Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Teachings 2 Not teachings 3 Unsourced claims made in the Intro 4 Divine Light Mission 5 NPOV Criticism 6 Chronology 7 Coming of Age - Encouragement to leave the ashrams? 8 POV Check (lack of neutrality in article as written) 9 POV problems 10 Re: Deleting "in public." 11 New Photo

[edit] Teachings

Rumiton you have removed a paragraph from teachings. Now it goes straight from Rawat being a teenager to the Keys in 2005. I think the missing paragraph is important and if anything the period betweeen 1976 and 2005 should be expanded on.Momento 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what I took out was about the split with his family and taking charge of the non-Indian mission and abandoning those mongrel trappings, none of which seems to belong in Teachings, and anyway the subjects are all covered in much the same words in two other places in the article. I moved the references that supported those statements to the earlier appearances, so nothing was lost.

I certainly agree that this section needs more detail, but there seems to be a lack of attention paid by sources. I now have the latest editions of the works of Partridge, Hummel and Hunt (certainly among the most boring things ever written) and am trying to find something there that will do. If Prem Rawat's consistent lack of instruction on subjects like reincarnation, kharma, heaven, hell, astrology, marriage, societal obligations, diet and health mean that he actually has no teachings, then perhaps we should consider removing the section altogether. Rumiton 11:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the repositioning of Rawat the teenager could work in the Leaving India section but should be precised to "His arrival attracted substantial media interest and Rawat, who frequently acting like the teenager that he was in public, was seen by many as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader".Momento 21:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too. Current version is now pretty close to that. Comments? Am also continuing to look for ways of expanding the Teachings section. Rumiton 02:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have taken existing material from throughout the article and precised it in the "Teaching" section to bridge the gap between 1973 and 2005. I think it looks good but may need some work on the grammar.Momento 06:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one sentence in the Teachings section that describes what Prem Rawat teaches. He doesn't teach the Sant Mat tradition (indeed, I never once heard him say that term, nor have I heard of him ever discussing the origins of his own teachings); the Indian trappings never were a part of his teachings -- that's another red herring; the family split and his marriage had nothing to do with his teachings, either, which changed not one iota after his marriage; and the name change from Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital is irrevelant to Rawat's teachings. The closest thing in the "Teachings" section about what exactly Rawat does teach is the mention of the Keys dvds, but merely mentioning the existence of the dvds isn't a description of Rawat's teachings either. How long Rawat suggests for daily meditation is kind of putting the cart before the horse, given there are 70-100 hours of Keys dvdd viewing required of people before one is even considered for the Key 6, the Knowledge Session where people are taught the meditation techniques. Nothing about that Keys process is described. Why not? People claim to be his students, therefore, what exactly does Prem Rawat teach? A teacher has to teach something. What is it? Sylviecyn 12:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, Sylvie, though I don't see it as a "red herring" exactly, more of an attempt to talk about the things that can be talked about. As an aside, have you considered watching the Keys? Seriously, you would be better informed about this stuff, and you might enjoy it. I definitely did. OK, don't hit me. But I agree, readers of this section are entitled to ask "What does he teach people?" and then go compare what they find to what Meher Baba or somebody taught. Hummel uses the German word Lehre (which falls somewhere between teachings and doctrine) and then makes the point, in a somewhat complimentary way I think, that Prem Rawat doesn't have any, and neither did his father. I don't really agree with him, but getting something satisfying from Hunt and Co is going to take some doing. Rumiton 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Rawat has lots of doctrine and concepts, but the red herring I was referring to is the specific idea that "Indian trappings" ever had anything to do with Rawat's teachings. That Prem Rawat says anyone can "go within" and find peace is a concept and belief. Anyway, no I haven't watched the Keys, and probably couldn't get them based on the fact I'm not wiling to sign off on the "Terms and Conditions" required of people to get them. If there's a way to get them and not be bound by any conditions, I'd love to watch them.

I disagree that Rawat doesn't have any doctrine, however, and Shri Hans definitely had teachings and doctrine he wrote about quite extensively in Hans Yog Prakash which was published in the 60's by DLM in India. I used to own a copy but no longer have it. You can download the book from EPO, if you're interested. Does Cagan go into Rawat's teachings at all? I've always maintained that Rawat's teachings are everything he has spoken about over 40 years, but that would be difficult to encapsulate into the section.  :-) Sylviecyn 15:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) (Removed link to Ex-premie.org.) Sylviecyn 12:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We may have differing ideas on what Rawat teaches but we are limited to what scholars say. And they say - "Following the split with his family in 1974 Rawat transformed his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context. He came to recognize that the Indian influences on his followers in the West were a hindrance to the wider acceptance of his teachings. He therefore changed the style of his message and relinquished the Hindu tradition, beliefs, and most of its original eastern religious practices.[72][73][74] In 1983 Rawat downsized Divine Light Mission and changed its name to Elan Vital. He dropped the title "Guru" and closed the last western ashrams, seeing his teachings as independent of culture, religion, beliefs, or lifestyles,[75][76]He continued to teach the four techniques of Knowledge and affirmed his own status as a master rather than a divine leader. The original religious movement was essentially defunct. Scholars such as Kranenborg and Chryssides describe the departure from divine connotations, and the new emphasis that the Knowledge is universal, rather than Indian.[77][78]". The DLM/EV sentence is there to give a firm date and indicate that he dropped the "Divine Mission" stance. Momento 16:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the above explains what Rawat's teachings are, rather, your above-quoted sentences only describe that Rawat has teachings and/or how he goes about conveying his teachings. IMO, The Living Master] is the only published source that comes anywhere close to Rawat explaining his doctrines, philosophy of life, and concepts, all of which, of course, do constitute his teachings.

Therefore, once again, what exactly is it that Prem Rawat actually teaches people? It's a legitimate question that any reader will and should ask, and the answer shouldn't be difficult to supply, given that Rawat has been such a prolific speaker for over 40 years. Sylviecyn 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what sources you use, but please do not use Cagan and if you must only use it for non-controversial statements. Teachings are unlikely to be uncontroversial. What you should include is Rawat's battle against the mind (sources from scholarls or scholarly articles Haan, Derks/Lans, Hummel, Kranenborg and to a lesser extent Barrett). And also that Rawat put emphasis on surrender to the guru (sources Kranenborg, Hummel, and Björkqvist)Andries 18:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Andries, I was being a bit cheeky by mentioning Cagan. I don't expect that Cagan seriously addresses Rawat's teachings in her book.  :-) Sylviecyn 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All the sources are listed Andries and they don't include Cagan. It would be controversial to cherry pick items of Rawat's teachings which is why I kept it broad and non-specific.The sources are Hunt, Melton, Miller, Downton and Chryssides.Momento 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Living Master" is a collection of quotes pre-1978 (and by the way your are linking to a copyvio, so please delete that link as it violates Wikipedia:Copyright). There are many quotes published after that, a substantial collection of which is available at Wikiquote. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotes from talks by Rawat are not a good way to describe Rawat's teaching, because they will lead to a quote war of contradicting quotes as we have seen in the past. They should all be removed. It is easy to find quotes by Rawat that he said A is B and also easy to find a quote that he said A is not B. Andries 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

With regards to undue weight, there is too little weight that Rawat claimed to be God. There are three sources for that (Hummel, Kranenborg, and Melton) Melton very clear writings about this is not so clear in the article. That should be improved too. Andries 00:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree about POV quote wars. Rawat never claimed to be God and the article already has when asked in 1971 if he was God, Rawat replied: "No. My Knowledge is God".Momento 01:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine that we agree about POV quote wars. Let us keep all quotes by Rawat about this subject out of the article because it is rather confusing what he said. Read the following

• Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? I want that the general should sign some papers. I need not go to his office when he is sitting in my home. Is it necessary to go in his office when his is sitting in my home? When God has come here, then what is the need to give devotion to God there?

o (responding to a question about the word guru), Alta Loma Terrace Satsang, 1971 - reproduced from Elan Vital magazine, vol. II, issue 1

• God made the mind but He never made a stoplight. And when He saw that 'There is no stop in this mind which I have made,' He was very sorry. He had to take a form. The form of Guru is nobody but Himself, the whole that you want to see. The whole power is now in the form of a body. That is the body which is the 'Supremest' of all, and its duties, works are not like those of humanity.

o (responding to a question about the word satguru), Alta Loma Terrace Satsang, 1971 - reproduced from Elan Vital magazine, vol. II, issue 1

Andries 03:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously considering starting this whole thing again? It would be much easier to copy and paste from the archives :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a quote about this in the current article. It should go. I am reminding people why this was and is a bad idea. Andries 03:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason there is a quote from Rawat about God is because of Abbie Hoffman's famous quote. Rawat deserves the right of reply.Momento 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good morning. I'm not suggesting a quote war at all and I don't think that it's possible to use Rawat's own quotes in the Teachings section because no concensus would be reached here about such quotes. I was hoping that you all would get that I was being rhetorical in my posts above and in my question, "What exactly is it that Prem Rawat teaches?" I was trying to demonstrate that the section doesn't illuminate the reader about what Rawat actually does. I know what Rawat teaches, but my point is that quoting sources which describe the fact he has teachings isn't conveying to the reader what it is that Rawat teaches. That said, I think the Teachings section should be removed because there isn't any up-to-date source that describes his teachings. The paragraphs contained within the section can be incorporated elsewhere in the article. Sylviecyn 12:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good morning back. I am inclined to agree, but I would like to spend some time looking through the scholars' stuff to see if some inkling of what people get from Maharaji can be found there suitable for a Teachings section. In the mean time, to me the current section can stay or go. If I get something usable I will post it here for discussion. Rumiton 12:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good evening (as if the time of day is in any way relevant here but for game playing). The crux of Prem Rawat's teaching is four simple techniques of meditation. Find a suitable quotable source of that information and be done with it. What others make of those simple techniques is neither her nor there. That is the crux of his teaching.VivK 13:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the there is very little material on Rawat's teaching. I have never seen any scholar refer to "service, satsang and medittation" which is surely a core teaching. My point in adding the material was to fill in the gap between 75 and 2005. Most scholars agree that his teachings were basically INdian and then became more western in two distinct stages 76 and 83.Momento 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a solid idea M. Unfortunately it takes us back to the removal of those damn 'trappings'again! VivK 02:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to come around to SylvieCyn's idea of removing the "teachings" entirely. Most other biographies deal with the person without a special section devoted to what makes them notable. "Teachings" could be incorporated into the exisiting "Techniques of Knowledge" article.Momento 02:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too. Am also, BTW, humbley (is that how you spell it?) grateful to VivK for supporting me in my subtle campaign against the trappings. (Maybe it's just an Aus thing.) But regarding Teachings, I think most people unfamilar with the subject would expect to find some Indian cosmology. e.g. There are seven planes of existence. We are on the third plane, where we are destined to remain for the next 396 000 years, or 1.7 Yugas, unless we fall from grace and descend to the nature of demons before then. But by great personal effort, constantly chanting the mantra and abstaining from sex and animal products, the devotee can raise himself to the fourth plane. Women can only be elevated through the efforts of their husbands. You know, information you can really get your teeth into. I can't imagine why, but Prem Rawat seems to avoid this stuff, and just speaks lovingly and humorously about the experience of life. This is difficult to summarize. Let's dump it, pending someone successfully doing so. Rumiton 11:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree as well. Not for nothing, most of the addresses by PR start with "I am here to talk about something very simple". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That can be described. Both Hummel and Kranenborg wrote about this aspect of Rawat's teachings. Andries 00:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. By consensus, I just took it out. If there are parts of it that are valuable and not already covered elsewhere, they can be salvaged. Rumiton 16:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing the teachings section strikes me as flawed. He is among others famous for his teachings. or as an inspirational speaker, so what he teaches or spoke about should be described. Andries 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Teachings section cannot be merged into techniques of knowledge because Rawat also preached about surrender to the guru, battle against the mind and more. Andries 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing "Teachings", take a look at Einstein, he's famous for his "Theory of Relativity" but it is not explained in his article but redirects to its own. I think "Teachings " and "Techniques" can be combined. There is a link to "Knowledge" in the lede. I'll have a look at it over the next few days.Momento 21:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel more sympathetic towards Andries than might be supposed. Prem Rawat has complied with the advice of Ralph Waldo Emerson, among other great thinkers, in avoiding the temptations of saying the same things for ever in the same way. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. "Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood." Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood...

Yet there is a core to Prem Rawat's message that has been absolutely consistent, that he announced when very young and has held to precisely over all the years. What it is can only be felt. It is very hard to describe. Rumiton 13:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are all making a big mistake by not leaving even a summary of Rawat's teachings here. As a comparison, Jesus has his section of teachings too. Andries 13:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Andries, you are doing this less-than-honest thing again. I just checked the Jesus article (which took another 6 minutes out of my life) and the section on Jesus' Teachings just talks about the places and circumstances under which he taught. They haven't attempted to summarize Jesus' teachings either. But I would be delighted if a summary could be arrived at which does justice to Prem Rawat and his life's work. I just don't think we can create it. Rumiton 15:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A summary of Jesus teachings is in the section ministry. We should follow reputable sources and omitting one aspect of person's life that has been described by various reputable sources strikes me as leading to an unbalanced article. Andries 16:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you might be right. I'll have a go tomorrow, and we'll talk about it. (It's 2:26 a.m. here right now.) Rumiton 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Andries, if starting a user page called Andries/Teachings of Prem Rawat is another attempt to circumvent the ethical standards of a Biography of a Living Person then it is not going to work, and it will reflect even more badly on you than your previous attempts to do so. Rumiton 12:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How does the current version violate WP:BLP? It does not even come close I believe. Andries 18:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to work with Andries on combining "Teachings" and "Techniques" and see if we can come up with something that works.Momento 04:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again (albeit briefly by neccessity). A lot of the above comments from premies about Prem Rawats teachings seem to again demonstrate difficulty in broaching this simple subject squarely. All this talk of how he now speaks of some ‘simple’ thing is hardly adequate description of his teachings. Of course Rawat attracts people initially through public talks where he speaks in these simple 'inspiring' terms. However people who express further interest are encouraged to complete a rather lengthy program called 'The Keys'. This is how they learn more of his teachings and also, importantly, commit themselves to the process of becoming his student. This process is absolutely tangible and could be well described but is of course the priviliged revelation of those who subscribe to ‘The Keys’ not people who read Wikipedia. Wikipedians should not be timid about describing these teachings and need not disempower Rawat by giving away his secrets. Suffice it to say that there are some.

For a start you should decribe Rawat’s teachings, as scholars have done, in historical context. Even Rawat scholar Ron Geaves will have undoubtedly reported how young Rawat initially carried on the teachings of his father (which were indeed full of 'Indian cosmology'). Then plenty of sources report how Rawat gradually morphed his father’s teachings into three essential practices for followers which were collectively referred to as 'The Knowledge'. I.e. 'Satsang, Service and Meditation.' (Remember the essential 3 legged stool). Also he taught that he himself (as the Master) was the indispensible forth ingredient in all this and that premies should see him whenever possible (for what he still referred to as 'Darshan'). It was that simple.

No one can deny that the tone of his teaching has changed over the years. I would encourage you to describe this using the sources you have. No doubt you guys are more familiar than I with his current teachings, just as I dare say I am more familiar with his past teachings than some of you. So report that he currently teaches ‘Knowledge' via the ‘Keys’ and that the final outcome of the ‘Keys’ is the disclosure of very particular meditation techniques that are to be kept private.

How far you are prepared to describe those techniques is debatable I suppose. I personally dislike the vows and secrecy around the techniques of Knowledge as I think it all it does is preserve some sort of ‘empowering spell’ over people. All the same, it should surely, at the very least, be reported here that there are elements of Rawats teachings that require secrecy. (like Masonic practices if you will). So please don’t nit-pick over what Rawat’s teachings are. It is plain. He teaches ‘practices’ which his students/followers/premies (whatever your current acceptable adjective is) do. And there are loads of good resources to refer to.PatW 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pat, and welcome back. I am glad you see this as a simple, easily resolvable situation, but I have found it just aint so. I would like to include Service, Satsang and Meditation but have found no scholar who has reported on them, by all means look for yourself. And if you read Shri Hans' book you will find almost exclusively references to Kabir and the Ramayana etc. which is like quoting Shakespeare or the Bible to English speakers. They are not "teachings," more like confirmations of the Guru-Shishtra tradition. In the article on Jesus, they have struck the same problem. The only teachings I can find there are some advice to "turn the other cheek" and reported threats he apparently made to one day return and judge the f*ck out of everybody. The parables by which he taught are elusive and subjective, as are Prem Rawat's stories and examples. If you want to say the Knowledge techniques are the teachings, then they are already there. I agree the privacy of the techniques should be included, if we can find a source that adequately tells us about it. Rumiton 14:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't 'want to say' anything.. It's obvious what his teachings were and are, and what should be said. There's plenty of support in published material for this. You apparently just aren't looking very hard. Look at Sophie Collier's 'The Odyssey of a Young Woman in the 70s' for example. All the other books, Downton etc. surely describe these things too. There is tons of info out there. Also Rawat's official Keys Website itself (as linked from the article) describes how the final phase of the programme involves being shown the techniques of meditation etc. It seems to me that your emotional involvement is possibly blinding you. After a break from this article and a brief read and look at Collier, it seems that you have somehow so effectively tied yourselves up with 'Wikipedia red-tape' and indecision over what Rawat's teachings actually were/are, that you cannot move. I am sure it would be an easy task for anyone to write a sensible sentence or two giving the correct gist of his teachings and where they came from, after reading from a few sources. Anyone, that is, other than someone stuck redefining the word 'teachings' and whether, as people describe them, they were actually DLM's teachings or Rawat's. It seems to me that premies actually do not want to find the 'scholarly reports' for some reason. Not everything has to be from some scholarly report anyway does it?
Would you argue the following is describing the Mahatma's teachings not Rawat's? Sure there are elements of his father's fire and brimstone approach - but is this not one example of good evidence that Satsang, Service and meditation were the fundamental teachings at that time? Of course Mahatma's put a personal spin on sometimes but these guys were his official initiators, acting on his authority to teach his teaching? Do you deny that?
After the mahatma had taught us all four techniques, he said that the reason for our positive experience was the connection of grace that was established between us, the disciples, and Maharaj Ji, the Guru, in this mystical initiation. We should not teach the meditation to anyone else, he cautioned. The people we taught would be spiritual bastards, initiates without gurus. And furthermore, he added, if we taught the meditation to anyone else, we would suffer too, if not in this life, in the hereafter. Undoubtedly we would be reincarnated as snakes, he said. To me this seemed like typical Hindu mumbo-jumbo. I felt that there was good reason to safeguard the first three techniques of meditation. They were more advanced and should be learned in a certain setting, like a Knowledge session, where everything could be properly explained and all questions answered. But I thought Indian threats were not a good way to protect them. Hellfire and brimstone, from whatever culture, just isn't that scary. The Divine Light Mission plan for God-realization did not consist of meditation alone. It had suggestions on how to approach every aspect of daily life. The first and most basic part of the prescription was meditation in doses of an hour in the morning, an hour at night. Then came service. Service was roughly equivalent to the Buddhist idea of "right livelihood." Any activity you did should be spiritually elevating. You should not engage in any employment you found immoral or that hampered your spiritual growth. Ideally, everything you did should be selfless. After service came satsang. This is a Hindi word that means "the company of truth," and it generally refers to conversation about the spiritual realization and experiences of the conversants. Satsang also is used to refer to meetings of groups of premies for the purpose of talking over spiritual subjects on a more formal basis. -----If Maharaj Ji wanted to run a little religion based on his father's teachings and he was able to find people to join, so what? That was his business, not mine. It all seemed so simple. etc. etc. (from Sophie Collier)

Here's another question. Who on earth would contest that Rawat's teaching were not Satsang, Service and Meditation? My point is that it is not a controversial point. You describe Rawat as a 'man' but you don't have a scholars report that he has been confirmed 'male'. Where do you draw the line? At an editor's whim?

Also you say: And if you read Shri Hans' book you will find almost exclusively references to Kabir and the Ramayana etc. which is like quoting Shakespeare or the Bible to English speakers. They are not "teachings," more like confirmations of the Guru-Shishtra tradition.
I disagree. Rawat's father's book is perfectly representative of his beliefs and is presented as such. It reflects his teachings, preachings, whatever you care to call it. And to deny that fact by pointing out that Shri Hans librally quotes from other Hindu texts is absurd. These gurus all inherited their 'teachings' from previous ones and spent their lives trying to give them their own autonomy. Rawat is no different. His teachings are essentially the same only packaged differently and appended considerably for modern consumption. Shri Hans was not so shy about quoting from his Hindu influences. On Wikipedia you don't have to get all worried that your not giving the correct gist of Rawat's teachings according to your own beliefs and interpretation. What you should do is report the manner of those teachings in a way that normal people can understand. You seem to think that only 'students' can get the true gist so 'let's just avoid the issue'. Read what you wrote again. Shri Hans teachings WERE confirmations of the Guru tradition. And there's nothing at all wrong about saying so. Rawat's teachings also have the same roots. Go and read Radhasoami Reality or David Lane...they all confirm this. So does Ron Geaves if you look a bit closer to home. ( I ..er..edited this a bit as I was a bit annoyed earlier...sorry)PatW 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Pat, there is a history of people with similar opinions to yours flooding this Discussion Page with pompous, long-winded, pseudo-intellectual rants that ignore past discussions, demanding a reply, then disappearing without responding to it. I don't intend to write a nightly thesis in defense of Wikipedia's policies. Please précis your argument into a post of 100 words or less and resubmit it. Rumiton 12:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pat, as we have experienced in the past, engaging in polemics does not do anything for this article other than escalation, bad feelings, and frustration. If there are specific edits that need to be made, these should be assessed on their merits. So, please make concrete proposal, so that we can evaluate them in the context of the current article and WP'S content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, please stop characterizing editors here. You did it above with Andries and now with PatW. You owe them apologies. Read the no personal attacks and the assume good faith policies again. Ex-premies aren't your whipping post.

Shri Hans's book is absolutely applicable and pertinent to Rawat's teachings because Rawat claimed and still claims the inheritence of Shri Hans's status as Perfect Master, Satguru, etc., upon Shri Hans's death. Prem Rawat went to court in India in order to fight for ownership of DLM India after the family split, don't forget, and despite losing DLM India to his mother and brother, Rawat continued with the U.S. DLM which was always called IHQ, or "International Headquarters" when it was both in Denver and Miami in 70s. Hans Yog Prakash was considered a sacred teachings text by premies of Prem Rawat and was published in the 60's by Divine Light Mission, India, which probably holds the copyright, not Prem Rawat, Elan Vital, etc. I've gotta say, I would be quite surprised if Prem Rawat doesn't still treasure the book as his father's teachings, many of which he emulated and adopted -- Prem Rawat always referred to Shri Hans as my Guru Maharaj Ji. You can't swipe that one under the rug. It's pertinent and a published work. Sylviecyn 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

For a person that enjoys attacking other editors off-wiki, I find it quite unbecoming for you to preach civility here, Sylvienc. Also, please avoid escalation by polarizing the discussion.

Hello Pat, welcome back. I would suggest to restore the previous version of the teachings that was recently deleted, and slowly improve upon it with good quality secondary sources. What would not be acceptable is to add unsourced original research a some have suggested above, or to use primary sources such as Hans Ji Maharaj book in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jossi. Yes, I agree. Regarding my 2 lengthy posts to Ruminton. I am genuinely regrettably too busy to engage fully here but I really wanted to explain to him how uneccessary it is for him to labour over the delusion that there is some difficulty in describing the past teachings. I will not elaborate further than I have below. I hope that what I have said may make things clearer and be helpful. Since I last looked the 'teachings' were removed. By whom? Presumably by the majority premies editing here, like brothers Ruminton and Momentius. Do I have the time to change the article right now? No. Common sense tells me therefore to write a quick post or 2 hopefully enlightning those who have made it their responsibility to trash the teachings section, on why that is silly. If I can't change the article I can at least try to change the hearts of those who do. I would like to think that is an acceptable reason to post as I have done. So please understand that if I have the chance to properly apply myself to editing later I will. Changing the world by changing hearts is all for now! (sound familiar?) PatW 11:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not teachings

Sylvie, I am feeling a bit grumpy at the moment. Just got a private message on YouTube from an anonymous ex-premie who claims to know me. Venomous. If you want to see a personal attack, I could quote from that. Anyway, my comments above were not intended to be attacking, they are just an expression of frustration at some very long posts appearing here (1000+ words) that have to be responded to, when all the material in them has already been covered in discussion several times. There is a limit to anyone's patience.

Jossi, I disagree with restoring the deleted Teachings section. I am not being wilfully obtuse. Teachings should not be a place to report on his activities, as it did, it should describe any previously unknown concepts or facts that he (or his father) has transmitted. If his audience already knows what he is saying then he is not teaching them anything. I find nothing like this in Hans Yog Prakesh, just obvious references to values that were already well accepted in Indian culture. Of course, there is always a point to be found, but it is left to the listener to decide what it is. The same with Prem Rawat. I have often heard him say "What I am telling you, you already know." That is what makes this Teachings subject difficult. Regarding sources, Reinhard Hummel picked up on this point strongly, and Hunt mentions it obliquely. Rumiton 02:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ruminton. I repeat there is no difficulty to describe Rawat's teachings except for those tied up with their own agendas about the subject as you most certainly appear to be judging by your words here.. Your personal opinion of what should be said is surely not in line with common sense or common practice. Any sensibly compiled article about a religious teacher will include some historical context to give the gist of where the persons ideas have come from or from what tradition he arises. My point is that Rawat is no exception. He has a past and his teachings clearly derive from them. You seem to be falling into the trap of 'revisionism' whereby you want to accord Rawat more uniqueness than he deserves by excluding describing the past teachings which you apparently think have nothing to do with Rawat. I sense you fear that including info about the Indian roots will detract from Rawat's new style and uniqueness. It's like a Beethoven fan who is so inspired by the maestros works that he wants to emphasise the uniqueness of that man's music above all others. Actually Beethoven, like anyone, had strong influences which no future historian would dream of omitting. Only a starry-eyed fan would be capable of proclaiming that Beethoven's music was entirely unique. We are all products of our culture. I wish you would read religious scholars like David Lane or Mark Jurgensmeyer who have studied and written much on these particular Indian traditions. They say that throughout history, many charismatic new religious leaders (or more particularly their followers) shy away from describing their teacher in terms of historical similarities. Why? because they want to emphasise their leaders 'uniqueness' his 'autonomy'. These teachings are 'His' not something more prosaically inherited or that anyone else could teach. It goes without saying that an encyclopedia should not include any of that kind of 'advertising' nonsense. I obviously hit a nerve with you in my last post which was sincere and not some kind of 'pseudo-intellectual rant' as you describe. Your trite dismissal is unwelcome. I don't care if this subject has been discussed at length before. I think you are still apparently are not clear on this matter so my bringing it up is not innappropriate.

Further to this, here is a perfectly good example of a legitimate scholarly source which comments on Prem Rawat's teachings. Why won't you use this? Because you disagree with what he says or the reasons I gave above I suppose. If so, that suggests a double-standard on your part.
'The teachings of the Divine Light Mission, led by the boy guru Maharaj-Ji, are essentially those of Radhasoami as well, and other spiritual leaders of the time were also influenced by Radhasoami teachings'
For a summary of Maharaj-Ji's teachings, see Jeanne Messer, "Guru Maharaj Ji and the Divine Light Mission' in Robert Bellah and Charles Glock, eds. 'The New Religious Consciousness (Berkeley: University of California Press 1976) pp 54-55. (from 'Radhasoami Reality, The logic of a modern faith' by Mark Jugensmeyer.

Did you know for example that Rawat's father according to David Lane (another well-respected scholar) was 'reportedly' actually initiated by Sawan Singh (of Rahasoami fame) prior to his meeting Sarup Anand? Sawan Singh was the top Radhasoami guru of the day. The Radhasoami teachings were essentially Satsang, Service (Seva) and Meditation (using almost exactly the same techniques), their motto was 'Work is Worship' which was also the 'DLM motto'. The Sant Mat tradition wherefrom Sarupanand came and which DLM preferred to associate Shri Hans with, and which indeed Rawat recently described on his website, has many close links both geographically and in practices and beliefs with Radhasoami.
What I am trying to impress upon you is that it is entirely innappropriate to brush under the carpet (as you manifestly want to do) the origins of Rawat's teachings, believing as you do, that they are somehow 'more unique', 'special' , 'important', 'relevant' etc. than those of his predeccessors. I get the impression you only want to draw attention to his current 'modus operandi' which you think is more palatable. It is very obvious to anyone impartial that that is disingenuos - intentionally misleading. I don't doubt your sincerity about wanting people to get a good impression of Rawat from Wikipedia, but really, you insult peoples intelligence by witholding interesting information which righly belongs in an encyclopedia. Did you know that David Lane has written extensively, criticising 'fake' guru's who try to claim 'uniqueness' by changing the teachings they learned from others slightly to apppear as if they are 'unique' and 'special to them' 'only obtainable from them' 'by their unique Grace' etc. and how they and their followers deny that their 'revered unique leader' learned anything from the past. This phenomenon itself is the subject of scholarly examination. Ie. The attempts by charismatic leaders to bolster their self-importance, and accentuate their exclusivity, by denying their roots or changing pre-existing teachings so they have the stamp of a unique leader whose teachings are his alone and invented and controlled by him. All you are going to do by discouraging a full description of the roots of Rawat's teachings is to do him a huge disservice. We are living in more enlightened times. You can only be seen as complicit in a sad attempt to make Rawat seem more unique than he is by trying to restrict information about him. I wish you premies would wake up and see that by being so precious and emotional, you are actually doing Rawat a disservice. Let him be who he is - don't do exactly what you accuse past premies of doing, imposing your ideas on how to present the teachings - putting him on a bigger pedestal than he deserves so he can only be later knocked off. I sense huge dysfunction in premiedom as a result of all this. Also I personally sense that many (not all premies) have huge resentment to premies who deviate from the party-line attitude to Rawat (like me for instance). I encourage a scholarly report here on Rawat's teachings not so as to detract from him but a service to truth. If that diminishes some 'religiously held beliefs' about him so much the better for everyone concerned. I'd encourage you to embrace a more broad-minded, courageous and realstic view of that which you hold so precious.PatW 10:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pat, I am trying to help you become a more effective communicator. More is not better. Condense...condense...CONDENSE!! Then summarize what you have got left. Your first post had 997 words, about 897 too many for the info conveyed. This last one was 1071 words. It's way too much for anybody to read properly. But scanning through I see a mention to the Sant tradition. Ignoring the presumptuous and goading writing style, I agree with you. The Sant background is interesting, and I would like to find out more about it. I didn't intend to get rid of it from the article, I just don't think it belongs in Teachings, for the above reasons; it appears to be just cultural background to his work. I thought it appeared elsewhere, and it used to, but now it is gone. I will try to find a way to put it back in that will suit all here. Rumiton 15:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For goodness sake it's not that much to read and I've given a lot more substantial info about where to find sources about his teachings than you've contributed. As you well know, to find the proper sources and distill them into a sensible article will take considerable reading, so the least you might do is to carefully read a few instructive words from someone who knows a lot more than you about the subject. I am not goading you, I just refuse to beat about the bush with you over this. I've read all the above discussion and frankly, I'm astonished that you consider yourself qualified to edit this section at all. I'm sorry but if you think that the Indian Roots of Rawat's teachings don't deserve a mention in an encyclopaedic section about his teachings then you are wrong and should not mess with other's prior work so disrespectfully. Why don't you go read the books I've referred you to above? You still sound as if you believe the cultural background to his work bears no relevance to his teachings. Let me remind you that for decades Rawat has taught Meditation (still does), Satsang (still a part) and Service. What you need to describe fully is the way his teachings have changed AND where they come from. This subjective idea that his teachings are somehow so esoteric and personal you have some 'difficulty' describing them is utterly irrelevant. It should not be a sticking point. That sort of description is not relevant here. A much simpler prosaic, scholarly synopsis is required as Jossi and Momento actually seem to understand. So please stop counting my words and apply your precious time to understanding what I've already said. If as you say, you are only prepared to superficially scan discussions and criticisms of your editing approach here then no-one will take you seriously. Maybe you should respect that someone actually took the time to explain at length to you what is wrong. No more from me for a while I think. PatW 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK Pat, I read every word of that carefully. Did you read mine? I said I deleted the Sant stuff by mistake. Rumiton 07:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with PatW that there is a tendency to dismiss relevant statements from reputable sources if contributors do no like what these reputable sources state. Andries 12:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the "Antecedents" section. It is a clumsy add on that doesn't solve the underlying issue. And that is - do we have a section or an article on Rawat's teachings? I would rather work on a "Teachings" article separate to this article. Largely because editors have some fundamental differences and I think they should be worked out in the back room before becoming a part of the Rawat story.Momento 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

See my draft User:Andries/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat. Andries 08:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Antecedents wasn't intended to be the final solution, just maybe a way to move forward in acknowledging the Sant thing and the Indian cultural significance. I still think you will have a hard time finding things that really meet the definition of teachings which surely must be something like "Things PR has made people aware of that they didn't know before." Andries' version seems very disjointed, hopping from "...there were no set teachings" to "...and this is what scholars said about them." I think we have agreed before that Wiki:NPOV is not met by inserting a string of contradictions. Good luck with the draft. I will watch with interest. Rumiton 09:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We can only write what you think are Rawat's teachings if we find reputable sources stating the same. I do not see a contradcition in my draft, because what scholars wrote about the teachings did not disprove Hummel's opinion that there was no systematic set of teachings. Andries 09:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That argument does not work, Andries. If scholar X says ABC, and scholars U,V,W,Y, and Z do not say "not ABC", it does only mean that scholar X has made the statement ABC, not that ABC is a fact. Furthermore, it also means that scholar X may be in a minority position, as being the only one that is asserting ABC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The argument does work because 1. the burden of proof for Rumiton's statement that there are contradictions in the draft is on him which he did not provide and 2. Kranenborg wrote more or less the same as Hummel about the lack of systematically developed set of teachings. Andries 12:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Apart from that, it is like writing an article on cats and saying "according to some scholars there is no such thing as a cat" then going on to talk about them. Anyway, Hummel actually wrote Eine systematisch entwickelte Lehre hat die Divine Light Mission weder zur Zeit des Vaters Sri Hans noch der des Sohnes bessessen. He is talking about the Divine Light Mission, and his word Lehre to me clearly should be rendered as "doctrine." "Neither in the time of the father nor that of the son did the Divine Light Mission possess a [systematically developed] doctrine. Both saw [a doctrine] as presenting more problems than advantages." Rumiton 09:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure there will be a way to resolve this problem, with good will all round. Though the fact that no scholar seems to have investigated his work in many years poses difficulties also. Rumiton 09:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my impetuousness but I have removed "Antecedents" until we create an acceptable "Teachings" article at User:Andries/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat.Momento 12:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your impetuousness is forgiven. My goodwill is barely dented. Good luck with the Teachings article. Rumiton 13:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced claims made in the Intro

The introduction makes the following claims:- "The Prem Rawat Foundation, established in 2001, promotes his message in eighty-eight countries via print, video and television...." and "Between 1965 and July 2005 Prem Rawat spoke at 2,280 events around the world." I cannot find a source for either of these claims, and both seem to me unlikely to be true. The former implies TPRF is formerly incorporated or has official representation in 88 countries which I doubt, and the latter implies Rawat spoke at an average of 57 events a year for 40 years. Schedules previously published by Elan Vital for 2002 and 2003 show only 35 and 33 events respectively, and these were very active years for Rawat. In the 80s and 90s he was much less active, and in the late 70s he mainly spoke only at large international festivals of which there were only a handful a year. His attendance at speaking engagements as a child in India would be impossible to verify. Unless reputable sources can be found for these claims, I suggest the first is changed to something like "worldwide", and the second removed completely.--John Brauns 23:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources for these statements were present when these were added. I will dig them out from the history. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I could not find a source for that statement in the article's history. Maybe someone else will have better luck, otherwise if can be deleted. As for the "eighty eight countries" I think is was once on the TPRF website, which now reads From Russian to Chinese, Japanese to Tamil, Greek to Finnish, the materials produced by the Foundation are translated into more than 70 languages.^[1] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if TPRF was the source, it should have been preceded with something like "According to the Prem Rawat Foundation...", rather than presented as fact. Also, followers of Rawat distributing material produced by the foundation in 88 countries does not justify the claim that the foundation promotes Rawat's message in those countries. Anyway, let's wait a few days to give others a chance to comment. --John Brauns 06:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Promoting his message in 88 countries" doesn't require "formal incorporation or official representation in 88 countries". It is sufficient that TPRF has contributed to the production and distribution of print, video and television that is being read and watched in 88 countries. So, on the contrary, it is almost certain to be true. Never the less "worldwide" is short and accurate. "Between 1965 and July 2005 Prem Rawat spoke at 2,280 events around the world" is not likely to be untrue. Most people define an "event" as a single incident, not as a group. EV/TPRF describes Rawat getting up on a stages and talking as "events", whether its two events at two locations in one day (an award ceremony in the afternoon and an introductory event in the evening) or six events spread over a week at the same venue. Just as a singer who sang for five nights and two afternoons in one club would describe it as seven "performances" or "recitals" rather than one, Rawat going to Amaroo and taking to the stage six or seven times to talk equals six or seven seperate and unique events. 57 events a year for forty years is probably conservative.Momento 07:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"...promoting" in "88 countries" does seem ill-defined and to me sounds promotional. Worldwide looks good. Rumiton 10:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Momento has it right re "events." It's a matter of usage, and I have often heard of "the morning event" and the "afternoon event" counted as separate things. Rumiton 11:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Elan Vital disagree with both of you as they describe the 5 days at Amaroo as one 'event' ("Maharaji has accepted an invitation to attend a 5-day event at Amaroo, ....."). The etymology of the word within the Rawat movement was 'festival' then 'program' and then 'event', and for multiple day events, it was always used in the singular. The word certainly is not synonymous with 'performance', and I would say that in wider English usage, the words 'conference' or 'convention' are better comparisons, which clearly would be singular for a multiple day event. Anyway, if it is unsourced, the claim has to go. :-) --John Brauns 11:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed TPRF as they're certainly the source.Momento 23:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes as discussed. If TPRF come back with a public source, then they can be reinstated, suitably qualified. --John Brauns 08:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

With the removal of the Teachings section, the claim made in the lede that Rawat is a teacher also looks pretty unsupported - the various scholarly quotes are primarily concerned with noting what Rawat's teaching is not, and the whole effect is to produce a 'mystification' of what Rawat is about - which makes for a pretty crap encyclopedia. ither someone has to come up with a definitive statement of what Rawat teaches (is he a meditation teacher for instance)or the term teacher has to go or at least becomes 'claims to be a teacher'.

--Nik Wright2 11:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you care to look at the opening paragraph you'll see that "Hadden, Religions of the World, pp.428" is cited (3). Hadden says - "The meditation techniques the Maharaji teaches today are the same he learned from his father, Hans Ji Maharaj, who, in turn, learned them from his spiritual teacher [Sarupanand]." 'Knowledge', claims Maharaji, 'is a way to be able to take all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you...'.Momento 14:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So Rawat is a meditation teacher - that is what the lede should say, unless there is reference to show he teaches something else. There is certainly no precept or set of precepts that amount to 'a teaching', or which can collectively be classed as 'teachings'. The judgement of how this should work is simple - if the word teacher is used it should be inline linked to the WP article Teacher, if the scope of the term teacher within a given article is too specific to be meaningfully linked to the WP articleTeacher then the text of the article needs to make clear what type, category etc of teacher is being referred to.

--Nik Wright2 09:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Meditation teacher sounds good and supported by the source. At least this reduces some of the unencyclopedic but very persistent vagueness from the summary and the article. Andries 09:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "and teacher" from the summary as a simple way of resolving the redundancy. If the term Meditation Teacher is preferred this will require a more substantial re-working.--Nik Wright2 09:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

what is going to happen to the teachings of Prem Rawat? I strongly oppose deletion of this from Wikipedia. Either this should be described in a separate article or re-stored in this article. SeeUser:Andries/Teachings_of_Prem_RawatAndries 14:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm very happy to work with you at User:Andries/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat. I certainly don't think we should stick it back and then start editing it/.Momento 14:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, help would be needed, as the sandbox that Andries has created is selectively sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Like where? Andries 15:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you accept Momento's proposal to work with you on that Sandbox, which he made that twice already? Then, when you both are happy with it, you can submit that section for review by other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That would save a lot of back and forth and ensure an NPOV presentation of the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

One of many examples of what is wrong with your sandbox.

His speaking style was described as resembling a "Christian evangelical campaign."[11][12][13].

[11]"The teachings were essentially Hindu in origin, embracing a worldview that accepted transmigration of souls, karma, human avatars and imbedded in an interpretation of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. However, a discerning listener would have recognized the radical voice of the North Indian Nirguna Bhaktas, also defined as Sants, notably Nanak and Kabir, especially in the message of universalism, equality and the focus on inwardness rather than the outward forms of Hinduism."

[12]""In a satsang in 1975 in Orlando/Florida, he speaks in a language similar to American evangelical campaigners"

You say something in the sandbox, but miss context "in one satsang in 1975", and miss to present other viewpoints in the sources offered. That is called selective sourcing, and quoting out of context, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I had copied this from the article Prem Rawat See [1]I had not originally written this, but Rumiton or Momento, so I think that you are holding the wrong person responsible for possible out of context quoting. [2]Andries 15:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not know who wrote that with these sources, but my assessment remains: The sandbox article which you are working on is biased through selective sourcing, quoting out of context, giving undue weight to certain viewpoints, and painting a distorted picture of the subject. Again: Would you accept Momento's offer to work with you in that sandbox? I think it is a generous offer that can save all of us a lot of time and aggravation: If you and Momento agree on something, I am sure it will be easy to gain consensus about its addition to the article.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I know who is quilty of the example that you gave of selective and out of context quoting and I understand that you want this person to start working on the draft that I started. Fine, let us give it a try. Andries 15:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Andries. I will follow your progress. Happy collaboration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already tried to deal with the examples that you gave of Momento's out of context quoting and his selective use of sources. Any more examples? Andries 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That comment does not bode well for your agreed collaboration with Momento. Pity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am only repeating your own words. Andries 16:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What I will do, is to make long long excerpts from sources in the references. I believe this will help to detect possible out-of-context quoting. And when there is out of contexting sources then long excerpts clearly help to correct them quickly for the interested readers. Please note that different contributors think that different things are important when using a certain source. Andries 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any out-of context quoting, selective sourcing or undue weight in User:Andries/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat. Of course, I am aware that some contributors will not like the article, but all is sourced to (often multiple) reliable sources. Please make objections while referring to wikipedia policies and do not dismmis reliable sources becuase you do not like/believe/agree with what they state. Andries 18:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing, as you know, is only one thing. You need to abide by NPOV, NOR, NOT and BLP. After all, you can have a properly sourced article that is incompatible with WP, that pushes a POV, that applies undue weight, that contains original research, that misquotes sources, as you well know. My assessment of your sandbox stands. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)\

Your assessment does not help if you do not try to be specific. Where is undue weight, selective sourcing etc.? Andries 18:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, if you do not try to be specific then I will ignore your assesment because unactionable. Andries 18:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that you agreed to work on your sandbox with Momento, and I wished you good luck with your collaboration. I was not sarcastic. I really hope you and Momento can work out a suitable "teachings" section that you can propose as an addition to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I know the policies so generalized statements about policies without trying to be specific for the issues at hand are not helpful. Andries 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divine Light Mission

How come that the [Divine Light Mission]] disaappeared from the summary? The only reason why Rawat is notable is because he was the leader of the Divine Light mission. Andries 16:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Added link to DLM in childhood. This is not a "chicken or egg" thing. Rawat is imporant because he became a Guru, not because he became leader of DLM.Momento 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat has been on Brisbane (where I live) television daily for several years now. His program Words of Peace, last I saw, was rated 6th of all Bris programs in popularity, and is watched by thousands daily. If he hadn't done anything else, anywhere in the world, he would be notable for this. Compared to his recent work, the Divine Light Mission is an ancient irrelevance. Rumiton 11:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"the Divine Light Mission is an ancient irrelevance" What a bizarre approach to history. Besides DLM is Elan Vital so there is nothing 'ancient' about the connection with Rawat. Further as there is no evidence that Rawat could ever have become 'notable' without the DLM vehicle, his notablity is inextricably linked with DLM. Though if notability for a WP entry is based on a league table of what is popular on Brisbane cable TV, I guess any reasoned notion of why something has an encyclpaedia entry can be dispensed with.--Nik Wright2 10:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

DLM is not ElanVital, besides a legality. Unless you want to dismiss the profound differences between these as explained by numerous scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

from Elan Vital The organization was incorporated in the USA in 1971 as the Divine Light Mission, as a non-profit corporation and in 1974 was recognized as a church by the United States Internal Revenue Service under section 501(c)(3). The organization changed its name to Elan Vital in 1983, by filing an entity name change, [1] Elan Vitals sates in its website that the name was changed to remove Indian labels and to present Maharaji's message in manner more congruent with Western culture.

Perhaps you would explain what is wrong with this entry ? --Nik Wright2 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hardly any organisation that exists today will be the same as its predecessor of 30 years ago, even the Catholic Church. Evolution happens, even to those who don't believe in it. DLM and EV are chalk and cheese. Rumiton 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We can all come up with our own views, observations and comparisons, the point here is to present evidence. Legally Elan Vital(US)- which owns Eurcom, and Visions Int. - and Elan Vital(Aus)which owns the Amaroo operation (if not the Amaroo land)are both renamed Divine Light Missions, and between them are responsible for a major part of the global promotion of Rawat. If you believe there should be material on WP that defines how DLM/EV has changed, then assemble the evidence; BUT DLM is EV no matter how you cut up the history.--Nik Wright2 12:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rumiton, DLM is an ancient irrelevance, and EV is a more modern irrelevance. As Geaves says "Maharaji has chosen a route of perpetual transformation in which organizational forms are created and utilized and then destroyed, thus providing flexibility to deal with rapidly changing social attitudes, to provide pragmatic solutions to internal problems, and above all to keep his students focused on the core message rather than the peripheral requirements of organizational forms". I"m happy with Nik Wright2's edit of the lede.Momento 10:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought removing "and teacher" improved the article. Re DLM, all things are relative, and if the only thing Prem Rawat had achieved in his life was perpetuating that organisation for a few years he would be a lot less notable. He has said and done a lot more interesting things since those days. His "vehicle" now is much more TPRF than EV. Rumiton 11:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the word "teacher", and keeping "he is a speaker", because that is misleading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I take that back, the next sentence provides the necessary context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on TV popularity being linked to Wiki notability...yes, it is. This is a peoples' encyclopedia, we are people, and the people who watch Words of Peace (it's not cable, it's free-to-air) are people too. Rumiton 11:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Criticism

Why is there Zero on criticism when a simple google search will return plenty info on it? I just tagged it NPOV for the sake of accuracyGalf 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of criticism in the article, but not in a separate section. Many of the sites you refer to are not considered reliable sources as per Wikipedia policies, as these are personal self-published websites and violate WP:BLP. I also invite you to read the many archived discussions on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here [[3]] is a page from the Evening Standard calling him the "leader of a cult engaged in image clean-up". While I have NO particular beef at all or even special interest in the subject I find the article just short of miss-leading and by no means neutral. Also, having read the contents, warnings and discussions on the talk convinces me even further of this imbalance, hence the tag. Galf 16:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see anything in that article that refers to "image cleanup". The title is quite sensationalist, but in reading the content of the article it is all about a donation made to the VSO. Feel free to add this material to the article, if you think it is appropriate, without forgetting to add the other side of the story as well, as per Mark Goldring — CEO, Voluntary Services Overseas, and the Sheriff of the City of London. Yes, this article has been hard work for many years, and many discussions have taken place, including peer review, and a GA review that resulted in a substantial re-write early this year. If you have specific concerns, please state them and involved editors can address them, I am sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That source is explicitly not reliable, as it is a tabloid publication. It is exactly the sort of source/content that is strongly discouraged on articles about people. Vassyana 13:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, someone asked for a specific focus for my criticism, I'll just leave one here. I might have been somewhat hasty in my tagging (apologies for that) but my opinion hasn't changed about the imbalance of this article. One articular thing is the use of "trappings" in a sense that seems to indicate that he "evolved" his message, without ever being pointed out that this "evolution" is the main reason for criticism. Just my 2 cents....Galf 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See [4]. Andries 19:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The merging of that content as well as the deletion of sources that do not comply with Wikipedia WP:V and WP:BLP was discussed at the time of the merger. I do not see what is the point of bringing that up at this point, unless it is for disruption. As for Galf comment above, I would argue that your interpretation is an ungrounded opinion. In Wikipedia we report what reliable published sources say about a subject, and in this respect the "evolution", as you called it, has been reported by numerous scholarly sources as provided in this article. Galf: if you have a reliable source that describes the main criticism as one based on the evolution of PR's message, please provide it, otherwise, let's stop with the speculation and inferences based on unreliable criticism and personal opinions, as these are not useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I supported the merger, but I think all >90% of the contents complies both with WP:V and WP:BLP. They may be personal opinions, but personal opinions of relevant experts in the field and hence suitable for inclusion. Andries 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to go to another round of this? We discussed these issues at length during the merger and none of the good sources were lost. Then we had a GA review that forced us to look even deeper into how to balance the article, which resulted in a much improved version as the criticism was incorporated throughout the text. Time to move on, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am not happy the way much contents that was sourced to reliable sources has been deleted. Andries 01:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS is only one side, Andries. As explained to you many times, we need material that complies with all policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. If any sources were deleted they were because they failed our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, the main reason why the contents was deleted is because several contributors did not like what they stated, not because the contents violated any policies. Andries 02:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That is disingenuous, Andries. You botched your chance at mediation in that dispute due to your intent to subvert WP:DR and escalate unnecessarily. So, do not come here to make claims that paint a negative picture of editors acting in good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not [subvert wP:DR. I only expressed the opionion that Momento and I were so far apart that arbcom could not be avoided. Andries 02:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Now is my turn to say "Oh please". ArbCom does not deal with content disputes, and you should know that by now. Read the comments by the closing mediator, as well as this if you need to refresh your memory about your subversion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

At the moment that I filed the request for mediation, I still had hope that a compromise was possible, but when the mediation (request) was pending, Momento made several comments and edits that made me at a certain time change my mind. At the moment, I am a bit more hopeful. I do not think that I have subverted the mediation. Andries 02:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point in your involvement in Wikipedia, Andries, I would argue that you should pay closer attention to what other editors/mediators/admins think of you, rather than what you think of yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think so. What is written there is in complete correspondence with what I wrote here Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/28#Prem_Rawat_3"if any party or parties involved in an RfM sincerely holds and expresses the belief that mediation will fail and be referred to the Arbitration Committee regardless, mediation cannot be effective and this Committee refuses to accomodate such situations.". Andries 02:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Which proves the point made by the MedCom that your were not interested in mediation, did not apply to mediation in good faith, and that your intention was to escalate to ArbCom, thus subverting WP:DR. From WP:RFM/COMMON: Failure to demonstrate good-faith interest in mediation: This is different from the parties agreeing to mediate; the parties may all agree to mediate, but not do so in good faith. For example, if one party enters mediation with comments such as "mediate so we can go to ArbCom," they obviously are not interested in achieving the desired result of mediation: compromise-based agreement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, at the moment that I filed the mediation requests I was sincerely convinced that a compromise was possible, but Momento's comments and edits during the pending mediation (request) made me strongly doubt the possibility of reaching a compromise. So both my story and the comment of the mediation committee can be perfectly reconciled. Andries 17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You have either a poor recollection of the MedCom case, or you have selective memory. Anyone reading the history of the MedCom case at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2 can easily see that your intentions were to editwar, escalate, and were never interested in a negotiated compromise that is the aim of MedCom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot read it there. Andries 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Chronology

Thanks to editors who have gone to so much trouble in attempting to produce a reasonably balanced article within Wikipedia guidelines. I do not intend to edit the article, only to offer 3 suggestions that I hope editors will take seriously and consider.

1. Nine of the 15 lines in the introduction are taken up with information about the 1970s up to around 1980. Isn't this unbalanced given Mr Rawat's 36 year history in the west? Only 2 lines contain information about his current activities. The introduction provides almost no information about the 10 year period leading up to the present during which he has been very active.

2. The intro states, "and abandoned the traditional Indian religious trappings from which the techniques originated." Did the techniques originate in Indian trappings? The statement appears to be factually incorrect. Unless a number of reliable sources make the same claim I suggest that it be regarded as an extraordinary claim (I think that is the correct term) and deleted. It greatly detracts from the article.

3. Editors may favor chronological order, however, given the level of Mr Rawat's current activity and the enormous increase in interest in his message worldwide, perhaps the article would have more appeal if more focus was given to the last 10 years or so. I found the Recent years section most interesting. How about moving it to just below the introduction?--Maximango 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Maximango. I have placed some pointers in your talk page that may hep you understand better how Wikipedia works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you --Maximango 02:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coming of Age - Encouragement to leave the ashrams?

In the 'Coming of Age' section, it is claimed that Rawat "encouraged students to leave the ashrams". What is the source for this? Apart from the sudden and brutal closing of the ashrams in the early 80s, I recall at no time did Rawat encourage his followers to leave the ashrams. --John Brauns 16:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is sourced to this: Prem_Rawat#_note-34 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As pointed on many occasions this use of the term 'students' is anachronistic -it certainly isn't used by the claimed source. Rawat did not have 'students' until the 1990s and the use of the term should be limited to references that are coeval or post date a verifiable use of the term student by Rawat.--Nik Wright2 08:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Rawat was known as a "Perfect Master" from the beginning. Calling people who have a "master", students is logical and appropriate. "Premies" was the most used term but that would requuire an explanation.Momento 09:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see it as an important point. If my one-man campaign is successful I will introduce the word "enthusiast." This will supercede all previous versions. Rumiton 10:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The word student for early followers of Rawat is not supported by reputable sources and is hence a form of original research. Andries 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the most 'correct' thing would be to somehow explain that students were universally called 'premies' until the 1980's when such Indian terms and customs were being gradually phased out. Also in the 90's Rawat, who had been known up until then by his title 'Maharaji' or 'Guru Maharaji'), started to favour being called by his surname 'Rawat' ( I would presume for the same reasons). Of course these facts are supported by all of the legitimate resources, scholarly reports etc. as is reflected by their dates of publication. Although the transition may not have been described in any one particularly succinct way, all these publications talk of 'premies' and 'Guru Maharaj Ji' prior to the 80's/90's and later books, like "Peace is possible' adopt the modern equivalents. I think it is a worthy concern that readers, who maybe familiar with one or other terms, may be confused unless there is some clarification. Many people will remember 'Guru Maharaji' or 'Premies' but may not make the connection with 'Rawat' or 'students'.
Whilst 'enthusiast' may have a literal meaning which strikes a chord with Ruminton, it's certainly not in common circulation quite yet. Maybe because that word has come to have a rather 'hobbyist' connotation in these heathen times! PatW 16:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pat. Yes, we are already using the term "premie" in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Pat, you are probably right about "enthusiast", it brings to mind train spotters and people who collect butterflies, but I feel that without these connotations it sums up pretty well how most people I know feel about PR. In the early years many words were applied, mostly by the press, including the egregious "followers." I still don't see it as a very important point in a necessarily short article like this one. Rumiton 13:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC) (though I have no problem in acknowledging the "premie" thing.) Rumiton 13:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Check (lack of neutrality in article as written)

The problem with the article, and related articles, is that it is little more than propaganda for what has been a destructive religious cult. The so-called "knowledge" is, by itself, dangerous and harmful, particularly if the "music" "meditation" is practiced on one side, as taught in the 1973 era and if the "word" "meditation" is practiced during all waking hours as taught in the 1973 Knowledge Sessions.

Practitioners, generally, have no sense of humor left anymore. Bal Bhagwan Ji has a trim figure. The other brothers are all so fat and ugly that they make even their mama look good.

Wowest 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have a negative opinion on this subject, but please note that these pages are not designed to discuss the subject or to cast aspersions about the subject or related living persons, rather, this page is designed to discuss the article. For information to be added to this article, which is meticulously sourced, you need to abide by the content policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP and refrain from adding your own opinions of the subject as you did with your edits, which have been reverted accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wowest, I think you need to have a major look at Wikipedia rules and procedures if you are to become a helpful contributor to Wiki articles. Please don't insert any more of this insulting denigration anywhere on Wikipedia. Rumiton 12:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV problems

As there was no criticism in this article, despite Criticism of Prem Rawat redirecting here, I have boldy readded criticism from an older version of the article, to restore some balance to the article. Catchpole 08:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's nice, I have equally boldly deleted it. I suggest that you read the Discussion archives. This article in its present form has been the subject of an enormous amount of discussion, with a lot of input from experienced neutral editors and Wiki administrators. To summarize the outcome: articles written by Christian religious scholars largely for their own readership are unacceptable in a Biography of a Living Person whose religious/philosophical background is Eastern. The converse would be true about Christian groups, we wouldn't quote a Buddhist's opinion, nor either of their opinions about Islam. And apostates are recognised as people with a very definite and often jaundiced point of view. Their opinions, websites, blogs etc, are not considered reliable sources for articles about the religious or spiritual groups they have left. Without rules like these the discussions here would be endless and futile. Thanks for your understanding. Rumiton 09:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re the old Criticism of Prem Rawat page, because of the points raised above, and following Wikipedia policy, the neutrally sourced criticism has been included in the article. If you look for it, you will see it. Rumiton 09:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very rude to a) slap on a POV tag because the article doesn't represent your POV and b) to do it again, without discussion, when a long time editor points out the obvious.Momento 11:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Catchpole may have missed the fact that the criticism that is well sourced is already included in numerous sections on the article. After a failed GA review earlier this year, a variety of editors endeavored in integrating the scholarly criticism into the article while reducing the fluff that was present at that time. Yes, the article may not have a "criticism" section, but the criticism is indeed included alongside other material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deleting "in public."

(diff) (hist) . . Prem Rawat‎; 12:57 . . (-10) . . Rumiton (Talk | contribs) (→Leaving India - Removed "in public." Nobody knows how he acted in private.)

Of course "nobody knows how he acted in private," but if he acted like a teenager in public, the fact that it was public is significant. I think you should have left "in public" as it was, for the same reason you gave for deleting it -- that nobody knows how he acted in private -- but I'm not going to undo it myself. Wowest 07:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wowest, I am sure you have got the point by now that rumours and hearsay have no place in an encyclopedia, especially rumours that relate to illegal acts, such as your sentences above. You have done this before, and it isn't at all funny. This talk page is a public place and the laws of libel apply. I suggest you delete the above paragraph immediately. If you don't, I will, and will report you to the administration. Rumiton 10:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There, Rumiton. I deleted the part that might have been interpreted as suggesting that Goom Rodgie might have broken some law. I have no reason to believe that the act described was not legal in the time and location in which it allegedly took place. I merely point out that, although it is a matter of public record that Goom Rodgie acted like a teenager in public when he was a teenager, there is no public record about how he acted when he was in private. There is, however, such at thing as "personal knowledge," which is a topic in contemporary philosophy. Neither one of us has any reason to believe that the guru's private behavior and public behavior were different. I did not suggest putting that passage into Wikipedia itself, did I? No. I pointed out that it was an unreliable source. Different countries have different laws at different times. In Los Angeles County, it is currently illegal to shoot an American bison from a streetcar. As far as I know, there are no American bison in Los Angeles County at this time, and until a few years ago, there was a long period of time in which there were no street cars, but the law has always remained on the books. I could be mistaken, but as far as I know, there is no law against shooting dangerous animals in London. I don't know about England, but in the United States it is not illegal to have done something which was legal at the time of the act and was subsequently made illegal. Such a prosecution would violate our Constitution. In any event, the guru and I both live in Los Angeles County, so the only libel laws that would apply would be those of the State of California, and under the relevant laws, I said nothing that is libelous, or even close. Still, he has every right to file a lawsuit against me here, if he wants to, whether or not it has merit. Wowest 19:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remain on-topic... . This is not a page to engage in polemics or to make our opinions on the subject public, rather, this page is provided to discuss the article only. This is not the first time you have been politely asked to refrain from doing so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Photo

Got a bit carried away and found a new photo. What do you think?Momento 10:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, buddy. I agree the old one lacked something, but I think he got caught in mid-blink here. He seems to be squinting. Not a great look. Rumiton 03:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep looking.Momento 07:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)