your portrayal of Perry's story is untrue. Read his version of the story. Yes, it is a testimony by a protagonist not reported by a reputable source and that is why I do not use it as a reference in the article, but use it in the external link section. Inclusion of external links is generally far more lenient than using a website as a reference. Andries 21:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. Here is my corrected version: This is not a "document". It is an opinion by a person who's only notability is that he is an ex-follower of Prem Rawat that received an email of a copy of a transcript posted on USENET and re-formatted it for inclusion on his website. And that in the last few days, based on a discussion in this page about the authenticity of this transcript, proceeded to do original research (as per your argument) to find out information to attest to such authencity. That is exactly what this is, Andries.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
And also, please be careful on the way you ue the term "protagonist". He was not a protagonist. A "protagonist" is a main character or participant of an event. Creating an HTML version of material sent via email is none of that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Scott Perry is a protagonist in the dispute about the authenticity of the Mishler interview. Andries 21:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Scott Perry has made himself into a protagonist about this dispute, and this article is not about a dispute about a transcript. Furthermore. the article does not dispute the authenticiy of this interview'. This is a biographical article about Prem Rawat. Bihari Sinhg, is a protagonist. He can seen behind Maharaji, in the photo where Maharaji is seen arriving in Los Angeles airport (the person with the big mustache). Big difference, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No, Scott Perry is a protagonist, because he has always claimed that he was the one who was involved in the transcript. The only thing is that he now made a webpage in which he wrote down his version of the story. Andries 22:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Scott can claim whatever he wants to claim. That is his prerrogative and as such he has created a page in his personal website to express his views and opinions That is called freedom of speech, and he is entiled to it. But this is Wikipedia, and as the authenticity of the interview and/or the transcript is not being disputed in the article, there is no reason to add neither is account nor his persoanl web page as a link or as a reference. Now, if Errol or other editors want to pursue this and question the authenticity of this transcripot in the article, we can go back to this and assess if adding this web page is relevant. Until such time, and as there is no dispute in the article (we are only stating facts about it, such as the fact that there is no official transcript and the fact that it was first published online on USENET), there is no benefit to adding this page. Now, Andries, it may be quite late for you and it is Friday. Give it a rest, we can continue this tomorrow or on Monday. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
ad 2. The fact that the transcript is not verifiable to its original publisher has been established by research by Jossi and Andries. It is a fact that is based on original research. Andries 19:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No one is saying that there is a discrepancy. Only that there is no official transcript, a fact that is verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
And how did you find out that it was not verifiable? By original research. Andries 19:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The question is not if you or I found out about this. The issue is: can a reader verify that there is no official transcript?. And the answer is yes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the reader can find out if he acts like a journalist. Andries 20:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Definition of divine/divinity

This issue needs to be addressed. We already know that PR never claimed to be God and denied it whenever asked. Claiming to be divine - divine 1 |diˈvīn| adjective ( -viner , -vinest ) 1 of, from, or like God or a god : heroes with divine powers | paintings of shipwrecks being prevented by divine intervention. • devoted to God; sacred : divine liturgy. 2 informal dated excellent; delightful : that succulent clementine tasted divine | he had the most divine smile - is another matter altogether. PR said Knowledge was divine. not himself. Andries, please clarify what you mean by "divine".Momento 10:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A good analysis has been provided by user:Alterego at Talk:List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities. Andries 10:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not the point. We know PR isn't a diety. I want to know what you think "divine" means.Momento 10:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I do think that Prem Rawat presented himself to the public as a deity and I am not exactly the only one. Andries 10:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well how do you explain this - PR talking in Toronto, Canada; September, 1971 "What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk" . PR Peace Bomb Satsang -"So dear premies, receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God is within your own heart". PR talking Westminster 1971 - "The world thinks, people think, that God is man. People think that God has got ears, nose, teeth, and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And they think he is an old man and has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy". PR talking in Colorado 1971 - "Some people think that God is a human being but he is not. God hasn't got ears like us. nose like us,teeth, tongue, lungs, chest, bones. He isn't like that". Momento 10:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, God as energy (Shakti) and God in human form (avatar) is not seen as contradictory in most Hindu sects. I have no time to educate you about the basics of Hinduism. Sorry. Andries 10:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Since most people reading English Wikipedia are not students of Hinduism, your use of a Hindu interpretation of "divine" is not acceptable. I will therefore be going through this article and removing or explaining "divine" as it is generally understood.Momento 11:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know in advance what you are going to do exactly thanks. Andries 11:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Momento, the word "divine" ("goddelijk" in Dutch) has been used by among others Reender Kranenborg. He did not use the word "glowing" that you replaced it with. Andries 11:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
What are all the meanings of "goddelijk"?Momento 11:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[2]
1. "van, m.b.t. God of een godheid" literally "of or with regards to God or a deity"
2. "[inf.] ongelofelijk mooi, lekker, fijn enz. => heerlijk" literally "[informal] incredibly beautiful, nice etc. => great "
Andries 11:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The definition is "OF or WITH REGARDS TO God" not "God". Your assertion that "divine" equates to "God" whether as God as energy (Shakti) or God in human form (avatar) is wrong. Momento 12:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

But Kranenborg also wrote that Prem Rawat called himself God. Andries 12:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Prem Rawat, a/k/a Guru Maharaj Ji, a/k/a Maharaji may not have said "I am God," or "I am the Lord," but he did say things abaout himself in the third person that meant he was the incarnation of God. Plus, you also have to consider his actions and behavior, not just his quotes. He sat on thrones with crowns on his head and accepted worship, and never once disabused devotees that he wasn't divine, special, or the One to be worshipped. One cannot take a dictionary definition of "divine" and compare it to a complicated belief-system as set forth by Prem Rawat over many years. It's not that black and white of an issue to be resolved with a dictionary! Also, one has to understand that when Prem Rawat spoke of "Guru Maharaj Ji" he was, without question, most often speaking about himself. However, when he spoke about "Guru Maharaj Ji" he also used it to describe the "experience of Knowledge."

The foundation of the Prem Rawat belief-system held by premies or devotees of Prem Rawat, is the absolute need for a living teacher or master: the Perfect Master. In the past, when PR spoke of the need for such a living, walking, breathing, divine and enlightened human being in one's life, he used the name and title: "Guru Maharaj Ji." Most of the time he was referring to himself, with the exception of when he set himself forth as the perfect devotee of his own Guru Maharaj Ji, who was also his biological father, Shri Maharaji. There were times when Rawat would speak about the greatness of Guru Maharaj Ji and was speaking about both himself and his father. No one at programs/festivals/events was confused about the object of worship as the Lord Incarnate, Lord of the Universe, etc., because it was PR himself in the flesh who was sitting on the stage, not his father. When Rawat held darshan lines, premies were bowing down and kissing Prem Rawat's feet, not bowing to a photo of his father. That was always more than clear. Rawat often sat below a photo of his father, but when Arti was sung, it was not directed towards Shri Maharaji's photo.

Here's a quote:

"So how are we going to recognize God as He comes on the earth? Are you going to ask to see His identity card or passport? See, if it says, "Name ... God. Occupation . . . Generator, Operator, Destroyer." That is foolish! Or are you going to recognize Him only if He fits in with your mental picture of Him, what you have picked up from the scriptures and other impressions, what you imagine Jesus or Krishna looked like? But even two Christians will have different impressions of what Jesus looked like. So what will be recognized by one will not be recognized by the other. But the test of the Perfect Master will be that which is undeniable to everybody and that is the experience of himself which he can give, and that is the true Knowledge."

http://gallery.forum8.org/god_claims.htm

The obsfucation taking place within this article is bizarre and ridiculous, and anyone who was there during the early years of Prem Rawat's time in the West (and that doesn't include the major editors of this article) knows how ridiculous. I spent a lot of time doing service for Prem Rawat directly, face to face, along-side other premies who were doing the same. He was considered the Lord God Incarnate and behaved that way and we behaved that way towards him. He never denied that to us or told us to stop. Another Ex-Premie 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Never denied it", can you read the above quotes again. PR is saying in plain English - people who think a human being can be God are insane. As Bob Mishler said "Maharaji spent a lot of time in the early days denying that he was God and stating that the Guru was in fact just someone who showed you God and therefore was important in the process of realisation but, - critical, in fact, in the process of realisation - but nonetheless he made no claims to be what he was revealing. What he was revealing was there within inside us all along. He experienced it. We can experience it". Unfortunately there are none so blind as those that will not see.Momento 21:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The above quote was from a 1972 speech by Rawat published in the book Who is Guru Maharaj ji. How anyone cannot interpret this as a claim of personal divinity is beyond me. Andries 19:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Too easy. Any attentive follower starts from PR's frequently stated opinion that a human being couldn't be God but that God was energy that existed in every human being. PR also made it clear that he was 100% human without any "divine" skills until he practiced Knowledge - "this is the way to do it. I have done it. This Knowledge was revealed to me. I have done it. And so you can also do it. Because see, there was one point also in my life when I had not understood Knowledge". Ergo, PR is not God, wasn't born God, wasn't born special. He wasn't even born Guru Maharaj Ji, the Perfect Master, that was his father. PR only became Guru Maharaj Ji, the Perfect Master by practicing Knowledge and making a decision after the Perfect Master died to take on that role. He may have been worshipped but he was worshipped as a life changing teacher. As for his comment above, how can anyone think PR is claiming divinity? PR is saying - you cannot easily recognise God. Not by external signs, there are no passports, no ID. Nor with your concepts, everyone has different concepts. But the Perfect Master is easy to recognise. You can recognised him by the experience he is able to give you.Momento 21:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Do not mix believes, actitudes and what Prem Rawat says about himself. If he claims that his knowledge is God, it is very clear that he is not his knowledge or God.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 7.235.176.50 (talk • contribs)
Hello "another ex-premie", it has been a while. Please note that the article does not obfuscate anything. People had and have different perceptions of Maharaji thorough the years, and this is amply covered in the article. The section Prem_Rawat#Early_Western_followers and the section Prem_Rawat#Discarding_the_trappings_in_the_1970s covers these perceptions in the time frame of 70's, as well as the criticism you refer to. Please read it as it has been a while since you visited this page. If there is anything inaccurate about the material in the article, we will all appreciate if you indicate where and what needs to be corrected. It is widely known that the group of people that call themselves the "ex-premies" (and that you are maybe part, given the choice of your user name) have a very specific point of view about these years and make their point of view and their interpretations in the multiple websites that are run by John Brauns (one wonders why do they need so many websites when they are actually such as small group of people), but the problem is, "another ex-premie", that Wikipedia is not yet-another-platform for your group to voice your grievances against Maharaji, his students and the non-profit organizations that support his teachings. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I can see the value in that last statement. These people you mention do not appear to have a clear view of the work Prem Rawat is undertaking in this world right now. How can anybody with a modicum of sensitivity to the human condition not applaud PR for the work he is doing? It's almost unbelievable that in this war ravaged time there can be groups of people arguing about what someone said when and what so and so actually 'meant' when they said bla bla bla a few months, years, decades ago? I don't have much to do with Prem Rawat at all, but very much enjoy his gift of the Knowledge experience and inspiration that has followed. What is this conversation here about actually? The John Brauns you mention is part of a new breed, those who fail spectacularly in the real world but through luck or skill manage to create themselves a new identity in cyberspace, complete with friends, admirers, the odd opposer and a new purpose. It all seems real. Brauns was lucky, not innovative or visionary, he was a mild and slightly vacuous contributor to the old ex premie forums and when the administration became so sick of the endless arguments and nonsense they walked away, leaving a rudderless internet web site. Brauns was the only one left with ambition and eagerly took the reigns. From that hallowed position and after years of service to the cause he also mananged to salvage the ex premiem chat forum that had also imploded in an orgy of infighting, confusion and malice until all the power hungry had walked, once again leaving the wreckage to the only person with enough time to throw away. So now, thanks to the internet, someone, even a malicious one, can sit in a house in almost any town or country on earth and become someone of international reputation. Perhaps what cyber dwellers don't realise when they start their new life is that their identity and credibility relies on a constant focus of attention and a constant injection of energy, a mission to discuss, a cause, an opinion, anything that fills the cyberspace and grabs people's attention. As soon as it is left alone and time marches on, it dies, they die. So no matter what Brauns and the other critics create on their chat pages, they constantly have to find a new bunch for tommorrow otherwise they fade away. This is very tiring and costly of the time that could be spent in the enjoyment factor of life. No-one with any self respect hangs around. Did Prem Rawat claim divinity? Why not? What the hell is wrong with claiming to admire divinity, to aspire to it? Is there something wrong with being into the mystical stuff? Been to church lately" There they ACTUALLY TALK to GOD. Where have you been hiding gentlemen? We all claim our little private patch of divinity, either that or we are ignorant liars. Why do you call ice cream cold? Prove it is cold! How do you KNOW it is cold? Why do you like the smell of a rose? Prove you like the smell of a rose! Bla bla blab... Raphael Goodsend —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael Goodsend (talk • contribs)
Raphael, your post here is filled with inaccuracies and libelous statements. If you are interested in my motives for managing the information websites on Prem Rawat, and my personal life, you are free to write to me at epowebmaster@yahoo.co.uk, and ask me. I look after the websites because I feel it is important that the information is available. I am not ambitious, certainly do not want fame, and would gladly hand over the websites to someone I could trust to keep them going. Unfortunately, shortly after I took over ex-premie.org the personal attacks on former followers of Rawat started, and finding somone who would be willing to put up with these attacks is now a near impossibility. --John Brauns 22:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Raphael, please limit discussion to the article at hand rather than broad opinion.Momento 14:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually I must confess I don't know what 'the article' at hand is exactly. This is my first time to this site and I am not understanding much how it works, total information overload for me, read through some stuff, too much information to grasp. My response to it all had to be general to cover all I had read. So, this is not like a standard internet chatroom kind of situation, where the topic is fairly wide and often diversifies into different areas? Clearly I have some fine print to wade through if I wish to contribute here, but I have no desire to get sucked into an online discussion actually. Raphael. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael Goodsend (talk • contribs)
Go up to the top of this page and select "article" from the tabs.Momento 14:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Welcome Rapahel. I have placed some pointers in your talk page so you get be learn about how Wikipedia works. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
In the book published by DLM, 'The Living Master" Prem Rawat contradicts himself quite often about the meaning of “Guru Maharaj Ji.” He discusses Guru Maharaji being a “verb” not a “noun," then he discusses how “Guru Maharaj Ji” comes into the world (as if by choice), he then states that GMJ is a request not a question. PR discusses how that Guru Maharaj Ji, God comes into the world to teach Knowledge. Further, Rawat describes Knowledge as the primordial vibration or the experience of the infinite and also states he is one with that God consciousness. He also states that GMJ is part of the experience that premies/students want. Prem Rawat said many contradictory things in the book 'Living Master' (pub. DLM 1978) and throughout his career as the perfect master. Even the most intelligent listener/reader/student could become very confused by him, so I think it’s important to include all sides to illustrate his wide-ranging dogmas which may have lead to trememdous communications problems between himself and his premies/devotees. I realize this is a biography of Prem Rawat not his followers or former followers, but without his followers/students, and his former students, he wouldn't be noteworthy enough to warrant this article in Wikipedia, imo.
Guru Maharaj Ji, how do we realize Truth? Is it really possible?
You must ask the Master how to do it. That is why that power manifests itself into a body, into the Perfect Master. The Perfect Master comes and removes all the darkness, and brings the supreme Light into the world. If you find him, you will get it; if you don't find him, you won't get it. He is not in caves or mountains. Search and you will find him. Toronto 1971
I don’t see how one can misconstrue that Prem Rawat is saying that Knowledge is the greatest power in one breath, then says he’s not God in another, and in yet another mouthful, he says that the perfect master removes all darkness. It’s easy to see how some people were so horribly confused by Prem Rawat’s own words.
Here’s another quote in which Rawat isn’t using GMJ as a verb:
It's been said that Guru Maharaj Ji comes, or God comes into the world, when there is a decline in religion. God comes, Guru Maharaj Ji comes, and helps the world. Why? Realize how much importance there is to it when Guru Maharaj Ji comes and tries to help you through; how much importance there is to it; how small you are compared to the whole world, and the whole world to the whole universe, and that whole universe to something called infinity. We have no idea how big it is, and how small it is. Denver 1974
Here's another in which PR describes the devotional relationship to the Lord/premie-student/Knowledge:
This is the greatest relationship that ever can be formed. And you call him your Savior. The love you have towards him is greater than you have towards your parents. It's greater than anything. And this relationship is: the Knowledge which is within inside of us has been revealed. And this is the reason why devotees love their Lord so much. Because there has been a relationship formed which is virtually unbreakable. London 1978
Wow, huh?
http://ex-premie.org/publications/lm.htm#s1
By the way, I don't appreciate the remarks about ex-premies as individuals or as a group. I am especially offended about the remarks and innuendo that were made about John Brauns, who I didn't even mention in my post. In the future, please refrain from doing this. Thank you!
Another Ex-Premie 17:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
As said before, all these aspects are already covered in the article. Note that although you claim that "some people were so horribly confused by Prem Rawat’s own words", many others didn't. One good example is the cite from Sophia Collier's biographical book Soul Rush that is included in the article. So, you can say that you were horribly confused, but cannot extend that to others. I would suggest that you read the Prem_Rawat#Early_Western_followers were all these aspects are already explored. If there is information that is incorrect, you can list it here. (FYI, most if not all of these quotes you listed are already available in Wikiquote.)
Concerning your being offended by remarks made about ex-premies as individuals or as a group, please note that you and your group make disparaging and hateful comments about editors of this encyclopedia in your discussion forum that is public, in an ongoing basis. Note that it is considered disingenuous to abide by and enforce the no personal attacks policy in these pages, only to blatantly ignore them in discussion forums or other publicly available sources such as personal homepages. If you are an editor of Wikipedia, the no personal attacks policy extends beyond these pages. So, before you feel so offended, please note that you and your group have and are being offensive to editors of these articles on an on-going basis. So playing the victim card here, it can be seen as disingenuous, to say the least. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Jossi, I wasn't horribly confused, but I can see why others might have been. Anyway, I don't see any harm in adding the quotes I mentioned from Living Master into Wikiquote. I've been reviewing the article, but this isn't a job for me, and since there's no deadline here, I'll take my time.

I don't see any mention in the "No personal attacks" page that limits me or anyone from discussions elsewhere. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see such a restriction. But, you do continue to disparage my character and the characters of other ex-premies by using the words "hateful group," "hateful" which, btw, is a ad hominem attack. Therefore, I think you're violating this specific rule: 'Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.'

For other readers: Please note that Jossi's "Hate group" characterizions are the same as those being made by Prem Rawat's organization, Elan Vital. Those characterizations are not being made by anyone else in the world, except by students/premies of Prem Rawat and Elan Vital. So once again, Jossi, I ask you to please stop it. This is the second request. Thank you! Another Ex-Premie 21:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For an independent view please see "Rennie Davis issues conciliatory response to attacks from hate speech web site"

Jeremiah Itzhaki 22 Mar 2006 18:11 GMT [3] .Momento 22:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Momento. Who's Itzahki, btw? Never heard of him before.Another Ex-Premie 11:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
These quotes are probably already in Wikiquote, that contains a large collection of quotes by decade already. You are wecome to add these if you wish, if these are not there already.
As for my comment about you and other ex-premies making hateful comments, such as calling Wikipedia editors assholes, nazis, verbal abusers, snakes, zealots, fanatics, and other vituperatives is factual and verifiable. Anyone can read these in the ex-premie forum, as the forum is public.
The disenginuity is to speak here as if none of these hateful comments have been made in that forum by you and other ex-premies, claiming being a victim here, and then attempt to "politely" engage the same editors that you disparage in these postings. That being said, I would suggest that we all make an effort and focus on the article, rather than yet-again discuss our differences in these pages that are not been provided for these purposes. I personally, had enough of it. So much so that, from now on, I will ignore each and every comment that is not related to editing this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the no personal attacks policy extending to other forums, you can ask your friend Andries so that he can explain that better. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware that the policy of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks policy extends to other forums unless the personal attacks are linked to here. I have heard several times the opinion that it extends to other forums, but I do not know whether this is true and it sounds unlikely to me.Andries 12:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
So what you are saying, Andries, is that it will be OK for you if an editor says nasty and hateful things about you in a public Internet forum, and at the same you would be expected to WP:AGF from that editor here? I hope that that is not what you are saying. Probably you are only saying that there is no official policy for this. If this is the case, I would invite you to help me in drafting such a policy and submit it to the community for consensus. I will start working on this at WP:NPA. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't find anything new in the quotes you provide. In the first PR is refering to the Perfect Master as a role not a human being, the PM existed before PR and the PM will exist after PR, so the Perfect Master "coming" or "bringing" refers to his action relating to his student not to the world as a whole.
In the second, he prefaces his comment with "It has been said" paraphrasing someone else's comment.
In the third, he is expressing his opinion that without the action of being "saved", either literally or metaphorically, you would have no life in which to love anyone. The action of "saving" makes all other actions possible and therefore takes precedence over them.
I agree that John Brauns should not have been mentioned.
As for your comment "I think it’s important to include all sides to illustrate his wide-ranging dogmas which may have lead to trememdous communications problems between himself and his premies/devotees", I disagree. Firstly, I don't believe having an opinion about a person or subject entitles someone to have their opinion published in an encyclopedia. In this case, the ex-premies opinion, whilst loudly expressed, represents a tiny fraction of the people who have heard PR over 40 years. And, in my experience editing this article, is often contradicted by PR's own words. Secondly, I cannot see any evidence that PR has had communication problems with his premies/devotees. His core message has been consistant and clear.Momento 19:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Momento, if I didn't already know how deeply committed and skilled you were to and in the principles of NPOV, I'd swear that you were trying to explain away the clear meaning of Rawat's words. Even still, I'm left wondering about a few things. Let's look at the first quote again:
Guru Maharaj Ji, how do we realize Truth? Is it really possible?
You must ask the Master how to do it. That is why that power manifests itself into a body, into the Perfect Master. The Perfect Master comes and removes all the darkness, and brings the supreme Light into the world. If you find him, you will get it; if you don't find him, you won't get it. He is not in caves or mountains. Search and you will find him. Toronto 1971'
What makes you say that Rawat is referring to the Perfect Master "as a role not a human being"? Why would the two be mutually exclusive? When one speaks of the President of the United States isn't one speaking of a human being regardless of the fact that he or she is just one of a series? And isn't Rawat making it abundantly clear that he is indeed talking about the Perfect Master being a person by speaking of "that power manifest[ing] itself into a body"? What else could that mean if not that a Perfect Master is a person?
As for the second quote:
It's been said that Guru Maharaj Ji comes, or God comes into the world, when there is a decline in religion. God comes, Guru Maharaj Ji comes, and helps the world. Why? Realize how much importance there is to it when Guru Maharaj Ji comes and tries to help you through; how much importance there is to it; how small you are compared to the whole world, and the whole world to the whole universe, and that whole universe to something called infinity. We have no idea how big it is, and how small it is. Denver 1974
Yes, for sure, Rawat prefaces his comment with "It has been said". But are you denying that that is just his way of adopting the statement as his own? Why else would he quote it? And isn't it, in fact, clear beyond question that he is relying on that quote to support his general point about the importance of Guru Maharaj Ji? Isn't this just common sense?
Now the third:
This is the greatest relationship that ever can be formed. And you call him your Savior. The love you have towards him is greater than you have towards your parents. It's greater than anything. And this relationship is: the Knowledge which is within inside of us has been revealed. And this is the reason why devotees love their Lord so much. Because there has been a relationship formed which is virtually unbreakable. London 1978
You say that Rawat is talking "literally or metaphorically" but I don't see any signs of any metaphors. Isn't this just perhaps a little slip of wishful thinking on your part? As I've said before, Momento, you are a very skilled practicioner of NPOV and we all have much to learn from you but don't you think that perhaps your analysis might be just a teensy weeny bit coloured by your own POV? Finally, I wonder if Jossi, your fellow paragon of NPOV here agrees with your interpretations of these quotes? Jossi?
--Jim Heller 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jim, re the first quote, I did not say the person and role are mutually exclusive, I was making the point that since the role of the PM existed before PR, he is talking about the "role" of the PM in his statement not himself as PR. The second quote is clear, if PR wanted to make the same claim, he could have said it himself. By prefacing the claim with "It has been said", he is actually distancing himself from the claim. Re the third quote, I did not say that "Rawat is talking 'literally or metaphorically', I said that "without the action of being 'saved', either literally or metaphorically, you would have no life in which to love anyone". You have misquoted and misrepresented me. If you wish to contribute to Wkipedia, please do others the courtesy of being accurate and understanding what they have written.Momento 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Momento, all kidding aside, I must say that your "analysis" suffers from some extremely tortured logic. Everything you serve up is decadently delicious but my favorite -- and it's hard to pick a favorite, believe me -- is your comment regarding the second quote. I'll take a moment to show you how absolutely wrong you are.
First, we must assume that the slogan Rawat is quoting is contained in the first two sentences. In other words, exactly what has "been said" is that "that Guru Maharaj Ji comes, or God comes into the world, when there is a decline in religion. God comes, Guru Maharaj Ji comes, and helps the world." So how does Rawat comment on that saying? By asking "Why?" immediately afterwards. In other words, he doesn't take issue with the saying but rather accepts it as true and now offers an explanation for why that's the case. That explanation is contained in the rest of the quote which is essentially about how important Guru Maharaj Ji is, how important is his help and how big the universe is and how small we are. Clearly, instead of contradicting the meaning of the saying, he relies on it, like I said before, to make his own point. This is the polar opposite of distancing himself from the claim as you assert. Think about it. If you were right, Rawat would say something to indicate that he takes issue with the saying, perhaps something like "Although, it is said ...." or "It is said that ...., however ...". Furthermore, there would be some substantive conflict between the meaning of the saying and what he follows with. But of course there isn't. This is very, very fundamental logic and interpretation of English, Momento, and if you can't accept it, I have no choice but to conclude that you are either unable to think about Rawat clearly or thoroughly disingenous. In either case, you have no business editing this article. None.
Now, let's see Jossi wade in here, please. Jossi, do you agree with Momento that Rawat is distancing himself from the claim he's invoking in that quote?
--Jim Heller 23:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This will be my last reply to you. Once again you have misunderstood and then misrepresented me. As I used it "distancing" doesn't mean disagreeing with the opinion, it means making it clear that these are not his words. He is "distancing", "removing" himself as author of the quote. Secondly, PR in using "Why?" is not accepting the quote as true, as you assert. He is asking the listeners to question "why" such a opinion is expressed. He then enjoins the listeners to "Realize how much importance there is to it when Guru Maharaj Ji comes and tries to help you through", in other words come to your own conclusion. Any further correspondance addressed to me will be considered harassment and reported.Momento 23:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Distancing" means separating one's self from the sentiment expressed which, of course, was your original point which you now seem to have forgotten. Also, Rawat is most certainly endorsing the sentiment of the saying. His asking "Why?" is short for "Why is that so?" And I will continue to respond to you or Jossi as much as I want. Your involvement here is spurious and I am unhesitantly proud of standing up to your games.
--Jim Heller 00:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

To John Brauns, Raphael Goodsend, and others

Just to remind you that this discussion page at Wikipedia are made available to dicuss this article, and nothing else. The talk page is not a link farm, a discussion forum or USENET. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that John Brauns cannot defend himself here when somebody makes libellous comments here? This would sound unreasonable to me. Andries 02:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not see any libelous statements, just an opinion of character. (A statement to be libelous in the US--where these servers reside--apply to distortion of facts and not to opinions. Also these statements of fact needs to be proven false first as per the Doctrine of substantial truth) Nevertheless, this page is not a discussion forum, as you well know, so I have informed both of this fact, so that they can take that conversation elsewhere. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I do see a libellous statement using your defintion: "The John Brauns you mention is part of a new breed, those who fail spectacularly in the real world". But regardless of that, I think that if John Brauns is attacked here then he has the right to defend himself here. Andries 05:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome and the guidelines Jossi and Momento.I can see I was some way off base. The article page is truly impressive and would take many hours to go through. I get the impression here that, as with any respectable encyclopedia, the facts of the matter are what is critically important. That is what appears to be debated most and unless one can substantiate what one is saying with factual evidence then it does not stand.

In that light I think Andries is right in his claim against my post. I had no right to determine the success or otherwise of Mr Brauns's life. However,without labouring this off topic point too long, what I meant was that like many disgruntled people,Brauns appears not to have found a niche in this world that brings him the deserved joys of life. Therefore has turned to what he admits is a troublesome and precarious role as a webhost, with its dubious rewards. Clearly this is againt his better interests and I agree with him that a court of law would be the best place to find this out for ourselves. Considering the rules here,I will sign off on this particular discussion until I can offer a more suitable contribution to the debate on the article in question. Good wishes to all contributors here,including JB and Andries,after all, we are only debating.Raphael Goodsend 06:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, you're doing it again! FYI, I have found my niche in the world that brings me the deserved (or undeserved?) joys of life, and it has nothing to do with Rawat or these online conflicts which I would be happy to ditch. I suggest that you should look to your own life that you feel the need to make such an unsupported accusation against a stranger. Jossi, I take your point, and if Raphael wishes to discuss these issues further he is welcome to register on my forum at prem-rawat-talk.org. --John Brauns 07:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Is that your forum or the ex-premies forum? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, it's my forum. I set it up when Forum 8 closed, and no one else was willing to provide another forum that I would be happy to contribute to. 'Ex-premies' refers to former followers of Prem Rawat as in 'ex-' meaning former, and 'premies' the term used (as recently as 1999 by Rawat) for followers of Rawat. Some current followers and Elan Vital incorrectly limit the definition to those who publicly express their rejection of Rawat as their teacher, but in either definition, 'ex-premies' could not own anything, in the same way that premies as a group could not own anything. --John Brauns 20:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. "Ex-premies" are these that call themselves that. I have several friends that do not practice Knowledge any more and they would be outraged if they were told that they are "ex-premies" or that they have anything in common with you and your other friends. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, if you have any respect for the English language, you'll admit that "ex" is a universal prefix denoting "former". So if your friends are former premies, they're ex-premies. It's indisputable. Furthermore, if your friends used to practice Knowledge, they would be amongst a very, very tiny part of the world population who have engaged in that exercise and thus would indeed have something in common with John and his "other friends". Something rather significant, too, I'd assume you'd agree, if you consider receiving and practicing Knowledge a significant thing in anyone's life as your Master clearly does. Further still, if your friends no longer practice Knowledge, that gives them even more common experience with John and his "other friends". Indeed, if your friends compared notes with John and his "other friends" I'm sure they'd find all sorts of other things in common. Perhaps you should do them a favour and introduce them to their fellow ex-premies!
--Jim Heller 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
For your edification(not that there could ever have been any reasonable question about this) here's the relevant Miriam-Webster definition of "ex" (or "ex-"):
Main Entry: 2ex
Function: noun
Etymology: 1ex-
- one that formerly held a specified position or place; especially : a former spouse
So, just as a former spouse is an ex-spouse, a former premie is an ex-premie. Get it? --Jim Heller 03:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


A final reminder, this discussion page at Wikipedia are made available to discuss this article, and nothing else. The talk page is not a link farm, a discussion forum or USENET. If you want to debate please do it else where. If this continues I will make enquires to delete irrelevant comments from this page and block senders.Momento 22:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur - as Jossi asked me the question that led to the latest entries here, I invite him, and anyone else who wants to discuss these issues, to the prem-rawat-talk.org forum. I'm signing off unless anyone uses this page to attack me again. --John Brauns 23:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh Momento, I'm so sorry! Again, I defer to your innate wisdom and sense of fairness and propriety. When was the last time you read Alice in Wonderland? Catch 22? Kafka?

Childhood Section

I've renamed "Earliest years of Maharaji" as "Childhood in India" and combined "Childhood" and "Succession" to shorten the overall length and eliminate duplication. I have kept all the references. I would really like to see this happen to the whole article, looking at it afresh in order to improve readability. Momento 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's wrong to eliminate the "Succession" heading because it obscures the fact that at one point this child became a guru. Otherwise, it makes to sense to talk about his "Establishment in the West". Establishment as what? A child?
--Jim Heller 21:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The succession is already covered in the lead section and is still covered in the "Childhood" section. All the references are there if people wish to learn more.Momento 22:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The headings should, if possible, offer the reader some guidance about the general subject matter and flow of the article. In this case, what you've done is eliminate the heading that makes sense of what follows. Like I said, it makes no sense to jump from "Childhood" to "Establishment in the West" without identifying -- at the heading level -- what he became in the interim, i.e. a guru. Otherwise, "establishment" means nothing. What's wrong? Don't you like the idea that he claims to have become whatever he is pursuant to a succession? Seems that way. In any event, what you're doing is making the article more obscure. You should put the heading back.
--Jim Heller 22:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Establishment in the West" is strange. I'd rather delete it and go straight to "Maharaji’s first trip to the West". I think the lead section covers the succession adequately with "At the age of six he was taught the techniques of Knowledge by his father and succeeded him when he passed away in 1966, being accepted by his father's followers as their satguru (Sanskrit: true teacher) and assuming the role of "Perfect Master" at his father's funeral.[3][4] He thereby became the recognized leader of the Divine Light Mission (an organization started by his father) and began taking his message to people throughout the Indian subcontinent.[5]". The "childhood in India" section's job is to provide more info that isn't important enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. Momento 00:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone realize just how awful this article really is?

Prompted by Momento's deleting any reference in the headings to Rawat's purported "succession" as guru, I decided to look over the whole article again. Really, it's just terrible. It skates over or completely ignores the real subjects which might be of interest, such as what exactly Rawat is or was that sets him apart from the rest of humanity, how he got that way, what his so-called "Knowledge" is and what it can or cannot do for a person. Likewise, Rawat's family rift and the implications for same or his early promises and his ability to fulfill them (e.g. Millenium) would be of some interest suitable for this article but there's nothing of substance. The article even fails thoroughly in discussing Rawat's apparent turn to a "Western" mode of teaching. What exactly is "Western", after all, about anything he's teaching? Is it just the fact that he's eliminated Hindu terminology that makes it so?

What the article does have is a lot of boring, trivial and disjointed data, some accurate, some not, about Rawat which, I'm sure, no one could ever care less about. No one wants to read about the evolution of DLM, so much, as the evolution, if there was one, of the man behind it all. What does it mean that his brother also claims their father's legacy as a guru and how, one might ask, could one ever take either of them seriously in the circumstances?

As it is, the article reads like a very defensive puff piece which says nothing substantial and skirts the good stuff. It has way too much about Rawat's followers but hardly anything about what it is they're following and why. Have his teachings truly changed over time? The article seems to suggest that the answer is yes, I mean no, I mean yes, I mean .... it's confusing. To say the least.

And this is hardly because the article is limited to an NPOV or that statements of fact need proper attribution. It could be a real article within those constraints. Will it ever? No, of course not. --Jim Heller 00:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is disjointed and full of irrelevant material. I think this is a product of the adversarial editing. Any addition seems to attract a contrary addition and the result is that it is too long (at 87 kilobytes it far exceeds the prefered 50 kilobytes). I would like to slim it down.Suggestions please. Momento 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the first two paragraphs of "Maharaji’s first trip to the West" could be deleted and the rest cleaned up.Momento 01:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The article has been edited over a period of several years with contributions by many editors. Over 125 citacions, including more than 40 books have been used to attribute the text as per WP:CITE. Much of the text needs copyediting, I agree, and I will endeavor over the next few weeks to make it more readable. The article is a biography, and as such it needs to cover all main aspects of this person's life. This is not an article that needs to show "the good stuff", but the life-work of this person. If it is boring and trivial for you, so be it. Also note that as editors we are not here to write commentary or make assessments about this and that. This in an encyclopedia, after all. You may want to read what Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_Is ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. Perhaps we should develop an overview - what sub sections do we need etcMomento 01:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I am only interested in copyediting the material in the article. Many editors have spent an extraordinary amount of time on the content already, so my intention is to copyedit to make the text flow better and easier to read that currently. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you may want to read what Wikipedia is and is not. From its own article on encyclopedias, it defines such as:
"Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain."
The various subjects I've mentioned as getting short shrift are the ones that contain the "important accumulated Knowledge" about Rawat. Right now, the article is indeed a bit of a "dumping ground" of miscellaneous and ultimately uninteresting facts instead, something Wikipedia is not supposed to be. It doesn't matter how many editors have worked on the piece or how many citations it has, the issue is whether or not this is a good article about Prem Rawat? The answer is most definitely "no".--Jim Heller 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion. Fact is that the current version of the article represents the efforts of the collaboration of many, many editors over a period of more than two and a half years. The article is not perfect and surely can be improved. With time and patience Wikiedia articles become better. That is my experience. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding his brother, you can start an article about him at if so you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)