Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Merge 2 Criticism of critics 3 Criticism and hate speech 4 New version of article 5 Paid advertorials or articles? 6 Reasons of removals by Andries 7 Claim of divinity 7.1 Critics inability/unwillingness to understad NPOV 8 Objectivity and ex-members' testimonies 9 I object to Ron Geaves as a serious reference 10 The Revised Article 11 The critics phenomenae 12 to Jim, Gracie and Mary Moore, Request for comments

Merge

(Copied from Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat)

Eventually the Criticism of Prem Rawat article should be merged into Prem Rawat. I have the language skills to do this myself, but not the time.

We all need to agree on a plan for what a merged article would look like. What I myself would like to see is some early biography about the man, an outline of his rise to prominence, a section about his teachings (summary or detailed doesn't matter to me), a section about disgreements with his teachings, and a section on general reactions to his career/movement. The 'reactions' section could have gushing testimonies about how wonderful his devotees' lives have become, as well as bitter denunciations by ex-followers about how much time they wasted, how they were duped, etc. And if anyone has the stomach for it, a list of charges (like he seduced my daughter in an Indian ashram in 1987) and official rebuttals (like no way, man I was in Canada the whole year!). --Uncle Ed 18:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That could work. Now, who is going to do this? maybe Zappaz has time? --4.60.12.136 18:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree we need a plan. My concern with your proposal to merge is that the main article is already too big. This, by the look of it, is a pretty small NRM with a very polarized situation. Giving it more weight than Scientology, for example, is just not right. The Scientology article is much smaller (and probably because of that it managed to stabilize itself). So far we have had pressure from a small group of ex-followers to expand on their POV, mainly those responsible for the ex-premie website. Wait until a group of followers join the discussion to push their POV (so far I have only seen one of them active in the discussions) and we will end up in an escalating and never ending situation. My counter proposal is as follows. Reduce the fluff on the current article and reduce the criticism as well to at least 25% of current size. Both pro and con have their own websites, so what is the point of repeating the points made on these? A couple of references to these sites will suffice. Proposed structure: 1. Short Intro; 2. History of movement (1971 to present day); 3. Practices and Beliefs; 4. Controversy and Critics; 5. Testimonials ( a few testimonials from current followers, and a few from ex-followers, Short one paragraph each); 6. External links; 7. References. I'm willing to give it a try, but I don't want to waste my time unless there is concensus on this proposed treatment. Comments? (copying this to main article discussion as well)--Zappaz 21:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I support Zappaz's plan wholeheartedly, for three reasons:

1. Whoever's willing to do the work should be able to plan the work.
2. Zappaz sounds like he's got enough of a handle on neutrality to do it without bias.
3. Less is more. --Uncle Ed 20:41, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. I will wait further for a couple of days to make sure there are no objections to this plan and then I will proceed with the edit.

1. Ed: Could you keep the main article protected for now and protect the Criticism of Prem Rawat as well? . I will post the proposed article on Prem_Rawat: Proposed article when I am done editing (sometime next week).
2. Andries, given that it seems that you are in good terms with the ex-followers, could you ask them to submit three short testimonials of about 100-150 words each? I will send a request for same from the rawat foundation. I expect that both will want more space, but let us explain to them that we want to keep the article nimble and to the point.--Zappaz 21:55, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Criticism of critics

Hi Zappaz et al, I agree that shortening and editing the article is a needed direction. Regarding the proposed "controversy and critics" section, I looked at the Scientology article to compare and noticed it was titled, "controversy and criticism". This may seem a minor distinction, but part of the way cults deflect criticism is by labelling their critics "hate groups", focusing on the "critics" rather than the "criticism". See below, lifted from the Wiki article:

"Scientology vs. the Internet Probably the most extensive undertaking of Scientology to address the growing exposure of what Scientology actually is and what it is about is Scientology's efforts to undermine and halt freedom of speech on the Internet. In 1995 Scientology attempted to silence the discussions taking place on the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup, an act that resulted in thousands of Internet users around the world taking a closer look at Scientology.

Scientology's response was to issue a statement insisting that their assault against free speech is actually an assault against hate speech, making numerous claims about hate and violence. The history of the ongoing Internet conflict is examined in the Wikipedia entry Scientology vs. the Internet."

Compare this with the current Prem Rawat article which actually lists specifics against individual ex-followers who have spoken out, attempting to detract from their credibility, libel them, and give additional exposure to the cult's defamation of character campaign of its critics. I request that this subject be given a more neutral treatment, similar to the Scientology article. Thanks, Mary Mary Moore 11:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem, I will label that section "Controversy and Criticism". As far as I can see, defamation of character is happening on both sides of the controversy. Good NPOV will mean to represent both. Hopefully I will be able to keep these to a minimum. Regarding testimonials, will you be able to get three testimonials from ex-students for the artcile? Must be kept at 150 words max. each--Zappaz 17:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Zappaz, I certainly didn't intend to start a big philosophical discussion, merely show how the critics section was treated in a similar situation, where I'm sure a lot of attention was paid to make it neutral. Have forwarded the request for the testimonials. Mary Moore 01:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, the difference between "defamation of character" of Prem Rawat with that of his critics is that his critics never claimed to be a great guru, great person or whatever. Critics of Prem Rawat compare his claims with his deeds and the results of his teachings. That is why I think that defamation of the character of the critics is not relevant for the article. An analogy, if I, for example, criticize George W. Bush about his intellectual ignorance about the Taliban and Iran then my character defects are not relevant. I never wanted to be a politician. I had a similar issue with the article on Sathya Sai Baba. It seems very common with controversial new religious movements. Andries 18:18, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not have the time to engage on a debate about this issue, but the fact is that the moment a group of people claim to own the moral high-ground on a subject, they will become scruitinized not only on their claims, but on their behaviour as well. So your examples do not apply. I also checked the discussions on the Sai baba talk page, and I can see that your stance on this was challenged throughout, so I do not see what is your point in referring to that article. --141.76.1.122 21:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

141.76.1.122, I do not follow you. I only said that a person who chooses to pose as a guru and teach meditation techniques is open and should be open for public scrutiny. The people who believe and have followed this person and found him wanting and then openly criticize him are open to scrutiny, in so far, their involvement with this guru was serious, genuine and sincere. Their criticism of the guru is, of course, open to scrutiny too. Apart from the authenticity of their involvement with the guru, one could ask whether some of them have an ax to grind but this should not be based on mere speculation or conspiracy theories. There should be some strong documented indication that they had an ax to grind otherwise no suspicions should be mentioned. With regards to the same thing with my former guru, this was a comparison that may give others more insight into my point of view and into the fact that this unfair, insulting character assasination of critics is very common by supporters of controversial new religous movements. The defenders have to resort to ad hominen attacks on the critics because they ran out of reasonable or logical ways to defend their guru. Andries 07:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Criticism and hate speech

All attempts to define and limit "hate speech" in democratic countries have failed. The biggest stumbling block has been the inablitity to distinguish between legitimate criticism and "hate-filled attempts to deliberately inflict emotional pain". For example, there is no way to say:

• Lesbians should not teach in the public schools

...without someone saying (a) this is hate speech, and (b) the person who said this should be punished, i.e, dismissed from their teaching job.

Sorry for the digression, but I think it is relevant, because a lot of people try to suppress criticism of their objects of devotion (a church, a political system, a sexual practice or "orientation") by applying a two-pronged strategy:

1. Get people to agree that this kind of criticism amounts to "hate speech"; and,
2. Use administrative and legal means to punish hate speech

Wikipedia tries to stay above all this stuff... --Uncle Ed 15:50, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agree Ed, but the problem is that this becomes and endless regression...

1. Group A calls Group B a "hate group" when they attack their objects of devotion
2. Groups B then calls Group A as silencers of free speech
3. Group A can then claim that Group B is is trying to silence their right to free speech to call Group B a "hate group"
4. ... and so on, and on, and on...

The way I see it is that there is no way to "resolve" this. Wikipedia should stay above all that stuff. Absolutely. --Zappaz 18:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New version of article

The new version of the article is coming together. I did not have much time last week to be able to complete it as promised, but I am confident I will have a good draft I can post by end of this week.--Zappaz 04:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Zappaz. If you prefer to keep working on it by yourself, that's probably best. If you want me to see a draft before you post it, I'm willing -- but you know your own writing process better than I do. So I'll just keep holding my breath! ;-) --Uncle Ed 13:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey Ed... I could do with some help... :-) It will be great if you can look at the draft before posting. Where/how do I send it to you? -- Zappaz 19:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WOW!! This is one of the best articles I've ever read at Wikipedia, Zappaz! I'm recommending it for Wikipedia:brilliant prose, as soon as we polish up a few rough spots, but overall it's excellent!!

I never know about the homage line (arti) thing, and the idea that his teachings are called Knowledge reminds me of Jesus and the "Gospel".

This is the first version that makes me want to go and find out more about the man and his teachings, rather than go run and hide because there's so much contention about the article (!). You must have worked on it a long time: it shows in the overall organization and in the wealth of detail.

Good work, Zappaz! --Uncle Ed 17:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cynthia Gracie here.

I'm one of the cult's "detractors," or "vocal critics," or "apostates," but I refer to myself as an ex-premie (in the context of my previous involvement in Prem Rawat's destructive personality cult). Otherwise, I'm just an adult human woman with no labels, except those that Elan Vital attaches to me in its "hate-group" FAQs.

I have a couple of corrections, but I don't want to do the edits myself because I believe this article to be nothing more than an advertisement for Prem Rawat and his cult. You're promoting a destructive personality cult leader and don't even know it.

However, for the sake of retaining some facts within inside this article, the below-listed items are indeed factual corrections:

1) Prem Rawat's wife's maiden name is Johnson, not Johnston; Fact.

2) This sentence within the article is incorrect:

"Although many interviews have been published, detractors say that Maharaji only gives interviews to journalists that have positive feelings about his teachings and that the last time he faced the press was in 1973."

If you look on the Elan Vital FAQ page (url below) it is EV itself that makes the following statement or assertion, not ex-premies:

"Maharaji speaks to the media from time to time. He is happy to grant interviews to journalists with a sincere interest in his message. Because he travels approximately 11 months each year, and because his schedule is very busy, interviews usually need to be arranged at least two months in advance."

We "detractors" are quite accurate in our research, testimonies, and about our past involvement with Prem Rawat. It's a pity you don't give any credibility to ex-premies, especially those of us who were up close and personally involved with Prem Rawat both recently and in the past.

http://elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/3/0/

Also, all of the media articles you link to on TPRF are paid-for advertorials. Canned interviews, nothing more. None of those interviews in the publications section were conducted by mainstream, objective journalists. I dare any current student, Elan Vital, or Prem Rawat himself, to provide an actual recent interview of Rawat that was conducted by a real journalist who works in the trade, and without predetermined and Rawat-approved questions.

This Wikipedia article is a travesty on the truth. Fact.

And the prose ain't all that great, either. (Opinion)

3) In addition, the resources section neglects to include the late Margaret Thayer Singer, Ph.D, who was one of the world's foremost authorities on thought-reform and destructive cults. She was the Professor Emeritus at University of California, Berkeley and is widely published. She was regarded as a scholar and highly respected in the field of psychology. Fact.

Yet, you editors chose to include Dr. Ron Geaves as an authority, someone who claims to be an objective scholar. But, Dr. Geaves has been a devotee of Prem Rawat since the early 1970s. He never mentions this in his papers or lectures. This is not only odd but quite unscholarly. Fact.

4) I don't believe that ex-premies have asserted that Prem Rawat isn't an accomplished jet pilot. I'm quite sure he is an excellent pilot. The assertion by ex-premies is that he didn't pay for his own training or the exclusive use of the Gulfstream-V and other jets that his devotees purchased for him. There a distinction there that ought to be made. Also, I was one of his assistants when he first started his pilot training in 1979, so I do know he didn't pay for it out of his personal funds, which under the U.S. IRS Code is illegal.

By the way, I don't think you included enough instances of Elan Vital's FAQ links (the ones that libel and demean me and other ex-premies as a hate-group, as well as EV's use of bald-faced lies about us). How about adding it about ten or twenty more more times? It is a fact that constant repetition is how cult leaders recruit and keep devotees. (This is intended sarcasm.)

I've done my homework about Prem Rawat. I also have my own personal experiences because I worked with him closely during 1979-1980 in Miami, Florida at the free-labor, cult-compound at a company called DECA, a/k/a "The Complex," where secrecy was the daily theme and Rawat was always called "The Client." Thousands of followers throughout the world donated cash money, and hundreds more worked there.

I personally witnessed law breaking there. For instance, instead of purchasing the Boeing International Specifications for the B707 jet reconfiguration project (Rawat's first private jet aircraft) a devotee of Prem Rawat photocopied and smuggled volumes of those B707 specifications right out of Boeing International facilities in Seattle, Washington. I know this because I received them and prepared them for Prem Rawat personally. Everyone in that small circle knew it was illegal, we discussed it, and it was done to save money. Btw, there was a gold-plated toilet in that B707. I worked in the design department where Rawat visted often and I saw the finished product. Fact.

Many of these DECA "employees" suffered severe, long-term illnesses due to Prem Rawat's neglect of them, some for up to and over ten years after the DECA B707 project. In order to save money there was no workers' compensation insurance at DECA which is a legal requirement of any corporation that has employees. Others suffered physical breakdowns from working unreasonable hours at Rawat's personal request. This resulted in long-term physical exhaustion and related illnesses. Maharaji would call us "fried,"or "burn-outs." Then he'd make even more unreasonable demands without regard to any sense of time constraints and human decency -- not as our employer -- but as our Lord -- he was considered our Lord then. Current followers deny it, but they continue to consider him as their Lord and master -- the walking incarnation of God on Earth. Fact.

Prem Rawat a "humanitarian leader?" Joke. (That's opnion, btw, but also true.)

These "employees" who worked for free (we ashram premies did get about $10.00 weekly for working up to and exceeding 80 hours of work per week) were exposed to a soup of toxic chemicals, because Rawat was too cheap to provide adequate safety equipment such as proper respirators. These people were given particle masks! I was there. I am a witness. Fact.

You don't know what you're doing here -- you really, really, don't. It's a great pity, and very, very sad to think that anyone could fall prey to Rawat's cult as a result of this article -- especially young folks. You have no idea how much abuse and pain Prem Rawat has inflicted upon so many of his followers over thirty years. And now a Wikipedia editor, "Uncle Ed" is so convinced by all of these lies he wants to join up! There is ample evidence of Prem Rawat's chronic abusiveness, but you have chosen to ignore it. Fact.

You don't have to point out that I'm angry. Right now, I am not angry with Prem Rawat, but I sure am quite angry with you Wikipedians who have absolutely mangled the truth about Prem Rawat in this article, while patting yourselves on the back for a job well done. You're ignorance of the issues surrounding thought-reform and destructive cults is transparent and sorely lacking.

I will never, ever recommend to anyone that they read or use Wikipedia as a resource for anything, much less donate money to it. You blew this article badly. Nothing about this article is brilliant or outstanding except all of the lies, libel, and spin.

So,at the risk of expressing some moral authority here:

Shame on all of you!

Sincerely,

Cynthia J. Gracie (my real name)

August 11, 2004

Hello Cynthia, You can here write your own version of the article. then Zappaz, Ed, Jossi and I can copy it to the main article, if we think it is good. I have done my best to make this article good and so did Zappaz esp. lately and Ed, I believe. Editing that temporary article would be more constructive behavior than criticizing us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat/temp Thanks in advance. Andries 17:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Will be great if you can polish it as needed. I am looking now at a couple of testimonials to add. Also, we can safely remove the Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat page now that we have it all integrated in the main article. Could you do that Ed?--Zappaz 14:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To cyntia: Thanks for the suggested corrections. I understand that you are one of the "vocal critics". In my research I have read some of your many, many posts on the ex-followers forum, but please note that this is not a page for polemics... --Zappaz 19:03, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

TO: Zappaz: If my comments are being characterized as polemic, how is it that Uncle Ed's comments to you are not? Uncle Ed states:

"I never know about the homage line (arti) thing, and the idea that his teachings are called Knowledge reminds me of Jesus and the "Gospel".

"This is the first version that makes me want to go and find out more about the man and his teachings, rather than go run and hide because there's so much contention about the article (!). You must have worked on it a long time: it shows in the overall organization and in the wealth of detail.

If that's not polemic, I don't understand the definition of the word. Is "convincing" a criteria of Wikipedia when approving a final draft of an article? I find this to be suspect because I was under the impression that this is an encyclopedia, something that disseminates facts. Uncle Ed is expressing that your article is so good because he is "convinced." So much so, that it makes him want to "find out more" about Prem Rawat. Doesn't that comment prove that the article is an advertisement for Prem Rawat? How is that not biased or polemic?

Btw, I didn't say that I wasn't biased, however, I do know fact from fiction, especially about Prem Rawat and his cult. Are you trying to intimidate me by saying you've read my "many, many" posts on the ex-premie forum? If so, you won't succeed. I've received online death threats from followers of Prem Rawat. Why? Because I tell the truth. I express my opinions too, but I know a lot of facts. Therefore, if you're trying to frighten me, I'm telling you right now to back off. I'm interested in telling the truth. I stated clearly in my post yesterday what was fact and what was my opinion.

I am curious what your particular interest is in writing this article. Are you a student of Maharaji? If so, does that not make you biased? If not, then why haven't you properly researched the basic facts about Prem Rawat? Also, peer-review and criticism is the basis of good research and scholarship. Without criticism and peer-review, we'd all be thinking the world is still flat or that germs are mal-humours, no?

Furthermore,the resources section lists the book The New Believers by Barrett. I claim that it's biased because he only interviewed members of Elan Vital and did not contact any former followers. That's not scholarship, it's bias.

The section about DLM/EV/Maharaji is 4-1/2 pages long - pages 325-329. This book was published in 2001. The discussion of EV and Rawat comes from Glen Whittaker, a decades-long devotee of Prem Rawat. It is a recitation of Glen's views about the Elan Vital, and the book contains no information about opposing views. Here are the editorial footnotes at the end of the chapter, which are his source notes. They say:

"111. Unless otherwise stated, all quotations are from Glen Whittaker, former National Organizer of Elan Vital in the UK, in correspondence with the author, 28 February and 23 June 1995.

113. Heather Evans, UK spokesperson of Elan Vital, in correspondence with the author, 15 March 2000."

Zappaz, in order to be considered a scholar, people are taught how to do proper research. That requires a scholar to be responsible for researching their material thoroughly. Barrett had opportunity to do so and didn't contact any former followers for his segment in his book about Elan Vital/Divine Light Mission and Prem Rawat. The book was published in 2001. Therefore, it's biased as a resource.

This article contains many errors and it's problematic that the sources haven't been thoroughly researched by you as the primary author. I gave you the information about Dr. Ron Geaves and his decades of involvement with Prem Rawat. There is also ample evidence of his involvement with Prem Rawat. How can that resource stand and be considered scholarly?

Again, without criticism the truth can never be discovered about anything. That's the basis of good, solid research and discovery. If you're only interested in slapping an article together without thorough research to find out the facts about any subject, then you have done well here.

However, this article is filled with bias and factual errors. For instance, Marolyn Rawat was not just a "stewardess," she was Prem Rawat's devotee long before they married. She married someone she considered to be her "Lord of the Universer" and Master. There is ample evidence of this on EPO in her own words.

It seems every time ex-premies have tried to clarify points or make corrections here they have been dismissed as NPOV or biased, but that has not been the case with the "New Religous scholars" or Elan Vital itself. This is the reason that former followers of Prem Rawat have decided not to be involved in writing this article. Without input from former followers, this article will never be factual, balanced or NPOV.

Cynthia - August 12, 2004

Paid advertorials or articles?

Zappaz, I believe that the TPRF "articles" are paid advertorials. They look like it. If this is so, then to call them newspapers articles would be incorrect and misleading. Andries 19:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andries: this is for you. If you want to conribute to this article, please do so... but do some research before editing... The articles in the press section do not seem to be advertisements. Check for example the Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/38496115.cms --Zappaz 19:37, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I have to admit that I can not be sure but they look strikingly familiar to paid advertorials by the Sathya Sai organizations. Andries 19:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Probably some of these are and some aren't. The fact that we are stating the source (The Prem rawat foundation) is enough for NPOV in my opinion.--Zappaz 19:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why not just have one link to the TPRF Press Room, and one to the EPO Press Room as was done long ago but reverted? Whereas there is doubt about whether the TPRF articles are all paid advertorials, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the EPO articles are mainstream press articles - John Brauns

Reasons of removals by Andries

• ad hominen attacks on the critics that I explained extensively. See here above
• his claims of divinity are clearly proven facts, not just interpretations
• two press article are enough. There are already many links to pro Prem Rawat websites.

Andries 18:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey Andries. I thouroughly object to many of your edits. You need to do better at explaining your reasons. I am reverting many of your edits.

• ad hominem attacks. These are not such. What you have removed are facts supported by documentation.

--Zappaz 19:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, okay, sorry, about the ad hominem attacks. I think I made a mistake. Andries 19:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you did. The critcs rebuttal is clearly presented in the next paragraph. ALl other edit reverts explained in the history page. Thanks -- Zappaz 19:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I ran out of patience. Your revert of the claim of divinity was too much. How can anyone not interpret Maharaj's assertions as claims of divinity?? I do not think that I will edit this article anymore. Instead I will tell people that Wikipedia contains unreliable information. Andries 19:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article says it clearly: Some interpret this as a declaration of divinity and a reference link is provided. Regardless of your opinion in this matter, we cannot say in the article that it is a declaration of divinity, but we can say that some see it that way and some others don't. This, my friend, is NPOV. Regarding your statement about editing this article or not, do I sense some unwarranted animosity here? -- Zappaz 20:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, the reason why I think I will not edit this article anymore is that too little of my time and effort is translated in persisting material. It is a proven and documented fact that he made claims of divinity. The evidence is available. In NPOV policy proven facts should be written down as such. If I dispute that 1+1=2 then should my view included in Wikipedia? Andries

If you want your edits to be persistent, I would encourage you to do some resarch before posting.... Many of your edits feel like "gut-feeling" edits bases on your POV (e.g. hominem attacks, above). Regarding the claims of divinity issue, given the contention in this article, I thought that it will be better to keep things more neutral, by providing both views. Your assessment that claims of divinity are a fact, is in direct contradiction with other statements made both in the article and in the talk pages. So I think that is safe to keep as is. --Zappaz 21:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Direct in contradiction with the article? Where? I know it is disputed by premies but still the evidence that the premies are wrong is available. Yes, I was a bit too fast with the ad hominem removal. Andries 21:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is disputed by the organizations (read their FAQs [1]) and by the man himself (see below). So I would prefer to leave it as is Some interpret this as a declaration of divinity. For NPOV, it makes sense, don't you agree?--Zappaz 22:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"I’m me. I am a human being. Many things have been said about me. Many of these things have come from people’s own emotions, good or bad. I’m proud to be a human being. I am very happy that I have this life. I am also happy that I can feel joy and pain like everyone else. I’m happy being me. Some people would love to put labels on me, but I am just me." Source: Conversation with Prem Rawat. The Prem Rawat Foundation[2]

Zappaz, that is what he says now. But please read what he used to say. Read and watch the videos. It is safe to say it the way you say it but it is like saying, most mathematicians agree that 1+1=2 Andries 22:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Claim of divinity

I recall from my high school days reading about Rawat, then known as the "perfect spiritual master". PR about him gave the impression that he was claiming divinity. Ah, but what does "divinity" mean? Does the Wikipedia have a divinity article that discusses the various claims made about specific human beings throughout history?

Roman and Japanese emperors were accorded "divine" status, even when their people were well aware that all previous emperors had died (i.e., weren't immortal).

Jesus made several claims, such as "I am the son of God", and by the 4th or 5th century was officially considered to be divine -- although the Trinity and Christology articles surely have a wealth of detail about just what that's supposed to mean.

My interest comes in, of course, because I'm a follower of Sun Myung Moon who more or less openly has declared himself to be the Messiah -- interestingly enough, his wife Hak Ja Han is considered a co-Messiah!

Okay, enough digression/background. Zappaz and Andries, how shall we handle the "claims of divinity" issue for Prem Rawat? --Uncle Ed 13:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ed, interesting fact that you are a follower of Rev. Moon.... Regarding this issue my view is that it is clearly presented in the article in its current form. Read carefully the Controversy section. It is good NPOV writing, supported by references and scholars.

Quoted below from the main article

According to a transcription of a speech that Maharaji gave in India when he was 12 years old, he declared that he will bring peace to the world and that he was the true master (satguru) of his time, [3]. Some interpret this speech as a declaration of divinity. [4]. The FAQ of one of the organizations that support his work (See Elan Vital), rebuts this by saying that in Indian culture it is routinely declared the Guru as God or even greater than God. To the man on the street in India, "Guru is greater than God" is a common statement.[5]. They also say that in India the title of "Lord" is given on the the basis of affection or admiration[6]. According to Barrett (see references) Maharaji used to have a near-divine status.

My proposal is to keep as is, unless someone can improve this without compromising NPOV. -- Zappaz 15:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To Zappaz: I don't see how you can claim that the entire bulk of my writing on this discussion page is all an ad hominem argument. I provided facts, including first person eye-witness evidence. The issue of Rawat's divinity is concealed by the revisionism which you entitle "Evolution." Unless you study and understand the dynamics of how cult-leaders use coercive persuasion to influence and persuade people, you cannot make any authoritative or object contributions to this article, especially if you only rely on the sociologist of NRMs. Further, Uncle Ed is a member of a known cult. Also, just because his messiah or avatar openly claims to be a god-in-a-bod doesn't make that true. Therefore, Uncle Ed's particpation in this article highly prejudical, given he admits that he worships someone who openly claims to be the messiah. Prem Rawat doesn't openly claim to be "the Lord of the Universe" anymore in those terms, but it is true that many of his followers still see him that way and even though he is subtle about it, he doesn't dispute it. Just because I have come here and said "Shame on You," doesn't mean I don't have a brain in my head and don't know what I'm talking about. And, why haven't you answered by question: Are you a follwer of Prem Rawat? Yes or no is a simple answer. Why won't you answer? Unless you do answer this question you remain suspect about your participation in the writing the bulk of this article.

Btw, in the section about teachings, all the Prem Rawat supported websites claim there is no religion, spiritual path or congregation. The controversial issue here is that Divine Light Mission, now Elan Vital has enjoyed tax free status as a registered non-profit church in the U.S. for over thirty years. That's a verifiable fact.

If you are completely NPOV or neutral in writing this article, why won't you respond to my questions? Is it because I"m a woman or have you been warned by the Elan Vital to avoid me? (That would not be out of the realm of possiblity.) Can you answer one simple question? Are you a follower of Prem Rawat? I think that anyone who reads this article has a right to know that and you don't have to give up your real name.

Cynthia Gracie, August, 14, 2004

Cynthia, what you write about Ed comes close to a personal attack. Making personal attacks is not allowed and could result in getting banned. Besides I do not think that Ed's involvement in the Unification Church is a problem when writing here. For example, when I was a self-deluded follower of Sathya Sai Baba, I had no problem whatsoever to look objectively at other religious movements. I only could not look at my own movement objectively. What counts is the quality of the edits. Not the religious affiliations of the contributors. I have to admit though that I am interested too in Zappaz' background but s/he is not obliged to answer your question. Andries 18:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cynthia, you agression is unwarranted, and making personal attacks will not make you any friends around here. (What has anything to do with you being a woman? How can you know if I am a man or a woman?)

Do not expect me or others to respond to your questions. This is not a discussion forum. We are busy people helping to enhance this encyclopedia. I personally do not have time for endless debates and arguments. particularly when bigotry is brought into the conversation. Just this time I will attempt to answer, with the hope that you will tone down your remarks.

• I am not a follower of Prem Rawat, just a person interested in this subject from a researcher's viewpoint.
• My view is that the article as it stands now, provides a well balanced view of Prem Rawat, his career and teachings. More than 50% of the article is dedicated to the controversy and the critic's POV (that IMO is still excessive, given the tiny number of vocal critics in comparison with the number of active students).
• The fact that Elan Vital is registered as a church is already included in the article

Please note that this page is for discussing content, not for engaging in polemics neither to engage in personal attacks against contributors

If you want to contribute to this article, and can do this within NPOV guidelines, please do so. Just remember that any POV will be mercilessly edited out or NPOV'ed by me or others.

--Zappaz 22:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andries.. Thanks for these references. My research tells me that when you see a statement as "Guru Maharaji is Brahma", the speaker is talking generically of the satguru. I read many of Maharaji's early speeches and I have yet to find one in which he says, in first person that he is the satguru. He always talked in third person when referring to the divine aspects of the satguru, most probably because a true master manifest in the recogintion of such by a student. In fact, he may have been referring to his Guru Maharaj Ji, Hans Ji Maharaj -- Zappaz 22:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're wrong, Zappaz. Here's one instance where Rawat clearly explains that he is the satguru:

"I didn't want to be Satguru. I didn't understand why it is me. I would have been satisfied to be the humblest servant of the Satguru and not to be one myself. It was not my desire. But my father sent his love to his oldest three sons and complete prostrations to his youngest. So they crowned me with the crown of Rama and Krishna and put the tilak on my forehead, and again the voice came: '& You are he. You must take this Knowledge out to the world."'

By the way, where did you learn that a "true master manifest [sic] in the recognition of such by a student"? Or is that just your, ahem, POV?--Jim

What we are discussing here is the claim of divinity, such as "I am God". Claiming to be Satguru is not the same as claiming to be God. The POV of recognition by a student is mine, of course, based on my studies of the Bhakti path (bakthimarg, or path of devotion). There is so much miss-understanding in the Western/anglo-saxon culture in regard of divinity, particularly due to the cultural context in which such statement is brought forth. So, it is not a a matter of beign wrong or being right, it is a a matter of grounding your assessments.--Zappaz

Why is it so hard to admit that you were wrong, Zappaz? You categorically claimed that Rawat never said he was the satguru but, as I showed you, he did. In fact, you don't know the subject matter here nearly as well as you think. Indeed, it's most interesting to see just how much your particular POV -- the "miss-understanding" [sic!] of our culture "in regard of divinity" and all that ...... And then that silly word-game of yours about it not being a matter of being right or wrong but rather "grounding your assessments" ... I'm telling you, this is getting downright absurd. You've got a Moonie and some other spiritual know-it-all who doesn't have the basic integrity to admit his mistakes, even when they're in black and white in front of him, creating and standing guard over this stupidest of articles imaginable. Too funny!

I will not respond to your attacks as they add zero value to this article, and this page is for that purpose alone. The absurdity is all yours. --Zappaz 21:35, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, my "attacks" might add great value to this article if they stop you from distorting the truth. You continue to criticize people for expressing too much POV in their writing but it turns out that you are the one whose POV has so seriously skewed this article. In fact, your POV is so extreme it apparently compromises your honesty. An honest person, faced with the evidence that Rawat did indeed claim to be the satguru, would have the decency to admit his mistake. You just blurt out some obscure bullshit about "grounding your assessment". You're as bad as Jossi, in that respect. He wasn't able to admit he was wrong either. As a result, your article is terrible.

Regardless of the discussion about "claims of divinity", the text you quoted is very interesting. Could you please provide a reference to it (name of the publication, date, etc?) so that we may quote it in the article? In this regard, Andries, we need same information about the references you provided, otherwise as you know will need to be removed due to copyviol. We need a source at least. See Wikipedia:Copyrights you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (sic)-- Zappaz 15:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, here it is http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/didnwant.htm

Doesn't this show how ill-equipped you are to be editting this article? You have proven that you have such a poor understanding of the subject matter that just days ago you were arguing that Rawat never claimed to be the satguru when, in fact, that was -- and is -- a most central claim of his. Worse, you have avoided dealing with your mistake in anything like a straightforward, honest fashion. How in the world did someone like you, who knows nothing about this subject, find yourself in a position where you're getting so defensive about it? This isn't scholarship, this is a joke. You are a joke here, Zappaz. AS IF you ever had the right to sit in judgement on people like us who'd actually lived through this tour. And yes, you have most definitely been most judgemental about us. The only thing is that, just like the way you dealt with this mistake, you don't have the integrity to be candid and forthright. You should get away from this article immediately. Let others write it and maybe, just maybe, you might learn something.

Cynthia here. This is a link to EPO's page where there are many quotes in which Prem Rawat claims divinity.

http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/mastergod.htm

"Look it's beyone liberation. It's beyond all those things. Beyond all concepts. In this lifetime, we have the opportunity to realize, to be with GURU MAHARAJ JI. Be it not GURU MAHARAJ JI - You know maybe they didn't call him GURU MAHARAJ JI - Maybe they called him Lord, anything to be with that power. To be with that thing. To be not infinite. And yet to be with the infinite. To be here as individuals. And yet to be able to be next to the person who is everything, GURU MAHARAJ JI. The Lord all powerful."

Guru Maharaj Ji (Malibu Ca, June 11, 1978)

"And this:

"And Guru Maharaj Ji's making it so simple by just simply saying, "Look. Surrender. Let go." All those philosophies have occupied pages and pages and pages. "Oh, you have to do this and you have to do that." It's very simple. It's been made very, very simple: just let go! If you can, let go. Let it happen. Surrender. Not to this world. Not to this maya. To Guru Maharaj Ji. Have that faith in Guru Maharaj Ji.

"And all we have to do, premies, is to really, just for once in our understanding, realize, "Man, that's what Guru Maharaj Ji wants me to do. To surrender. To let go. Who am I? Who am I? Who is this crazy mind to sit there and object?"

"But if Guru Maharaj Ji says to let go, if Guru Maharaj Ji says to make effort . . . you know, like in that song, "Your wish is my command." It's all there. It's all been simply laid out, premies. Guru Maharaj Ji is here. You are here. You have Knowledge.

(Note: when Rawat says "Guru Maharaj Ji is here. He means "here on the earth.")

"And for the ones who don't have Knowledge, that's what you have to understand. By Guru Maharaj Ji's Grace, to just let go of that ego and just even try to understand Knowledge. And really, someday, by Guru Maharaj Ji's Grace, pray that you will receive Knowledge.

"And for the ones that have understood Knowledge, it is not our option. It's not our choice. After all, you're not in front of a buffet table. This is your life. This is you. All you have to do is to just really let go to Guru Maharaj Ji. Who else? Guru Maharaj Ji is not saying, "Let go to that speaker. Let go to this microphone. Let go to this and let go to that." Guru Maharaj Ji is putting it ever so simply: let go to me. (My emphasis)

"And if we really have that faith, if we really call ourselves devotees, or even if we are devotees, then whatever our Guru Maharaj Ji says, we have to do." Guru Maharaj Ji, Spain, April 29, 1979

There are plenty of examples of Rawat's claims to be the Satguru or the Lord. He often referred to himself in the third person, but did revert to using "I" statements, too. The word Satguru is/was synonymous to his being the Lord Incarnate and that's how he taught it to his devotees. That's what we were indoctinated to believe. That's why for you to refer to the word "satguru" by defining it out of context of the group misses what he actually taught about what that word meant within the group itself. That's called loading the language. If you look on the link above, there is actually a quote where Rawat complains about how the word "guru" is misunderstood and used incorrectly by westerners. He has his own meaning for the word and that's where the article becomes misleading about Rawat in particular.

The controversy about Rawat's claim of divinity is that he did claim it but now rejects that he ever made the claims. In the early 80s the premie communities in the U.S.and other countries were ordered to burn/destroy or return to DLM/Elan Vital, all of the material about Prem Rawat, including films, books, videotapes, and magazines. Some people didn't return or destroy the material, and that's why it's still available now. The idea that premies gave Rawat his divinity is incorrect.

Cynthia August 15, 2004

Hello Cynthia, the claims of divinity and his counterclaims later are already in the article. Andries 19:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Critics inability/unwillingness to understad NPOV

Thanks for the reference about "I did not want to be Satgugru".

Regarding all the arguments presented, I still cannot see how this applies to the article. The article clearly says that some people (i.e. critics) see all these statements as a claim of divinity. It follows by stating that official sites dismiss that in their FAQs. I certainly could argue to the contrary (e.g. the statement "I did not want to be satguru" can be see as candid and the total opposite of a claim of divinity). Many of the quotes presented as references have nothing to do with divinity. Maybe a good article about divinity and the differences of interpretation in within a specific cultural context is now due...

The position of Wikipedia is that people are not stupid.... and they can make up their own minds about a subject when information is presented in a NPOV fashion. So that is how the article reads now with data from both POVs (apostates and followers) well presented and well referenced.

Another point to make is that if a group of followers joins in this debate (and I do not really know why they have stopped being involved...), they will surely fight as ferociously as the critics to push their POV, and this article will never, never, settle (unfortunately some articles in Wikipedia remain and will continue to remain in that state.)

Concerning the critics assessment of my ability or the ability of others to contribute to this article, I respectfully disagree. I can only state that so far, none of the critics commenting in this talk page have been able to write or contribute to this article within NPOV. And this is the name of the game in Wikipedia Critics have their plattform to air their claims, grievances and POV in the ex-premie website (that, BTW is profusely referenced in this article) and followers have their official sites and blogs to do the same.

The critics here contend to be the "bearers of the truth" about the subject, engage in personal attacks and bigotry (calling Ed a cult member and a "moonie" in a derogatory manner), completely dismiss the other side's POV, and disregard the fact that their POV is, most certainly the minority POV in this matter by all means of measure.

In summary: this is an encyclopaedic article written within clearly defined guidelines of NPOV, and my assessment is that the article in its current form is well on its way to be within these guidelines. It only needs that people take the time to understand what those are.--Zappaz 04:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Objectivity and ex-members' testimonies

Andries, please don't be harsh on Cynthia; I respect her questioning my 'objectivity' credentials stemming from my membership in another "cult".

Cynthia, no one is going to "ban" you from this discussion, let alone from the Wikipedia website, for a couple of remarks questioning my objectivity. Indeed, I welcome such questions, because I am well aware that being an advocate of something I like can reduce my awareness of problems relating to it. In other words, I want to see goodnees in gurus and leaders, so I could easily overlook badness in them due to wishful thinking.

Zappaz, please find a way to incorporate Cynthia's first-person account of law-breaking and abuse. The Boeing incident should definitely be in the Prem Rawat article.

As for the overall tone: if the article has been polished into a pro-Maharaji propaganda piece -- or even if it looks that way to ex-followers then it is not finished. I will not be satisfied with Wikipedia's Prem Rawat article until all three target audiences are satisfied:

• general readership
• supporters and admirers
• ex-members and detractors

Let's not dismiss Cynthia's objections or try to scare her off; rather, let's use those objections as "food for thought". --Uncle Ed 14:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are asking for something that is quite impossible. Ex-premies WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED with an article unless the result is THEIR OWN POV AND THEIR OWN POV only--64.81.88.140 14:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that I'm not concerned with those who want an article to reflect only their own POV. Please don't demonize the ex-premies: quite a lot of them are contributing to this article without trying to censor opposing views. --Ed

I do not need to demonize them, they do that to themselves without my help. You have no idea who you are dealing with.... these two specific individuals are two of the most vociferous and vicious opponents of Prem Rawat, that will stop at nothing. They will only stop, if this article is a replica of their website, nothing else. Appeasing them and giving them your other cheek after they attack you and others, it is so naive. Be forewarned. I am a current student of Maharaji (and very, very proud of it). Before these people challenge my anonymity, just ask them what they have done in the past to people that took time to stand up to their obsession. You see, Mr. Poor, these two people specifically have made it their life's mission to destroy what once they loved. They obsess daily and post hundred of messages weekly, all consumed by one thought: to harass, despise, rumple and spit upon other people that love the object of their hate. Spend sometime on their forum8.org (I suggest doing it on an empty stomach) and see the wonderful comments about you and wikipedia that both these individuals have made. Read on and see the obscene photos, the obsession and the pitiful hatred.

Their viewpoint is so tainted that they are unable to see anything positive in Prem Rawat, his message or his students. For them, the hundred of thousands of people that enjoy his message are just a bunch of brain-washed, gullible, "cult members". They see themselves as doing a "public-service", when actually they are a pathetic small group of obsessed apostates that have more in common with stalkers than anything else. --64.81.88.140 16:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, I agree that some vocal critics will not be satisfied unless the articles starts with something like "Prem Rawat is a fake guru who has misled thousands." I am not a fan of Prem Rawat but this goes much too far for me and is against NPOV guidelines. Andries 19:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I object to Ron Geaves as a serious reference

The article mentions Ron Geaves as a serious reference but he was a follower of Prem Rawat. [7] Followers believe that his articles about Prem Rawat are biased. Andries 19:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He is a serious reference regardless what Cynthia thinks. I just would add near the reference that Mr. Geaves is a student of Prem Rawat. (By the way Andries, any and every scholar's POV is biased, unless you believe that there is an ultimate truth :). -- Zappaz 20:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Zappaz, that is a step in the good direction but how do you know that he is not biased? I admit that he looks like a serious scholar but it is very difficult to write unbiased about your own religion. I do know why this is so but this is my experience and obsveration. Here is what Ron Geaves writes about Prem Rawat

"In fact I did not really perceive Maharaji as a child at all because all that my heart could feel was an overwhelmingly powerful recognition that this was the Master I searched for.

In a second I understood all of the actions of my life until that point. My heart knew that from now on everything was going to be fine because I was home. I cried the most beautiful tears of my tears of my life and prayed that I would never be cast adrift in the world again."

Doesn't that make you doubt his impartiality? Andries 21:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt that he is partial.... Please take the time to read his articles. They are very well written, researched and referenced. Are you saying that a student of Maharaji is banned from providing scholarly articles about Prem Rawat? -- Zappaz 00:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You really are such a strange combination of a***, i**** and *****. What criteria informs your decision that his articles are well written, researched or referenced? Is it that same wisdom that allowed you to do what you call "research" and still not get one of Rawat's most important points, namely that he IS the Satguru? Is it that same wisdom that prevents you from properly reading the quote that proved that very point even when it was placed squarely before you? What a joke!

-- Jim

Points you're wrong about, Zappa:

1) That Rawat could arguably be denying that he is the Satguru in the quote. If you read the quote again you'll see that his whole point is that, however reluctantly, he's the one. First his father, then the voice, chose him.

2) That the exes hold the minority view. The very reason Rawat can't give a real journalist an interview is because he simply couln't stand the scrutiny of the regular press.

3) That the premies can argue their position for any length of time. They can't and we have an eight year online track record to that effect. The facts are against them.

4) That you should have anything to do with this article. Your ***** and ***** answer to being proven wrong about the quote says it all. You're nothingbut *****. -- Jim

Face it pal. You and your friends a.k.a. critics are most certainly a tiny bitsy really irrelevant no one cares and gives a hoot about so go and find yourself another hobby/passtime/etc. Ah... and please kep your rethoric, abrassiveness, incitation, provocation, righteousness and the like, to defend your criminals in court. This ain't one, thank God for that :).

I rest my case. :) -- Jim

ah! so you are a trial lawyer? That explains your style,then. Well, as anon said above, that style is not really conducive in this environment. .... -- Zappaz 14:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here are two Rawat quotes for you to "research", Zappaz:

If you do not obey what Maharaj Ji says, what is the use of your living in this world? Rather you should die of shame!

and:

If you mistake my meaning, if you mistake a single word of what I am saying, I will not forgive you.

I'm only a trial lawyer but you're a Wikipedian Know-It-All so you should be able to find some place for these in your brilliant article, don't you think? LOL! -- Jim

First, note that personal attacks are not tolerated in Wikipedia. You are crossing the line... Regarding Mr. Geaves, have you read his research papers? These are indeed very well written and well referenced, regardless of your opinion about him as a person. Your last point really confuses me... are you saying that in your opinion Prem Rawat is the satguru? Lastly, if you persist in name calling and personal attacks (please follow the link and read) , you may end up banned or at least thoroughly ignored. I am trying staying cool --Zappaz 21:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz,

I admit that I find it hard to stay cool with you. I've already explained why. Perhaps others can appreciate the effect you have, even if you can't. It was one thing to see you assert that Rawat never claimed to be Satguru. For those of us who really understand this subject, at least one million times better than you, if not more, that's a bit much. But then to see you dissemble after you were fairly corrected, sorry, Zappaz, I can't find any basis to trust or respect your "work" here. None.

Having said that, and despite the fact that you avoid most of my questions, I'll answer yours. I have read some stuff Geaves wrote but it's been a while. I recall an article or two where my eyes glazed over what with all the pendulously long south Indian names, etc. I guess you could say it didn't grab me. But what's most important is that I've read Geaves' comments on Rawat, for example this excerpt from his contribution to the premie site, Enjoying Life With Knowledge (ELK):

Maharaji continues to tell people that there is no obligation to continue practising Knowledge other than that they like it and want to enjoy the fruits that practice brings with it. He is consistent on this point. In 1971 on his first visit to England he spoke in Westminster Central Hall. He said: If this Knowledge gives you peace, well and good, go ahead. If not, leave it and try to find another way.

In June of this year, he spoke in Wembley where he stated: "If you like Knowledge, fine. If you don't like it, fine. Walk."

Just as he did with me nearly 30 years ago, he explains simply and directly the obvious truths of our human existence and offers Knowledge as a possibility. If people respond to that message, he ensures that the techniques of Knowledge are available, if not, he sincerely requests them to enjoy their lives.' The premies play a blatant shell game with the truth and it's really quite surprising that you, who claims you're an outsider, can't see it. Most can. It runs like this. On the one hand, Rawat has never changed his message. He's teaching the same, timeless, simple but profound truth he always has. To prove the point, the premies will cherry pick and present one or two of the innocuous, "lighter", if you will comments from Rawat's past. What they don't mention, though, is that, Rawat always spoke out of both sides of his mouth. It was a key feature of his public persona, his "cute" young Lord of the Universe show, that he could come on mild as a lamb or as threatening as Zeuss, all on whim. What you clearly don't appreciate though is that Rawat gave us more than enough signals that this was indeed very serious business and that he purposely waterred his pitch down for the public. Our cult, like all good cults, was built on hope AND fear. The fear was engendered by quotes such as I showed you yesterday.

So it's a blatant lie to state, as Geaves does, that Rawat has been consistent throughout. Tell me, please, how one could ever reconcile statements such as:

If you do not obey what Maharaj Ji says, what is the use of your living in this world? Rather you should die of shame

with:

"If you like Knowledge, fine. If you don't like it, fine. Walk."

You can't. It's impossible. That's why, contrary to your claim the other day that premies can and would defend their views just as vociferously as exes, they and their leader invariably run from these questions.

What else you don't seem to understand is that, even when Rawat blew hot and cold, it was part of the cult conditioning to always remember the hot, always remember the threats. Believe me, Rawat didn't have to say anything twice as we poured over his words incessantly. That's why he didn't have to repeat little comments like this too often:

"If you don't practice this Knowledge, you will get rotten inside. There is so much energy contained in this Knowledge, just imagine how much harm it will be able to do you if you know it, but do not use it properly."

Like a mafia don, he could speak quietly and we would strain to get it. He could yell, and we would quiver. And of course the ground rules were explicit:

"If you mistake my meaning, if you mistake a single word of what I am saying, I will not forgive you."

But you know nothing about this. Nothing. So you are in no position to judge how honest Geaves is or isn't. If you were a fairer, more honest person, you might be but we've seen how you deal with facts. It's hardly impressive.

Oh, sorry, was I name-calling? Tell me, please, how else one deals with dissembling in your Wiki world?

Anyway, you asked me if I was claiming that Rawat is, in fact, Satguru. OF COURSE NOT! I don't even believe there is such a thing. What I was explaining is that Rawat himself claims that he is. That's the point.

-- Jim

Zappaz, I was the one complaining about Ron Geaves, not Jim. I have to admit that I have not read his research papers. How can I get them? Thanks in advance. Andries 22:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

post an email address on my talk page and i will try and forward them to you. - Zappaz

You are quoting from the Peace Bomb satsang translation from hindi (Wouldn't you have a transcription of the original Hindi? I don't trust these translations... to much cultural context gets easily destroyed/tamperered with...). If you read carefuly you will find things such as I have complete faith in Guru Maharaj Ji. Who is he speaking of? regarding your compatibility issue, I simply do not see the point or the connection between these statements. Frankly you may be too involved with this so that you find connections where there are none. That happens when you spend too much time in a subject without outside feedback from others. May this be your case?

Another few questions for you, just curious:

1. what is your motive to purport yourself to be an expert on this subject (I mean what do get out of it?)
2. how can you claim to be an expert when you actually stoped being a student 30 years ago?
3. why you and other critics cannot accept the fact that you are a very small group and not very relevant?

-- Zappaz 01:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Listen, Zappaz, that Peace Bomb satsang wasn't some snippet of an overheard conversation in another room in another language. It was Rawat's key speech, printed and reprinted, time and again, in various DLM and EV publications. In English, I should add. It was even included in Rawat's "authorized, official" biography written just in time for Millenium, "Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?" Your vain attempt to dismiss it is laughable. But, like all good cult apologists, you must find some way to avoid the evidence. It doesn't have to be reasonable. This argument certainly isn't. But all you need is to utter SOMETHING and then hide a bit further from the facts. Why not?

Before you do, though, please appreciate that Rawat's Peace Bomb satsang was not the least bit out of line with any of the other satsangs he gave back then. There's nothing anomalous about it so as to raise questions about the accuracy of the translation. Moreover, it completely jives with the philosophy that Rawat's dad espoused in his satsangs and writings. Even more fundamentally, I dare you to try to actually try to posit alternative, "nicer" translations for the things he said there. What, like he didn't really say he was going to rule the world, he was just going to rent it for a while?

Rawat's signature idiom of speaking of Guru Maharaj Ji in the third person was interwoven with many, many alternative expressions that, together, left an incontravertible and consistent impression that he was indeed talking about himself. Any fair person reading the body of his writings could see that in a flash.

Anyways, to answer your continuously offensive questions:

1) My motive to purport to be an expert on these matters is to stand up to current cult members and their revisionist friends like you. To make it clear that you can't really get away with such rampant lies. Otherwise, I have no motive.

2) I'm an expert based on my personal involvement when I was in the cult and and the extensive research and involvement I've undertaken since then. Simple.

3) It's a stupid, STUPID lie to say that we're a very small group and not very relevant. It's like this. Imagine that there was a flat earth cult. Some people leave it and argue against its beliefs. How stupid would it be for others, whether in the cult or not, to claim that the groups' critics' views (i.e. that the earth is round) are a minority view?

Most people who've ever heard of Rawat just accept without hesitation that he was a fraudulent, ridiculous cult leader. That is the majority view. I won't bother explaining this any further. If you can't see that, you're worse off than I thought.

By the way, is there any over-riding executive committee on Wikipedia who one can complain to? I claim that you and others have hijaacked this article to such a bizarre extent that you refuse to accept the clear, important impact of various archival materials, such as Rawat's own words. Who can I complain to? Anyone?-- Jim

OK now it is clear. Anybody reading your answers will know where are you coming from and put your comments in context... It is very interesting to witness your inability to see yourself in that context. It is extraordinary.

Some clarifications:

1. No one has hijacked this article. Anyone can contribute to it, providing of course, it is done within NPOV.
2. Want to get familiar with Wikipedia? read the help pages Help:Contents. There is a wealth of information that will tell you about the project and how it works.
3. All my research shows that the vocal critics that you seem to represent are indeed a very small minority. Your argument about 'most people...' is absurd. And your flat earth analogy, quite poor to say the least.
4. Your response about the use of third person is not satisfactory. I also wonder about the context in which a 12-year old speaking to an Indian audience of a million people 30 years ago. And also wonder about his ability to continue presenting his message to this day in so many different cultures. How does he do it? How does he keep himself and his message relevant after so many years?
5. You call me cult apologist, why? Is it that assigning others to a taxonomy gives you a sense of control over them? May I call you then apostate?
6. I am taking a very well deserved holiday. So I may not be available for comments as much as recently. Hope you behave nicely in my absence :) -- Zappaz 02:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Revised Article

I've taken a vacation from looking at this article and was hoping to see a more streamlined, neutral article as with Scientology and other controversial "religions" as Zappaz had promised.

I am sadly disappointed with Zappaz' "new" article. This article still reads like a paid advertisement. And I thought it was supposed to be shortened.

I had asked several ex-members to write testimonials, but am going to un-ask them. Just leave the link to the "journeys" page, as you have it now. It's not worth our time to contribute to this as long as someone with Zappaz' POV is involved to such a degree.

Jim and Cynthia, I have enjoyed reading your comments. :) I especially related to Jim's comment that pointed out that most people in the mainstream easily recognize Rawat as the con man that he is. I suspect that Zappaz and Ed, not being in the mainstream (Zappaz seems to be involved with some Eastern religion, and we know Ed's religion) wouldn't understand this.

This is not personal attack, btw, just commenting on Zappaz and Ed's POV, as they have done countless times with ours. Mary Moore 04:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How can you said that with a straight face? The article's word count is 55% on the controversy and critics. If at all, zappaz's article is giving to much space to critics and their obsession. What? 10 guys with an attitude and and ax to grind vs. hundreds of thousands that benefit from his message and guidance? Forget it. So my view is that it is too much POV of critics, particularly as they are the minority POV. If anything, the critics section needs to be reduced, not increased. And what a chutzpah to label zappaz and Ed as "not in the mainstream", You righteousness is sickenning. --64.81.88.140 05:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "word count" but rather context and perspective. The fact is that Rawat, who once dared the world on every level -- governmental, academic, institutional, social, religious, of course -- to stop whatever they were doing and ask the question, "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?", now runs scared of his own shadow, afraid to give a real interview or answer real questions, even from mere, simple followers who threaten him only with the fact that they saw too much, remember too much.

The article fails because it doesn't give a clear, head-on perspective of this essential fact but rather accomodates the cult's own absurd spin. Think of the article the Washington Post would write if it ever bothered to cast its lights on this one-time Lord of the Universe. A profesional journalist doing a piece on Rawat would be perfectly NPOV in my books. Unlike Zappaz, I don't think it's fair to act on the presumption that there is "so much miss-understanding in the Western/anglo-saxon culture in regard of divinity". I think that is a bizarre, heavily-loaded POV to bring to this enterprise and any fair-minded person would necessarily agree.

If you really want an NPOV article about Rawat, go find some people on Wiki who care about gardening or diesel engines, the Civil War or geography and ask them to write it. DON'T leave it to some follower of a self-proclaimed avatar and his friend, the student of "bhakti", because what you'll get is the useless mess of a piece Ed and Zappaz have come up with.

-- Jim

Cynthia here. Jim and I are not the only ones who are opposed to using Ron Geaves as a scholarly reference in this particular article. For over two years Dr. Geaves has refused to discuss his appearance in the Visions Internations produced video titled "Passages, A Master's Journey." He has also refused to discuss his "scholarly writings" about Prem Rawat. Maybe you'll have more luck by contacting him. And the video is no longer available for sale. Ask EV why.

See: http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/ron_geaves.htm

Don't you find it suspect and peculiar that the only source of older quotes and publications are from former followers? Did you know that in the 1980s that premie communities were ordered to destroy, burn or return to DLM/EV all movies, videos, and printed publications/material about Guru Maharaj Ji? The only reason these materials are available now is because many premies kept them. That's the difference between "evolution" and "revisionism." Rawat has tried to rewrite his own history and you're assisting him quite well in this article because you don't understand the distinction. Plus, Rawat always referred to himself in the third person. He sometimes referred to his own father, "My Guru Maharaj Ji, or Shri Maharaj Ji," but it was obvious to his followers that when he said "Surrender your life to Guru Maharaj Ji" he was referring to himself.

The issue of "Hindu trappings" as addressed in this article is a bit strange because people in the western world don't kiss the feet of their family members and certainly no premie in the U.S.,UK, Europe, Australia, etc. sang arti to each other. Hindu traditions in India have nothing to do with the practices that Maharaji used well into the 1980s here in the west. He's the one who dressed up as Krishna, wearing a crown and danced on a stage at live programs, his own wife wearing saris, not his followers.

One very big problem with this article is that you are trying to use definitions of words that have very different meanings in Rawat's cult. That's what is called loading the language in cults. It's a common practice. For instance, there was a time when premies who worked closely with Maharaji referred to him as "Dad." Premies considered him our Father in the greatest sense of the word, ie, Lord Incarnate. In the beginning of the version of arti that premies sing to him are the words "You are my Mother and You are my Father, You are my Brother, You are my Friend." Premies in the west sang that song frequently (ashram premies were required to sing it twice per day). Never to each other, always just to Rawat.

Darshan, for instance means being in the physical presence of Maharaji and "personal Darshan" means kissing his feet. No one else in the context of this group got darshan from anyone BUT Rawat. To NPOVize the meaning of the words within this article by giving them definitions as you understand them (or even dictionary definitions) makes the article inaccurate. Even the word "guru" was defined by Rawat as something different than defined in Wikipedia. As Maharaji explained it: Guru is someone who takes one from darkness to light. He said that a lot. Do you see distinction?

Here's a quote from Rawat about the word guru:

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

Prem Rawat, India, 1990

http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/mastergod.htm

There continues to be so much misinformation in this article. For instance, "critics" don't claim that Rawat was informed of the Jagdeo sexual abuse of children in 1977, one of the victims herself claims that! She made the complaint. Big difference.

It appears, Zappaz, that you are more interested in NPOV than accuracy. And btw, why is it that you haven't warned the premie (above) for launching personal attacks on Jim and myself, but are more than willing chastise us? Obviously double standards are at play here.

Cynthia Aug 18, 2004

Dunno what is the big deal.... The article looks good to me and is well balanced. What is shows up for me is that the critics have distorted reality field around them and can only see shadows lurking everywere. So I read that this guy when he was 12 years old said he is going bring peace... tall order, I was playing with dolls at that age... 30 years later he sings different lyrics with the same music. Is that bad? I went and read some of the testimonials at http://www.whatpeoplesay.org/, are you saying that is all spin? Phat grrl 15:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If anything, the ones that seem brainwashed and in a "cult" are these critics. I mean, why will they spend sooooo much time with this s***t :)-4.8.16.206 15:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cynthia is wrong in regard to the meaning of the word guru as presented by Maharaji. This is what the article in wikipedia says , quote Another etymology claimed in Hindu scriptures is that of dispeller of darkness (wherein darkness is seen as avidya, lack of knowledge both spiritual and intellectual): 'gu' meant darkness and 'ru' meant remover. Maharaji used that same explanation. --64.81.88.140

Cynthia is also wrong in her explanation of darshan. Read the wikipedia entry for that word. And regarding the "order to destroy materials" this is a figment of her imagination. These materials became obsolete as time passed. The ones "hanging" on to these are, of course, the critics that have not managed to evolve and move on. I can see them 20 years from now (wish them long lives) still waving a "Divine Times" issue from 1972... --64.81.88.140 23:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh please, don't tell lies. Even if you are anonymous, your word should mean something to you. Rawat ordered all the old publications destroyed in the mid eighties and you know it. He did it because his past presentation as the Lord of the Universe, Saviour of Mankind, was a silly, unexplainable embarrassment. It had been over a decade since he claimed to have ushered in a "Thousand Years of Peace" at the Millenium festival (which he called "The Most Significant Event in Human History") and nothing had happened other than his following got smaller and smaller even as he, miraculously, nonetheless got richer and richer. So it was time to start erasing the evidence. I remember then that Bob Kirby, who was Rawat's plumber then, and a definite PAM (Rawat used to give him his suits after he'd worn them a couple of times), saved a whole bunch of these publications from the garbage bin behind the servants' house down the hill from Rawat's mansion. Bob was already growing very skeptical of Rawat and thought it might be time to start thinking for himself. In this case, it meant preserving the evidence. But he's just one of countless people who can attest to that directive spreading through the cult.

Of course if you just read some of the old satsangs you can see why.

Why here's one:

Nobody in this world wants us, really. Nobody. Our father doesn't want us, our mother doesn't want us, our brothers don't want us, our uncles don't want us, our aunt doesn't want us, nobody wants us in this world. Except Guru Maharaj Ji. Guru Maharaj Ji's the only one who says, "come, come now and you can stay forever". Guru Maharaj Ji is the one who says, "You don't have to ever leave. You are home. You can stay at home as long as you want." And that's the kind of opportunity, that's the kind of Grace, that sometimes we kick right in the face.

So premies, we just have to surrender now. Now is the time.'

Guess when? 1979. Rawat wasn't 12 then. He was 23. Go figure, huh?

Tell the truth, dude. I hear it's an excellent way to further your spiritual advancement. :) -- Jim

Ah...! I can definively see you 20 years from now, toothless, and still waving a 1979 satsang... ROLF and with tears in my eyes. :) 64.81.88.140 04:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The critics phenomenae

Can someone explain the phenomenon assocxiated with critical exfollowers? I checked other NRMs and the critcis look, feeel and smell just the same:

• Many spent a lot of their lives in it and then they grow anti and become pissed at the fact that they did. I mean if they were dumb enough to give their time and money for years why should I think now that their opinion is worthwile now? Why? A magic wand hit their heads and now they are allknowing?
• They are sooo righteous that it hurts watching;
• They always say that their pervious leaders/gurus/swamis are always evil con-men
• The alwasy say that people that still follow are gullible, stupid, brainwashed people
• They keep saying the same things again and again and again, they mingle with other exfollowrs and keep taliking about the same for years and years

Does anyone knows of any studies made about this phenomenae? Could be intersted to learn more about it. And sorry for thetypos I am dislexic. (keep trying to fix these but it beats me) :D Phat grrl 04:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cynthia here. That's one of the issues about this article that's controversial, Phat grrl. There are many people who have studied destructive groups (cults) especially personality cults. Prem Rawat is in the category of destructive personality cults because he is the focus of adoration by his students and he encourages people to rid themselves of their mind.

Margaret Singer, Robert Jay Lifton, Steve Hassan, Michael Langione are among these scholars and clinicians. They have been characterized by the New Religious Movement Scholars as non-scientific and their work and studies have been dismissed. However, most of these individuals have worked as in the area of psychology and education. They have noticed similar and common characteristics of destructive groups and their leaders (from group to group, leader to leader).

These cult experts have also identified the psychologcial and spiritual damage that happens to some former followers, such as Post Traumatic Stress, Panic Disorder, Depersonalization, Derealisation, excessive dissociation and more. That's why, when someone leaves a cult, it can be even twenty years since they were involved, but they still haven't yet recovered from the effects of the indoctrination. But, in this article the writers eschew anyone except the sociologists of NRMs as a source of scholarly information. One who included is a long-time follower of Rawat, Dr. Ron Geaves.

When someone becomes a subject of mind-control or thought-reform they lose their freedom of thought. The process is subtle. So, what certain group (cult) leaders do to people (for their own personal benefit, which is usually money and adoration) does extend outside of the realm of freedom of religion. It's an issue of people being expoited and people being subjected to a cult leader's agenda that people are not aware of when they first get involved with a group. That's what Prem Rawat has done from the beginning and he continues to do that, despite his claims of having "evolved." Rawat is much more subtle in his approach now. He doesn't call himself the Lord of the Universe anymore, for example, yet the mind-control is happening and vulnerable people are at risk of falling prey to his congame.

That's why you see a similarity in the attitude of people from group to group, because people do have similar complaints, similar experiences upon leaving, as well as similar psychological difficulties post-cult. There's also the issue of lost years, lost money, lost opportunities, etc., for those who had years and decades of continuous involvement. So yes, former members do become angry. In the case of ex-premies, one method of trying to silence those of us who speak out about Prem Rawat is that Elan Vital has characterized ex-premies as a hate-group. That characterization has been repeated over and over again to the point that current followers have come to believe it, which makes it all the more difficult for someone to leave Rawat.

At Wikipedia, even the word "cult" is considered unacceptable to use. I use it anyway because I understand the distinction between a destructive personality cult/leader and a benign religion or spiritual leader. Rawat is in the former category. He has a history of abusive behavior and deception that is well-documented and it extends from the beginning of his career as a "guru" all the way to the present day -- he calls himself an "inspirational speaker" now but the fact remains that many of his followers still worship his as the Lord of the Universe.

Cynthia August 20, 2004

Did it ever occur to you that what you're witnessing is simply ex-followers of various cults speaking out against their former leaders? By the way, what's your interest in all this? Are you yet another surreptitious premie? If not, what brings you here? Why do you care?

-- Jim

to Jim, Gracie and Mary Moore, Request for comments

Jim, Mary, Cynthia, if you think that the conflict with Zappaz can not be resolved then please put the article on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I personally think that you first should try harder to insert well-referenced material in the article before putting it in the "Request for comment" page. Andries 12:16, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

copy from User_talk:Mary_Moore

"Hi, I suggest if you want to get more people involved in the dispute, you create a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for comment and ask for comments from people there. If you feel the article is not neutral, you could try to follow the NPOV tutorial to make it more neutral, or add an NPOV dispute notice to it. :Angela. 20:43, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)"

To Andries and Angela: I took a look at the webpage "Request for Comment on Wikipedia. I was shocked and disgusted to find the article entitled "ChildLove." When I explored the article I found that it includes a link to the website in the Netherlands "Martijin" which calls itself "Association for the Acceptance of Adult-Child Love Relationships."

Because Wikipedia would allow pedophiles to have a voice on this website to endorse their "POV" about child sexual abuse, and further, for Wikipedia to include links to websites where pedophiles openly endorse and promote the sexual abuse of children, I will have nothing further to do with Wikipedia.

Cynthia Gracie Aug 20, 2004

For your information, Andries

1. this is NOT zappaz's article. Many people have contributed to it. Check the history page.
2. there is no such "conflict" with zappaz. The article is not accepted by these people because it does not represent their POV. Read Cynthia's last posting in this page...
3. anyone can contribute to this article. The reason they don't is because they are incapable of writing from a NPOV
4. request for comments will not replace good editing
5. If you post in request for comments, I will demonstrate that this article is not one person's play, but a collaborative effort as a good wikipedia article64.81.88.140 15:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)