Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 33

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

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Divinity

Below an excerpt from an interview with Mishler (after his split from Rawat), who talks about the meaning of this Divinity and how Rawat presented himself. I think it may be useful for editors here to know, just for perspective.

Bob: When he first arrived, his message was that he knew the truth and that the truth was within each and every individual. He sometimes used to talk about that truth, whether you called it God or something else, as the perfect energy within each individual. He said that this was something he could reveal to everyone. That, in fact, was his purpose. He was called a perfect master because he had mastered something that was perfect; presumably this perfect energy inside us which was responsible for life. In revealing that to other people, he was revealing the only thing which could claim to be perfection, the primordial energy of the universe.

He would essentially ask people to come to him and ask for this knowledge, which would be freely given. The only thing that was required was the sincerity on the part of the individual asking. If you would ask sincerely, not just because you wanted to do it out of curiosity, but because you really wanted to know the truth about life, then he would have this knowledge revealed to you. Actually, he never really did any of the initiating himself; there was always one of his disciples to do that. These disciples at that time were called Mahatmas. In the beginning years, they were all Indians as well.

He billed himself as a humble servant of God who was essentially in charge with the responsibility of revealing this knowledge to people by his father who was his guru. At the same time, although there were some people who would say, well, he has to be a god himself in order to be able to reveal God, he would always deny this. He would say : "I make no claims of this sort at all. What I am revealing - it is not even as if I am giving you something - is something that is there inside you. It is there inside everyone. By recognising it, by having it revealed to you and then by meditating on it, you can attain the peace that comes through knowing the truth. Once you have found peace within yourself, this is the way towards ultimate world peace".

As you note, this is very far removed from the Christian concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing God.

Still working on that draft version ... it is quite difficult, because it is entwined with so many aspects of his biography. Jayen 466 15:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was puzzled for some time about the U-turn in 1976. Early 1976 saw an incipient Westernization, with ashram closures, while in late 1976, this policy was reversed, with Rawat reappearing in his Krishna costume and reopening the Ashrams. It seems that this was the point where Rawat, now 18, established his own authority, overriding Mishler, who was responsible for the previous policy. (Some of Nik's academic sources say as much.) Mishler quit shortly after. My current "building site" is here (it is nowhere near the shape it should be yet). Jayen 466 15:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, I think it is all difficult. Prem Rawat has always been an extraordinary person and a pragmatic one. He has been set (by his father) the goal of allowing as many people as possible internationally to come and receive Knowledge, and his methods are adaptable, they "turn on a dime" so to speak. Reading Hummel last night I was struck by the way Hummel appeared to be trying to discern some underlying and fixed plan behind the speech Prem Rawat gave at Delhi Gate (the "Peace Bomb.") As a native German speaker you may point out my error, but some of the expressions Hummel used would seem more appropriate applied to a military strategist. (Flucht nach vorn "move forward when under threat" usw). And he is writing about a 12 year-old boy. Nobody has ever known how to deal with him. Good luck to all of us. Rumiton (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it doesn't help when different scholars claim to see diametrically opposite developments happening over the same time frame.

Downton writes, In 1971, premies had their commitments strengthened by surrender, with its underlying mechanisms of identification and conformity. By 1976, the Mission's leadership was apparently discouraging blind surrender. Where, in 1971, premies needed only to conform and obey their "Lord," by 1976 they were being asked to take responsibility to interpret, initiate, and act. ... As surrender and devotion were discarded, reliance shifted to the tangible benefits of practicing the Knowledge, of living within the premie community, and of participating more fully within the local areas. So according to him, in 1971 surrender was important, and by 1976, it was Knowledge.
Now here come van der Lans and Derks, asserting in the context of initiation that "Before 1975 it was sufficient to have a desperate longing for "Knowledge" (in the sense Divine Light Mission uses this term); after 1975 one had to accept Guru Maharaj Ji as a personal saviour in order to become a member." God help us indeed. Jayen 466 17:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Taking the bull by the horns" is another translation. :-) Since we are doing words, there is more on the origin and usage of "lede" here. Jayen 466 17:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't believe the ashrams were reopened in 1976. Surely it was at least a couple of years later? Rumiton (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Krishna appearance seems to have been on 20 December 1976, and "Signs of rededication both to Guru Maharaj Ji and the inner guru became quite apparent. Most of the premies who left the ashrams in the summer of 1976 began to return in 1977, when more than 600 signed up to enter the ashrams in just a few months' time." (Downton). Jayen 466 17:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the Collier book 'Soul Rush" yet? It is most informative and has been quoted from many times here

http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/soul_rush.htm#preface Of course you can also get this book out of the library.

She says this: "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, (in the Peace Bomb satsang I believe pw) 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.

Also this from Foss and Larkin 1978: 'Guru Maharaj Ji is aware of his preposterous image and skillfully manipulates it. To the general public it is the height of ridicule to believe that a "fat little rich kid" with a taste for a luxurious living and expensive gadgets - and who, on top of everything, married his secretary, a woman eight years older than himself - could be the Perfect Master; yet here is Guru Maharaj Ji using the very ludicrousness of that proposition to support his claim that he is, in fact, the Perfect Master: "I mean, it's like man is big surprise, you know, people talking about surprises, but I think Perfect Master is the biggest surprise. And people make a concept of a Perfect Master, he's going to be like this, no he's going to be like this, no he's going to be like this. And then he comes. He's completely different and as a matter of fact surprises the world so much, surprises everybody so much they don't think he is" (from satsang concluding Guru Puja 74, Amherst, Mass.)

Here are Rawat's father's own words from his published book 'Hans Yog Prakash' - relevant as Prem Rawat's teachings directly derived from his fathers :

My Guru is the incarnate Lord of this time. I bow before my Guru, who is greater than Christ or Buddha, for each of them was the servant of his Satguru.
The Lords of earth, sea and sky also bow before Guru Maharaj Ji.
The Lord God has said, "Know your Guru as Myself, the Lord." We should understand that Guru is the most powerful manifestation of the Lord. If we understand this, our minds will automatically turn to our Guru before we start to do anything.
Know that no one is superior to the Guru. If someone thinks the Guru is a human being, that is his misfortune. He is of dull intelligence like a bull without a tail. The entire world knows that Guru is greater than God.
Know that Guru is the Supreme Lord. We should accept all that He says without judgement, and should offer Him whatever nice thing comes our way. The power of Guru is so fantastic that whatever we offer comes back to us a thousand fold.
Remember at all times to carry the Lotus Feet of the Lord in your heart. Realise that God and Guru are one and the same! do not doubt this fact. God is pleased if Guru is pleased, and if Guru is unhappy, God will be also. I am simply telling you.
He who gives us the lamp of true Knowledge is Satguru, He is God incarnate. If someone took Him to be an ordinary human being, his ignorance would make his whole life fruitless.
If Lord Shiva (the Destroyer) becomes angry with you, Guru can save you. But there is no one who can help you, if Guru be comes angry.
One should never go against his Guru, for Guru is both father and mother.
The saints say one should always sit below one's Guru. One should wake before one's Guru, and retire after Him. This is most important for a devotee.
One should not address Guru Maharaj Ji while lying down, eating, standing far away, or facing away from Him. One should never interrupt His conversation.
When receiving the Guru's command, one should always stand humbly before Him, to show Him respect. One should never call the Guru by His name to His face. '
Guru and Lord are one; all else is duality. When someone worships the Guru, and dissolves himself in love and service, he can find the Lord.
He who thinks Guru Maharaj Ji is a human being is blind. He will remain very unhappy in this world, and death will not relieve him of his sufferings.
When receiving the Guru's command, one should always stand humbly before Him, to show Him respect. One should never call the Guru by His name to His face. '

Here are some quotes from Prem Rawat himself:
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? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ......
"Jesus gave us this Knowledge, Krishna gave us this Knowledge, but now we must look again for a new Master to show us the light. The sun comes and goes away but we don't look for the light of day which has just gone. We look for the new rising sun. The sun is there, but it rises in a new beautiful way, and we look for that. In the same way, God is the same, but now we look for him to come, in a new way, to give this Knowledge." (from book "Who is Guru Maharaji")
"There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge. But history is a pendulum which is always in swing. There have been so many scriptures, but still people have never been able to understand Him." ('And It Is Divine)
And if there has to be devotee, he has to be in a physical form. A devotee has to devote something. Have you understood now ? To devote something, he has to be in a physical form. And where is it possible for him to be in physical form ? On the earth. And with whom can he be in the physical form ? With the Lord, who is in His physical form ! He has to be with the Physical Lord who has come into this physical world with a Physical Body. Understood. (from Guru Maharaj Ji - Essen, Germany - August 31, 1975)
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.....
(from Guru Maharaj Ji's satsang "Shower of Grace", Malibu, California, June 11, 1978.Printed in Divine Times, June/July, 1978, Volume 7, Number 4, Guru Puja Special.) Question: Guru Maharaj Ji, what does it feel like to be Lord of the universe?
M: What should I tell you about it?
Question: Just what it's like.
M: What it's like? Nothing. Because you are not in yourself; somewhere else; one with someone else.
Question: How is it to be like a puppet?
M: You don't know.... Do you? When you become Lord of the Universe, you become a puppet, really! Nothing else; not 'you'. Not 'I', not 'you' no egos, no pride, nothing else. One with humbleness; servant. Very, very beautiful. Always in divine bliss. Creating your own environment - wherever you go, doesn't matter. Like my friends used to play and I used to sit right in the corner of my ground and meditate (laughter). She wants to change places with me! I wish I could change places with everyone, and give one hour of experience to everyone! But it's not possible. (extract from an question and answer session given by Guru Maharaj Ji in Portland, Oregon, June 29, 1972. Printed in 'Elan Vital' magazine Volume II Issue 2, Summer 1978:) PatW (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You left out an important part of the equation, PatW. Rawat explained during his first talks in the west that God was pure energy. In 1971 in Canada - "What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk". In 1971 in England - "People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy". South Africa in 1972 -"Do you say that you are God?‚" I say, ‚"No, I am not God. . . . . . . I don't want to be God.‚" But what I do want to be is a humble servant of God so that I can teach people this Knowledge, so that I can give people this gospel of peace, love and Truth. That' all I want to do. So all these lectures, all these speeches that I am giving are just for this purpose". And USA in 1972 " I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge, and it's ideal of humanity. I don't want to form a small sect or a religion. It's open thing to all. It's for all casts, all creeds, all colors". This is the basis of Rawat's teachings. Ignore this and it will never add up.Momento (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I left it out intentionally Momento as I knew you would be very quick to supply the 'I am not God' quotes.PatW (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Call me simple minded, but to me it looks like this all adds up to "Prem Rawat has made conflicting statements about whether he is divine." And we should craft something (as Jayen is doing) that gives a fair range of the conflicting statements. Msalt (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not in the least simple-minded. I had every faith that you would discern the truth of the matter as indeed anyone with the slightest approximation of intelligence would, reading a good cross section of materials and reports from the times.PatW (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is there conflict? God is energy, God created everything, everything is a manifestation of God therefore everything is "from or of God", God is in every human being, Knowledge allows you to know God within, the more you practice Knowledge the more God you experience, all humans are divine, the Guru is more divine because the Guru dedicates his life to serve God. According to the dictionary "divine" means "of or from God". Rawat has always been absolutely clear, we are all "divine".Momento (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The battle of quotes again? The battle of quotes?

People think God is a man. People think God has got ears, nose, teeth and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And he is an old man and he has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy.
— Central Hall, Westminster, London, UK, November 2, 1971

People ask, ‚"Do you say that you are God?‚" I say, ‚"No, I am not God. . . . . . . I don't want to be God.‚" But what I do want to be is a humble servant of God so that I can teach people this Knowledge, so that I can give people this gospel of peace, love and Truth. That' all I want to do. So all these lectures, all these speeches that I am giving are just for this purpose.
— Johannesburg, South Africa, 2 May, 1972

Reporter: I was told that probably the best question to ask you, out of sincerity, is: who are you?
Maharaj Ji: ... really I can't say who I am. But, though, there is a very basic thing, what I feel about myself. And that is that people have been claiming me as God or as Jesus or so on, and ah, many television people have been asking this question, and this is an interesting question of course. I thought maybe you will interested in the answer. I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge, and it's ideal of humanity. I don't want to form a small sect or a religion. It's open thing to all. It's for all casts, all creeds, all colors. And man is human, and it's OK he can receive it. And it's something that is internal, something that does not interfere with any religion. And this is the highest thing that I am teaching, about the people of this time, today. I don't claim myself to be God. I don't claim myself to be something like that, but I can claim I can show you God.
— Montrose, Colorado, 25 July, 1972

Reporter: Maharaj Ji, are you the Messiah foretold in the Bible?

Maharaj Ji: Please do not presume me as that. Respect me as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world.
Reporter: Why is there such a great contradiction between what you say about yourself and what your followers say about you?

Maharaj Ji: Well, why don't you do me a favor.. . why don't you go to the devotees and ask their explanation about it?
— Rolling Stone. The Seventies : A Tumultuous Decade Reconsidered. Boston: Little, Brown. pp. p.104. ISBN 0-316-81547-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

There are numerous archives in which this was discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So what Jossi? We're discussing it again because you did not win your past arguments. This case is BY NO MEANS SHUT like you flatter yourself it is. Get used to the fact that no-one in the real world is gonna lie down and drop arguments because you bark at them to do so for your own self-important reasons. You live on a planet inhabited by others with different opinions than your own! If that has escaped your attention then you are surely in for a shock. Jossi, there is no battle of quotes. Do you realise how empty your argument appears in the face of all these quotes? The truth is plain obvious Prem Rawat spoke out of both sides of his mouth about his divinity. NB you premies are the only ones making the patently ridiculous suggestion (in the face of the evidence) that he didn't. Even I , as a confessed critic, willingly acknowledge he said he wasn't God or Divine. But your intelligence bizarrely doesn't seem to stretch to the capacity of understanding how he might have ALSO said he was God and divine. That makes you simple-minded NOT Msalt whose brain is obviously working perfectly well.PatW (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"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?"

Source:Alta Loma Terrace Satsang, 1971 - reproduced from Elan Vital magazine, vol. II, issue 1

Andries (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

... which is consistent with Guru#Guru_and_God .... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then shouldn't the article include a statement saying he considers (or has considered) himself greater than/equal to God, at least in the Hindu/Guru context? That is not something that falls under common knowledge, and if you are going to separate his meaning into a different context, then at least, that context should be referenced. Maelefique (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The article already contains wording about this apparent contradiction, as sourced to scholars that studied the subject. In the quote above the young Prem Rawat does not say "I am greater than God", he is paraphrasing Kabir and Brahmananda. Big difference. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

... and an often used remark ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then shouldn't the article include a statement saying he considers (or has considered) himself greater than/equal to God: You can't say that without explaining the background Jossi has just indicated. Otherwise, someone who has grown up in a Christian context has no chance of not misunderstanding what is meant; they will always see it as the ultimate hubris. Again, that is something where there is usually a sharp divide between scholars, who understand this background, and journalists, who don't. Jayen 466 22:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, Jayen466, and it's an important one. However, I think it's one-sided and harsh to say that someone who has grown up in a Christian context must misunderstand this. We could just as easily say that it's impossible for a teacher from an Indian upbringing to understand what claims he was making as a religious leader in America. If we scale it back a bit and acknowledge that there is a cultural gap that is at least difficult for any of us to cross, we are beginning to make process. Humility is essential on both sides.

This is a crucial point because the main story of Rawat (in my opinion) is the story of Indian thought transplanted to America, and the effect that each had on the other. Both the appeal and criticism of Rawat's teaching can only be understood in that context. Rawat left India in part because his mother and others did not like the ways he became more American; his legal emancipation, move to America, marriage and citizenship were all potent symbol of his break with his homeland. The exotic nature of his teaching attracted some and repelled others, and the result led him to westernize, as we all agree.

So this controversy is very important, and it is crucial that we capture both sides, including the fact that many Americans (both devoteess and those who disliked him) understood him to be claiming divinity in a Western, Jesus-like manner, and that he has made statements that can be interpreted both ways. The best evidence from our sources seems to indicate that as a young man who must have been awed by the intensity of the response, he flirted a bit with letting Westerners take him to be a Western-type god, when they misunderstood for cultural reasons, then quickly realized the dangers involved and pulled back. I hope that we can find careful wording that captures the nuance of this, without going to immediate black and white judgements or defensive reactions against them by Rawat devotees.Msalt (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How we do this without engaging in original research, Msalt? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Through good writing that captures the nuance of our sources and the complexity of the picture that they collectively create, rather than harnessing them to support our viewpoints and preconceptions. Letting it be what it is, and working hard to capture that ITness. Summarizing complex events so that they form a cohesive whole without synthesizing a new argument is the mystical goal of Wikipedia; there's no reductive formula for doing it, but you know it when you see it. Otherwise, we're just quoting other encylopedias, which unfortunately this article does far too often. Msalt (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We can and should state this without this without background information because as far as I know the sources did not mention the background information nor did Rawat himself gave this background information. Andries (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Andries. We should throw away editorial judgment, make the article to be misleading, just to push a certain POV. Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Jossi, omitting the background as per the sources, is good editorial judgmenent, because Rawat himself is to blame for this. He never said something like, do not take so seriously what I say about myself because I am only quoting Kabir. If the article is misleading then it is only because Rawat's statements were misleading. Andries (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Andries.... Are we using this article to condemn the subject of the article? If that is your intention, please refresh your memory ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

How hypocritical of you Jossi to accuse Andries of trying to condemn the subject of the article when you have spent the most of the last few years of your life trying to apologise for the subject of the article here. Andries 'riposte to you was utterly valid since Rawat most definitely NEVER said anything to suggest that people should not take him seriously because he was 'quoting Kabir' or such absolute nonsense that your suggest. On the contrary he knew exactly how seriously people would take him and he played it to the hilt and apparently believed it himself. The innocence that others are trying with the best intentions to see simply was not there. Prem Rawat has never definitively told followers to stop worshipping him and this will become apparent to those who continue their investigations. I guarantee it. In fact I would stake my life on it.PatW (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I am only insisting that the sources are followed without giving background information that neither Rawat nor the sources gave. In other words what I am following WP:NOT#SOAP, so I do not understand your request that I refresh my memory in this respect. Andries (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there is no argument that Prem Rawat has ever made any attempt to clarify specifically which Hindu concepts he believed in and those he didn't. The only defence that is ever produced to counter his claims and suggestions of divinity is that he also said in public that he was not God, which as we can see is only half the story.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think that you all might want to acquaint yourselves with all the questions that various ex-premies and premies have listed here http://ex-premie.org/questions/questions_index.htm which plainly express their feelings of frustration that he has never done this.
Here's a good example-
"Would you please go through the whole list of Hindu concepts expressed in and taught in your own earlier teachings and interviews, as well as those of your family, your father and your mahatmas, and specifically separate those which you no longer hold any stock in from those you do? Would you please explain when and how you came to realize that these above-mentioned concepts were untrue?".....(From http://ex-premie.org/questions/y_revise_past.htm )

PatW (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to continue allowing the misuse of these pages for soapboxing?" How many times needs PatW be warned about the misuse of talk page discussions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Alan Watts

"The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance" The source provided does not ascribe that to be related to Prem Rawat. I checked Watts writings and found nothing related. Please be careful in using sources that describe other sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The source is a long article in the New York Times describing Rawat in great detail. The relevant passage quotes Bal Bhagwan Ji as saying he is amazed by Rawat's succes in America. Then it goes on: "The reasons for the guru's American success seem to lie partly in the nature of the movement and partly in the timing of the transplant. The doctrine has about as much intellectual content as the fudge sundaes the guru dotes on. As the late Alan Watts, the all-purpose mystic and expert on Zen Buddhism, said, 'The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance.' "

On what do you base your statement that the source does not ascribe that to be related to Prem Rawat? It seems very clear to me that it does, as the comment about fudge sundaes and the word "this" in connection to doctrine make clear. Msalt (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I fear Jossi may be correct. If Watts (who, btw, died in 1973) said this about Rawat, he probably meant it as praise; i.e. the emphasis would have been on "sacred", judging from my knowledge of Watts' oeuvre. He was rather anti-intellectual himself. Will dig into this a little. Jayen 466 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a WP:REDFLAG I remember reading that Watts actually put some money up to help bring the young Prem Rawat to the US in 1971, and was quite supportive. I will dig into this as well ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Here a related quote from Watts: Tao means basically "way", and so "course"; the course of nature. Lao-tzu said the way of the functioning of the tao is "so of itself"; that is to say it is spontaneous. Watch again what is going on. If you approach it with this wise ignorance, you will see that you are witnessing a happening. In other words, in this primal way of looking at things there is no difference between what you do, on the one hand, and what happens to you on the other. It is all the same process. Just as your thought happens, the car happens outside, and so the clouds and the stars. When a Westerner hears that he thinks this is some sort of fatalism or determinism, but that is because he still preserves in the back of his mind two illusions. One is that what is happening is happening to him, and therefore he is the victim of circumstances. But when you are in primal ignorance there is no you different from what is happening, and therefore it is not happening to you. It is just happening. So is "you", or what you call you, or what you will later call you. It is part of the happening, and you are part of the universe, although strictly speaking the universe has no parts. We only call certain features of the universe parts. However you can't disconnect them from the rest without causing them to be not only non-existent, but to never to have existed at all. [1] To Watts, ignorance is a positive value; the NYT would have used his dictum sarcastically here, seeing a parallel. Jayen 466 23:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised. Some journalists will do anything to have a "story" and sometime their ignorance of a subject pun intended) and their bias ( shows. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I'll remove it until and unless we can find the original reference, so to understand the context. Msalt (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Bal Bhagwan Ji Whaaat? I have that article and the cite is not made by that person, but by the journalist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A space was left in the Astrodome parking lot in case any flying saucers wished to land. The reasons for the guru's American success seem to lie partly in the nature of the movement and partly in the timing of the transplant. The doctrine has about as much intellectual content as the fudge sundaes the guru dotes on. As the late Alan Watts, the all-purpose mystic and expert on Zen Buddhism, said, "The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance.. Journalism at its best? In any case, that cite cannot be attributed to Bal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The part about BBJ immediately precedes the flying saucer stuff, about which he is quoted. I left the UFOs out because it's a tangent that's inflammatory. Right before the UFOs, it's the paragraph starting with "The successful transpant of an Eastern guru movement...." BBJ says "I'm amazed... it's mighty.." I'm surprised you didn't see that. Did you think I was quoting BBJ quoting Watts? Not at all. I mentioned it only because you seemed to be implying that the Watts quote wasn't describing Prem Rawat.Msalt (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And what about your OR Francis that the quote "applied to the intellectual content of Rawat's doctrine". Please self-revert.Momento (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No OR: The doctrine has about as much intellectual content as [...]. As [...] Alan Watts [...] said, "The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance." - but I'd be happy to put the intermittent fudge sundaes in too, if that's what you prefer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because Watts uses the word "doctrine" and the reporter uses the word "doctrine" doesn't mean they are talking about the same thing. That's your OR. Momento (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, that is an irrelevant argument. The reporter used a Watts quote to say something about Rawat's doctrine. Whether or not the reporter understood Watts is irrelevant. He meant to say something about Rawat. And in the article it is all attributed to NYT: the ideas the NYT has about Rawat's doctrine, and how the NYT uses a Watts quote to explain these ideas. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis still has it wrong. That is an extrapolation that is not warranted by what the source says. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not an extrapolation, I made it less edgy, but if you like & as said, I'd be happy to put the intermittent fudge sundaes in too. The colorful language using a simile of sorts is not something to be used against the NYT. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an extrapolation, and the "colorful" language is just an example of poor reporting, NYT, or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we're back at trying to overrule generally acceptable reliable sources, because you don't like their content. No, not how Wikipedia's WP:V works. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not about like or dislike. It is about sound editorial judgment, which is always needed. Otherwise these policies mean nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "It is not about like or dislike" - if you say so. Re. "It is about sound editorial judgment" - true. The sound editorial judgement is required to not avoid the sharper criticism in order to get a distorted picture. BLP's should be written conservatively, this means also not avoiding criticism that is over a quarter of a century old, i.e. not giving a modern version that re-interprets conservative sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No guys, Alan Watts paid for Prem Rawat's ticket coming over to the US (google for "Alan Watts" "Maharaj Ji". He was not being critical of Rawat. The NYT is being critical of both Watts and Rawat here. Let's just take it out again. Jayen 466 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

only the fudge sundaes simile then? Works for me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It was Nicholas Cusanus that used first the term "sacred ignorance" Sacra autem ignorantia me instruit hoc, quod intellectui nihil videtur, esse maximum incomprehensibile Which roughly translates to "Only through sacred ignorance we can recognized that which appears nothing to the intellect to be the incomprehensible maximum". Clearly not a pejorative as misused by the journalist, but the contrary. I am still looking for Watts original quote to see in which context did he use it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who started the OR theories that people with a christian background couldn't understand what eastern mystics are talking about, but nil novi sub sole I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

;-) Jayen 466 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ipse dixit :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

est pergamentum Jossius Minimus :-( PatW (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This edit], Francis, is WP:POINT and disruptive. Not being able to revert to your preferred version, all you do is bypass 1RR with that edit? Ridiculous. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't prefer the version including Watts,

It might contain criticism of Watts (as pointed out by Jayen), which is hardly appropriate in a BLP on Rawat;
It amounts to complex sentences: a source says that a source says (and the like).
The simile used by the NYT enhances readability. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Francis writes - I don't know who started the OR theories that people with a christian background couldn't understand what eastern mystics are talking about......Exactly, Francis. And of course Visa Versa. Where did this dumb suggestion that Rawat himself was speaking some sort of impenetrable mystical eastern language come from? Why Jossi and his ever-spinnning pals of course! Listen, I was there before Jossi and his mates even heard of Prem Rawat and I can tell you I was a fan of Eastern Mystics and religion since age 15 too - was quite widely read on Hinduism and Ramakrishna etc- and there's no doubt that Rawat too was well aquainted with Christian thought. For a start he went to Catholic School in Dehradun in India for goodness sake! This is all abject nonsense just to try and pretend that Indian 'God' is somehow a totally different thing to the Western one and Rawat was (as usual) completely misunderstood by dumb western followers who are entirely to blame for misrepresenting him. In name(s) maybe Indians have a different God. In nature I don't think so. One of the things that attracted me to Eastern religions, meditation and then Rawat was that it offered essentially a way to directly experience the Light, the God within. That was NOT some Hindu God or a Christian God but plain simple GOD one for all. And that understanding was shared by most western followers I can assure you.PatW (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the comment about fudge sundae. Three reasons. First, it is written in the present tense, implying that something from the 1970s still exists today. Second, the point about sources in Wikipedia is that they have to be expert, or in some way trained to make a judgment. WP: Sources says: As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. There are no facts here, just opinions. Third, the article repeats the view in the previous sentence, that P. Rawat's talks were banal. We should not be returning to a situation where quotes are added to quotes, with the greatest number determining the winner. Armeisen (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article accurately reflect the fact that, at the time, Rawat's talks were indeed widely perceived as banal by the great unwashed- who are of course the majority -including the New York Times? Also at the time the heathen masses were of course far more interested in his predilection for certain ice-creams than his spiritual message. So why not tell the story? Would you be opposed to quoting a favourable New York Times comment about Prem Rawat for the same reasons? eg. if it were 'an opinion'?PatW (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you a question? If his talks were so banal, why did you fall for it? Or is it that the only way to resolve your disaffection is to negate your own past? Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Firstly I was primarily interested in receiving the knowledge and finding out for myself so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Secondly I was 17 and naive. Thirdly. I have never negated my past here or anywhere else. Quite the opposite in fact- resolution comes from accurately recalling and understanding the past which is why I object to revisionism.PatW (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You write such broad generalisations, Pat, that it is almost impossible to know where to start. You state the fact that, at the time, Rawat's talks were indeed widely perceived as banal by the great unwashed- who are of course the majority -including the New York Times. First, there was no fact. Second, who were the great unwashed? I'm not sure whether they were P. Rawat's followers (who, it is often alleged, were hippies) or others. If the great unwashed perceived it as banal, then why did they follow him? From what Janice says, that must include you. I'm not sure that the so-called heathen masses were indeed interested in his eating ice-cream. I'm not sure they had any interest at all, then, and certainly not now. The story then, about ice-creams, may have been what attracted you at the time, Pat, but I don't think you can even pretend to align yourself with the general public.

By the way, Pat, I think I was there before Jossi. Still here, still enjoying. Armeisen (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, by 'great unwashed and heathen masses' I meant the general public (as seen condescendingly by the enlightened few). I thought that was clear. I received Knowledge in 1974 aged 17. My comments about the NYT article are objective. I think that article predates my involvement. Not sure why I would not have been a member of the general public.PatW (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added some more Kent. He may have found Rawat's talk banal but his "companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received".Momento (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And just for the record, I consider Francis Schonken's "fudge sundae" edit deliberately "disruptive".Momento (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

TIME OUT! (and undent.) This discussion is getting way overheated. Look, this started because Momento challenged the sources for the long-standing (and I don't think really debatable) statement that some people found Rawat's teaching as simplistic. We can quibble about sources, but does anyone serious dispute that such controversy existed? I don't think so.

So then I tried, in all good faith, to remedy the problem by adding a couple of English sources. (Momento objected to the sources being Dutch.) One of my additions stands. The other I didn't think through, for a variety of reasons -- Francis pointed out my indirect citation, Jayen and Jossi noted that I probably misunderstood Watts' very point (which is embarrassing, since I'm a fan of Watts), etc. I self-reverted.

Francis noticed in one of my explanations that the NYT reporter had said the same thing (simplistic). So s/he put it back in. No disruption, no need for emotion. Legitimate argument whether a New York Times reporter is qualified to say that, sure. But let's all relax a little bit here. (By the way, it was a feature in the Sunday NYT magazine, and they often have writers with real expertise on those, so the qualifications should be examined in context, as always.) Let's just find better sources and move on. OK? Friends again? Good! Msalt (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To keep us on track toward improving the article, I added the NYT article as a source for the intellectual criticism of Rawat (without quoting it on fudge sundaes or anything), added the word "simplistic" to "lacking intellectual substance" and broadened it from "scholars" to a more general survey of criticism, which is more encyclopedic. Msalt (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tx, Msalt, works for me.

Just wanted to add a broader comment, while ideas like "this is an opinion (by the NYT), thus shouldn't be in the encyclopedia" have come up. I recommend a reading of WP:NPOV, in particular WP:ASF, which is one of its sections. In fact I'm going to give a rather large quote from that policy section here: I enjoyed re-reading it, and hope you all do too (just highlighting the word "opinion" a few times):

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There [...] are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. [...] That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.

It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe..." as is common in political debates. (...) A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. In addition, this source should be written by named authors who are considered reliable.

Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.

A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. For example, when discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

[...]

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I quite agree with this. But then come the disputes that arise when editors seek to exclude opinion because they deem it to be held by 'an insignificant minority'. (Not sure this is a particular contention over the NYT thing but it is a very commonly used reason for excluding opinion here.) I'd be interested to to know your understanding of that. PatW (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the way Msalt has now incorporated the NYT criticism. On the whole, I think it is more encyclopedic and NPOV to say that someone was dismissed or ridiculed, rather than – gleefully – repeating the dismissive or derisive statement verbatim, unless it has special notability. Jayen 466 13:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Omitting the details of the criticism and ridiculing is not informative and hence not encyclopedic. At least the reader should be able to click on the mouse to see in the references the detailed criticisms. Andries (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is helpful if the interested reader can see the original quote, and have no objection to anyone adding the quote in the ref citation, but I still think it is unencyclopedic to have references to Rawat's being "fat" or "liking sundaes" in the body of the article. Can we agree to restrict that kind of thing to the ref quotes? Jayen 466 14:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, a guru who has a penchant for ice cream is extremely unusual and hence related to Rawat's notability. Andries (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ice cream is a bit reductive, but clearly Rawat's lifestyle is unusual and notable for a spiritual leader from the Vedantic tradition. (Osho is another.) Nonetheless, we need to be careful to avoid some of these bits of color. They make for good and interesting writing but can easily introduce elements of judgement that don't belong. We can't tolerate that as much as newspapers, magazines and books can, but there is also a risk of missing key points. I think that including them in refs is an excellent compromise. Msalt (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure his lifestyle is unusual at all. Can you name any well-known guru, or religious leader of any denomination, who lives in poverty and discomfort? Jayen 466 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad you agree about the idea to provide the quotes in the ref. Jayen 466 22:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it surprise you to know that the current and previous popes both like(d) ice cream? [2] I think gurus these days eat pretty much the same as everyone else. Jayen 466 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me. But has there ever been a guru who flies his own 707 when he's 23 years old? A guru who at 16 marries a 24 year old American? A guru who gives up being a guru?Momento (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Woah, woah! woah! There is a ridiculous amount of distance between PR's lifestyle and the idea of "living in poverty and discomfort". That question is ridiculous on its own merits. An honest question might be more along the lines of whether or not PR's lifestyle is more extravagant than his "peers" (for lack of a better word). Wow, nice way to try and steer an argument into the absurd... BTW, have another flying guru while we're at it... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6276333.stm and a guru that gives up being a guru... http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/NewAge/guru_retires.html what is the point of your arguments people?! Or is it merely, as I suspect, engaging in a little reductio ad absurdum to distract from the real issue?

This kind of behaviour from Jossi is not funny either. How can we stop this?

I just noticed that Jossi has performed his latest favorite little conjuring trick to remove things he doesn't like from this discussion. (See thread about three up from this entitled 'Divinity' where my text has been replaced with some horrible little brown box saying "This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.") Can somebody help me out here? I really have had enough of this biased administrator stifling discussion with his paranoid beliefs about soapboxing. I came here not to soapbox but to raise objection to, draw attention to, and sensibly discuss all the inaccuracies that were obviously being presented here. Who the hell does Jossi think I'm 'soapboxing' to? Aren't we allowed to bring such things to the table for editors here to discuss? Above, I sought to draw attention to the fact that Rawat has not made any attempts to clarify which Hindu beliefs he no longer espouses as was patently germane to the thread/article. Jossi has this crazed fear about any thing hosted by that ex-premie.org website. Why? Can somebody please enlighten me as to why Wikipedia allows someone with such proven COI to wield authority here (of all places) like this? How can I undo his blasted magic trick to make things disappear like that?PatW (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just in case nobody saw what I wrote here it is again. Please read and tell me why this is 'soapboxing' or not permitted??-

I believe that there is no argument that Prem Rawat has ever made any attempt to clarify specifically which Hindu concepts he believed in and those he didn't. The only defence that is ever produced to counter his claims and suggestions of divinity is that he also said in public that he was not God, which as we can see is only half the story. I think that you all might want to acquaint yourselves with all the questions that various ex-premies and premies have listed here http://ex-premie.org/questions/questions_index.htm which plainly express their feelings of frustration that he has never done this. Here's a good example- "Would you please go through the whole list of Hindu concepts expressed in and taught in your own earlier teachings and interviews, as well as those of your family, your father and your mahatmas, and specifically separate those which you no longer hold any stock in from those you do? Would you please explain when and how you came to realize that these above-mentioned concepts were untrue?".....(From http://ex-premie.org/questions/y_revise_past.htm )

PatW (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop in mis-using these pages for forwarding your views. That is not only not funny, but disruptive. You have received multiple warnings from different editors, and you are not listening: User_talk:PatW#No personal attacks - 2nd warning, User_talk:PatW#No_personal_attacks_3, User_talk:PatW#Warning on soapbox, arguing, and personal attacks. Any further disruption will be reported at WP:AN/I as per probation ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the discussion Jossi last archived included any personal attacks. Please don't archive any more threads - we have a bot for that. If we need to deal with talk page disruption it'd be better to have an uninvolved admin do it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The concern is not about NPA only, Will. It is about soapboxing and endless stream of comments and personal opinions, per WP:NOT#FORUM, which is BTW, policy. As I said above, any further such disruptions will be reported at WP:AN/I to be evaluated by uninvolved admins. Pat: Consider this the last warning ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Warn away Jossi. What I will consider is that your warnings are inappropriate and a corruption of honest values and freedom of speech. I am fairly confident that uninvolved admins will agree with me and disagree with you. So bring them on by all means. To put it bluntly 'put your money where your mouth is' and lets see just how what others think about this.PatW (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi writes:You need to stop in mis-using these pages for forwarding your views.

Who says I am asserting my views any more than you or anyone else? As a matter of fact I was presenting a perfectly innocent argument and pointing to other peoples expressed views that support my argument. All of which was quite appropriate to the articles discussion page. PatW (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get into this. As it stands, I can count several AGF/civility violations, and repeated misuse of your user talk page and this article's talk page as a soap box. By asking for a block is a weak attempt to actually have Jossi block you out of spite -- which won't happen because I have much more faith and respect into Jossi not to do that -- hence why there is an open ANI case that you've been made aware of. As an uninvolved administrator, I am politely asking you to refrain from this line of unconstructive discourse, and to stop using various pages as a soapbox -- and to stop forum shopping for replies. seicer | talk | contribs 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to be polite but let me be clear about this. Do you really think that I am here to get personal attention or out of a more conscientious desire to draw to attention to counter-arguments to various edit proposals I consider important? I reject the appellation of 'attention whore' or whatever you said on that ANI page because I consider myself to be defending righteous public-spirited arguments in the face of quite considerable POV pushing here. Like I said which maybe I shouldn't have..I think that some of what has been asserted here under Jossi's watch amounts to lies. Sorry but that's my blunt perception and I partly blamed Jossi and of course our friend here Momento. I invited Jossi to 'bring on' uninvolved editors here not out of 'cockiness' but out of a sense of urgent necessity. I observe that actually there is some merit in pushing the boundaries here to get more neutral voices involved. If it wasn't for such historic rude opposition I don't think many neutral editors would have felt the need to check out this article. In short Jossi's negative publicity - however unwelcome- has done heaps of good for this article by drawing neutral attention and focussing the discussions more dispassionately and intelligently. Believe me, I would be delighted to get back to more civil tone. BTW What exactly is 'soapboxing' about referring to those things I just did? In short if I knew what definitively what 'soapboxing' was I might be able to stop doing it. And yes, I welcome your invitation for me to refrain from unconstructive discourse. PatW (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pat, you seem to be saying you will not "get back to a more civil tone" until this article conforms to your idea of an "intelligent and dispassionate" discussion. Given the intense discussions that have taken place here, and the rigorous application to the discussion of rules and guidelines intended to achieve exactly those qualities, this may be not a good direction for you to be going in. I would take warnings from uninvolved admins very seriously. See WP:SOAP. Rumiton (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm prepared to moderate my tone - I said as much. All I was doing was questioning why what I said amounts to soapboxing. I really still don't understand this. [[3]]I am not altogether impressed at the AN/I. Jossi took words which I believe I'd deleted straightaway (thinking the better of it) and included that as evidence of my incivility. Correct me if I'm wrong about this please but that is my vague recollection. How fair is that? ~~Secondly my polite comments re-questioning Jossi's fairness over the above incident were immediately removed from Jimi Wales' page altogether. [[4]]I think that is outrageous in this day and age.~~ Thirdly only one of the editors in that jury actually looked in here to see the context of my argument. [[5]]The others just rushed to judgement in what I thought a rather uncivilised free for all, except Will. I am in fact so distinctly depressed by the unfair trial atmosphere here that I am now seriously considering withdrawing altogether of my own free will. PatW (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Have you been talking about me on Jimmy Wales' page without telling me? That would be most uncivil. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm tired. I thought I was talking to Jossi. Have re-worded.PatW (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apology. I still feel like emphasising that getting this article to be fair and actually informative about the subject is going to take a lot of flexible thinking from all. We are not there yet. Rumiton (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken about the thread disappearing from Wales' Talk Page it just is right down the bottom.PatW (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cult Taxonomy

EV is (apparently appropriately) listed on List of groups referred to as cults. DLM certainly should be on that list, but has been deleted, inappropriately, IMHO, even though it no longer exists. There should be some further categorization of these groups, however. The term is used a bit too much to imply guilt by (free) association in the minds of any given group of cult critics. Maharaj Ji does not appear to be a Charles Manson or a David Miscavige, although I am not watching him very closely. I ignored him completely for around ten years, until I discovered these Wikipedia articles.

The Love Family and The Manson Family are/were LSD cults. LSD has a hypnotic effect, and people ... participating in the "sacrament" of LSD ... in the presence of Paul Erdman (a/k/a "Love Israel") learned that he was "greater than or equal to God," and that they had to give him all of their money. In the Manson Family, Manson was held as the returned Jesus. Well, we all know where that went. It was very difficult to deprogram someone out of the Love Family if they had been through the LSD "sacrament." Leslie Van Houten may have been effectively deprogrammed by other prisoners, but they are never, ever, ever going to let her out of prison, so it doesn't really matter.

DLM and the Tony and Susan Alamo Christian Foundation, contrariwise, could be referred to as "concentration" cults. In the Alamo cult, individuals were persuaded to think the phrase "praise you, Jesus, thank you, Jesus" during all waking hours. They were then shown selected Bible verses to convince them that if they stopped thinking this phrase, God would zap them into homosexuals who could not go to heaven. The unwitting self-hypnotic effect of the "meditation" left them in fear of leaving the cult property. Recruits were selected for proselytization based upon their apparent recent drug use. Full members lived in the commune and engaged in back-breaking physical labor, for which they never received a paycheck. Oh, yeah. They also had to turn over all of their money and possessions. Almost forgot that.

The (1973) DLM version was, essentially the same -- 24/7 concentration on your own breathing, pressure to live in an ashram (or, more frequently, a "premie house"), and subsequent indoctrination into the "non-beliefs." The first of these was the belief that you didn't have beliefs (or concepts or dogma), but knew things based upon your own experience. The next was that there was something wrong, demonic or Satanic about the "mind," which was not defined, based upon its resistance to this kind of "meditation." The next was that the guru was greater than or equal to God, which you believed, but also believed that you knew. In 1973, the organization was promoting the idea that the Millennium '73 event was, essentially, the Second Coming, that "Sache dabar ki jai" referred to the Guru and his Holy Family as "the Holy High Court of God," and that the mother and three brothers were "the four angels referred to in the Book of Revelation." That whole cluster of un-beliefs was attributed to Bal Bhagwan Ji in a legendary conversation with some guy called "Tiny." Anyway, by November, I, and everyone I knew, expected a flying saucer to remove the Astrodome from the planet, with all of us inside. Rennie Davis predicted 144000 of us. It was fairly easy to deprogram someone out of the Alamo cult or DLM. You only had to convince them to stop "Praising the Lord" or "meditating," and enough of their thinking ability was restored to see that they had been deceived and that believing in flying saucers and all that was a little bit off. Oh -- and the third page of the Ashram Application asked a lot of questions about things like trust funds and potential inheritances. One premie house I was living in became an "applicant ashram," and with the requirements for a positive cash flow from the house to DLM, everyone would have needed a pretty good-paying job to continue to live there. Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman point out that the DLM mind control was particularly effective, and that they hadn't met former premies who had not been "appropriately deprogrammed." They didn't wait long enough. If you visit http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org, you will find that very few of us were deprogrammed, and that the others took 20-25-30 years to think their way out of the trap, usually after reading the histories of other ex-premies online.

Now, I'm seeing that Goom Rodgie has apparently modified his earlier "agya" from "constantly meditate and remember the Holy Name" to practicing the four techniques for a minimum of one hour a day. The "Music" as taught, unbalances the body's electrical field and impedes thinking. The "Word," as taught in the past (24/7), serves as a more severe mind control technique, similar to the "Jesus" mantram in the Alamo cult. The "Light" (as taught in 1973) has the potential to physically damage the eyes, but probably has some beneficial potential if practiced in a different manner. The "snot" technique seems to be harmless, unless you get your tongue caught in your sinuses somehow. I haven't heard of anyone doing that, but there is a Radha Soami image online (MRI, I believe), showing someone with his tongue all the way up there, which looks like it could result in suffocation. And, of course, there are other breath meditations, including one of the Vipasana techniques, which rely upon "bare attention" rather than forced concentration, and which are not normally practiced 24/7, even in a monastic environment. So "The Knowledge" could be modified into something harmless and possibly beneficial, but I see no evidence of that occurring as yet. . If there is no ongoing secret EV teaching to keep "meditating" 24/7 (and, as an outsider, now, I would have no way of evaluating that), then EV is no longer the same kind of cult DLM was. In fact, using the taxonomy of the 2nd edition of "Snapping," it would appear to be a "sect," now -- an unorthodox religious group with a pyramidal structure, which would have the potential of becoming a cult if the leader (or the group) became paranoid enough or if the group was attacked by outside society. . A lot of different things are lumped together under the rubric of "meditation." Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh a/k/a Osho cataloged hundreds of them in his multi-volume "Book of Secrets" a few years back. There was a caveat in the health benefits of meditation article here (whatever the correct name is) that benefits shown by scientific experiments to derive from Transcendental Meditation could not necessarily be expected from other meditation techniques. Someone deleted that, and I think I remember who it was, but I'm not going to guess right now or look it up right now. . Not knowing how long Momento has been following Rawat, I don't know how disingenuous he is being in calling the "meditation" techniques "self exploration," or whatever the euphemism was. The intense concentration model from the early 1970's had the positive benefit of curing some (but not all) heroin addicts, but did not have the self-discovery benefits of, for example, Vipasana meditation practice supervised by an experienced teacher. That's another criticism of Rawat, of course -- no competent supervision of the meditators, and an apparent intent to completely suppress the mind, rather than remove emotional blockages discovered in meditation through forgiveness and other "skillful means." . By the same token, it seems disingenuous to call Rawat a "motivational speaker," when his entire message appears to be that he can give you "peace of mind" if he teaches you to meditate. A self-inflicted "software lobotomy" is not the kind of "peace" anyone in his right mind would be looking for, however, and given the 1973 attack on Pat Halley, it doesn't appear likely to eliminate all of the causes of war. . However, I wouldn't completely oppose a modification to indicate that Rawat currently describes himself as a "motivational speaker." That's certainly true, whether the description is accurate or not. Perhaps I'm advocating "weasel words," but that might be a reasonable compromise. . Anyway, the article as currently written, is generally referred to as a "whitewash" by former meditation students (who, through a kind of bait-and-switch wound up being devotees of the living God instead), and Jossi continues to use his cute little interpretation of BLP to stifle all criticism of Rawat.

Wowest (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wowest, you seem to take the view that 35 years of NOT practising Knowledge or being in contact with Prem Rawat makes you an authority on the subject. Strange thinking to me. Rumiton (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, Rumiton. That was a fairly intelligent comment, and, of course, honest. On the other hand, opinions of ex-premies who left more recently are readily available. You know where.

Of course, I've had the benefit of inside information on other, similar cults from their former members. DLM had mind-control overkill, and, of course, I'm talking about DLM, which no longer exists. I've just been learning about your confidential "team trainings" and the top-secret DECA project from later ex-s. Fascinating stuff.

Wowest (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaving India section

Shifted Time Magazine quote to here where it seems to fit in better. Rumiton (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Millenium, I am also having a problem with the words "as a result" which follow the statements about low turnout and financial loss. Since this was a free event, it would seem to me that there can be no connection between the attendance and the financial returns. As a source above says, the cause appears to be simple over-spending. Rumiton (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this Millennium sentence "Though Mission officials predicted that 100,000 people would attend the free event, actual attendance was estimated at 25,000 by followers and 10,000 by police." needs improvement. It is generally conceded that the attendance was around 20,000 by independent estimates, so claiming the followers claimed it was 25,000 and police claimed it 10,000 suggests dishonesty on behalf of the followers.Momento (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that, Momento. Controversial events always have police attendance estimates which are far below organizer estimates. If you don't think Millennium '73 wasn't controversial, you just weren't there. Wowest (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree all you like, I'm talking about what many sources say.Momento (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Obtained copies of NY Times and see several conflicting numbers as well as useful context added.Momento (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[undenting] The attendance figures are taken directly from the most contemporary reliable source, and most accurately reflect the attendance. Later stories, especially in encyclopedias where space is limited, sometimes said "about 20,000" to save space, but that is less accurate. The different attendance estimates don't suggest anything; they are a statement of fact. Police estimates invariably are smaller than those of event organizers. Readers can draw their own conclusions about the reliability of the claims of each. We don't need to do the thinking for readers; that's exactly what OR is.

Also, it doesn't matter if YOU have a problem with the words "as a result". That is what several reliable sources say, and your arguments to the contrary are OR. If you want to know why, DLM accepts contributions, and highly publicized successful events bring donations both immediately and over the long run. The event was a failure (sources use words like "fiasco" but I chose more neutral ones) and the expected contributions didn't materialize. It's not rocket science. Msalt (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Staff at the Denver headquarters were reduced from 250 to 80

Can anyone who has Downton tell me which year this happened? Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"The sense of independence expressed by Alan was the trend by the close of 1976. It was a contributing factor, I feel, in the exodus, of premies from the ashrams, the emphasis on the development of careers outside the Mission, the group dynamics phase, and the general lack of interest in propagation. "A quick look at Divine Light Mission today might lead one to believe that it is falling to pieces," Alan said that year. "In fact, Divine Light Mission, as we know it, may not exist too much longer. Premies are now leaving the ashrams in droves-officially, at the rate of 2 to 3 per day. That may not seem like much, but, at that rate all the ashrams will be empty by the end of the year. The staff in Denver was 250 just a couple of months ago. Now it is 80. Donations have dropped in half. Nobody knows for sure what is happening, why it is happening, or if we will weather the crisis." So it would seem to have been 1976. Jayen 466 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayen. I will try to look at the time sequence of this ref tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive bot

Could someone more clued-up than me have a look at what the archive bot is doing? The most recent archive is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_31 but it is not accessible from the archive menu (the bottom link there leads to the older http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_30 ). Also, the numbering of archive pages goes 1, 3, 4 for no apparent reason that I can discern (2 is missing, even though each line clearly starts with a hash). Jayen 466 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot only makes the archives, but it does not update the archive links in this page. I have added Archive 31 to the list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Westernization

We have ...and gave way to an exclusive focus on "Knowledge", a set of instructions about living life. We know, and the article says so, that the Knowledge is the four inner techniques, not a set of instructions about living life. Any problem with clarifying that? Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I was wondering about that myself. Jayen 466 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. How about adding word "meditation" before "techniques", for clarity? Msalt (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made it "techniques for inner exploration." Hope that does the job. Rumiton (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Meditation is a neutral description used by nearly all of our reliable sources. "Inner exploration" is POV cheerleading, and has no meaning to the average reader. Msalt (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, in fact I agree. The word meditation had already been used, so I stuck in inner exploration while I tried to think of a synonym. Rumiton (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Msalt. "Inner exploration" sounds like science fiction. "Meditation techniques" sounds better to me.Momento (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Jayen 466 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As it stands this section now has Rawat giving up his "divine status" twice. Jayen, you seem good at smoothing chronology, perhaps you can give it a tidy up.Momento (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems he kind of did give it up twice. The first time was around 1975, when premies did their own American-style magazine, did Human Potential-type groups and so forth, and left the Ashrams to get jobs; but then Rawat encouraged devotion again, and the whole thing took a step back, it seems; so it took a few years, and then the Indian-type devotion was finally given up for good. Sound near the mark? Jayen 466 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but the westernization section deal from 1980 until 1999 and during that period he gave it up once and for all in the early 80s.Momento (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's try for middle ground

Francis, I don't think edits like this one [6] ("all evil should be attributed to the mind") are ultimately helpful. As a statement by itself, it lacks context. It implies a kind of criticism that the authors quoted (who do explain in neutral terms what is meant by "mind") do not express. The more edits of this sort we have, the more the article will look as though – as I read somewhere the other day about Wikipedia – two people had fought over a keyboard, alternately achieving possession of it and entering a few words, until their opponent grabbed it again and entered their text. This is exactly what happened here; Momento has added a balancing statement from the same article, but the sentence still seems to me to be a sentence of two halves, more indicative of our conflict here than of what the scholars in question said. Unless we strive for middle ground, it will never end. Jayen 466 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the article should explain what Lans and derks thought that the DLM or Rawat meant with the mind. Andries (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right Jayen. This article used to be facts based on scholars opinion. When editors add stuff like "the mind is evil" or "Rawat is banal", it is clearly a cheap shot that needs to be reverted or rebutted. Since you can't revert this drivel, you have to add material to explain a comment taken out of context. As for middle ground, we don't want to end in the middle, we want to end up with the truth, Rawat is innocent until proven guilty>Momento (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly against these cheap shots. Apart from that, we don't have to make a judgment on Rawat; and the truth is also that some people have made these criticisms. I am not against including that criticism, as long as it is attributed, accurately represented, and the article does not identify with it. To that extent, Francis made sense above. Jayen 466 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, really, I don't see why we would need to get into fragmented discussions again. I don't like the disruption caused by that either, and have pointed it out multiple times. The Van der Lans and Derks edit was explained above in #Teachings Section, and extensively discussed there, nobody objecting to my final assessment of the situation there. Yes, there I made a reference to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=189984883&oldid=189956902#_note-41

Which was an earlier version of the article, directly linking to the full relevant Van der Lans & Derks quoted text in the footnote (so, Andries, please stop complaining I'm not doing my utmost to show what is going on); And also the pro-Rawat camp stop complaining the scholarly opinions have been removed. Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them (that's about the time when I insisted on Jossi he'd take a more relaxed approach to editing the article, and I still appreciate his reaction to that suggestion) - I only tried to find a middle ground. Msalt had moved the Van der Lans and Derks footnote, clueless about what it was doing in a paragraph on criticism of the content of Rawat's teachings. There's no reproach there, and Msalt will have no problem I wrote those words (I'm confident) - but how could Msalt not have been clueless: the Van der Lans and Derks footnote had been stripped from everything that would have made clear why it was where it was before Msalt moved it. So I explained what had happened, above in #Teachings Section, and went for the middle ground: not making the quote in the article too long (some might object and remove it as had happened multiple times before), and not too short either, at least make it an understandable sentence. I was glad Momento added the somewhat longer explanation shortly thereafter, [7], because that really made more sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, sorry, forget I mentioned it. Jayen 466 14:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you mention anything? - I already forgot. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them ???? No, Francis, no. I reverted your edit: Your edit dismissed more than a year's worth of edits by many editors, to your last version. Stick to the facts, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. But FYI, my contention doesn't contradict yours. The only substantial changes in that year had been removing quite some scholarly sources, and adding multiple references to the Cagan book that had appeared in 2007 (which, as I think we agreed, is not a scholarly source). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Francis. The version you reverted to, removed a completely re-written article based on peer reviews and GA feedback. The fact that you disagreed with that version, was no grounds for dismissing one and a half year of edits. In any case, that is behind us now. Let's focus on moving forward, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The version Francis reverted from was an article rewritten entirely by Momento, Rumiton, and yourself, Jossi while you took ownership of it and stonewalled myself and everyone else from making any substantive edits. I disagreed with many of Vassayana's suggestions but was ignored as was Andries and PatW. I never approved of it, agreed with it, including Vassyana's recommendations. The three of you essentially considered it a concensus when the three of you agreed, while ignoring everyone else. Stop revising history, please.

Getting back to the subject. Maharaji's major teachings included his frequent demonization of one's mind. That was his primary focus for many, many years: By receiving Knowledge and practicing meditation, listening to satsang, and doing service, premies would find happiness, inner peace, surrender and devotion to him, and therefore, all of life's answers would be found (without the mind chattering away in our heads). It's not up to editors to try to define and/or interpret what Rawat meant by "mind." I strongy discourage doing that. Just report what the sources say and trust readers to come to their own conclusions about the definition of "mind." That said, there are plenty of his quotes that represent the way Maharaji views a person's mind. Especially read "Mind, the Unseen Demon." Maharaji on "Mind". Sylviecyn (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this section is getting at, or what middle ground is being suggested. But this discussion points up a continuing problem. So many changes are being made that footnotes are constantly being separated from what they reference. The article is being "worried" constantly, esp. by Momento, who literally appears to have made several edits a day for months if not years. For example, this edit [8] separated three sources from a statement by inserting a sentence in the middle, then adding a source for the statement after the 3 sources. No one can readily figure out what happened, and statements are often removed for being "unsourced." How can we stop this? Msalt (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the three original sources (those that were there before Momento's insertions), back to the end of the sentence where they were before Momento's insertions. I have no idea whether the two sources added by Momento are the most appropriate sources for the sentence he added (but since they're behind that sentence now, and Momento added them at the same time as that new sentence, I suppose so).

Please check.

As a side note, Hunt 2003 p. 116 and/or p. 117 is now reference in 5 footnotes, three with a quote of several sentences of those two pages. Those 5 footnotes are used in total 9 times as a reference. The edit by Momento mentioned by Msalt above also introduced one of these Hunt footnotes (without a quote in the footnote text). Could we maybe clean that up? I mean: make a single footnote out of that, used 9 times and with no more quoted text than necessary? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done – for the time being I kept the full Hunt text as found on /scholars in the single footnote, while it is difficult to see what he said about which period when singling off sentences. But I agree the text in the Hunt footnote can be shortened now, keeping only what we actually need. Note that Hunt doesn't go in any detail that the transformation (which he supposes to have started somewhere resulting from the Millennium '73 experience, continuing up to the early 80s Elan Vital name change) in fact went in several stages (for which we have other sources, like Downton). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Get Momento banned to outer darkness? God knows how that could be done. How about banning Jossi too while we're at it? :-) Seriously though, what I would like to see is attention drawn to this article in a wider way. I think if enough neutral people arrive at the same conclusion as you, maybe Prem Rawat himself will step in and call off his servants from their naughty day and night activities. He might even give them something more constructive to do with all that time on their hands.PatW (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC) PatW (talk)

19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as a "neutral" editor, as we all bring our biases when we edit. The issue is not about being neutral, but about being able to edit with the principles of NPOV. Jaen, Will, Francis, Msalt, and all others have their biases, and have been forming opinions on the subject as they edit, and that it is natural. Some of them (my assessment) are better than others to remain impartial, and all of them as well as editors that have a close relationship with the subject be that pro, or con, can also contribute as long as they make efforts to comply with NPOV. At the end of the day, it is the collaboration of all involved, within a framework of respect and the buildup of consensus, that yields the results. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow Jossi...Thank you SO much for that revelatory news. We really needed you to enlighten us about that (for the five millioneth time). So what do you think about last MSalts question then? I somehow think you might have missed his/her point.PatW (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fairness and POV versus possible hidden agendas in editing articles about Prem Rawat

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Information

I have been doing research about Prem Rawat and his students, and =about his detractors, and I found some information which may help bring some balance in the attempt to shape a fair article.

While Prem Rawat has been known to have students that were overly passionate about his teachings, his detractors also appear to be, at times, overly determined in their profile and actions.

My research indicates that Prem Rawat has had for about 10 years a small group of active opponents/detractors who have resorted to unethical and even illegal methods to prevent him from sharing his message of peace, and to prevent people interested in this message to sustain their interest.

The members of this small group appear to be the same people who are now battling here on WIKI effort to inject a negative bias into the Wikipedia entries about Prem Rawat. I have done some research into their objectives and methods, and would like to summarize my findings.

At times, they have manipulated the media. One of them from Bristol, UK, posting under the alias Andrew Carpenter, gave an interview to the leading Bristol Evening Post on June 17, 2003 and managed to get a full page cover article with his in silhouette to protect his anonymity. He claimed that he had discovered grave financial irregularities in the accounting of the Elan Vital UK Charity, which promotes Prem Rawats message of peace in the UK and that he had just filed a complaint with the UK Charity commission. This "Andrew Carpenter" also posted several "articles" in IndyMedia websites with misleading reporting. He indeed filed a complaint with the charity commission, but the investigation found no wrongdoing by Elan Vital: the complaint was frivolous, the journalist was duped and Elan Vital was found by the Charity Commission to be in good compliance with rules and regulations. Similar fictitious tax complaints have been sent by this small group to regulatory authorities in India, Australia and more. In each and every case, they resulted in the complaint being dismissed by the authorities. There are indications that this Andrew Carpenter is one of the detractors participating in the discussions about this WIKI article.

Similarly, as already discussed here, in San Francisco, a member of the detractor group posed under the invented name “Satchianand” pretending to be student of Prem Rawat and made outrageous statements to a young inexperienced journalist with the Daily Californian, and these comments were published in a negative article on April 30, 2003.

On the forum/chat room on the internet where they gather, they have made threats against Prem Rawat and his family. Some postings incited people to drug and kidnap members of Rawats family, to poison the water of the resort where he holds events, and even to broadcast false alerts that anthrax had been found in the conference hall. One posting even included a picture of knives saying these were intended for Prem Rawat. The small group also published the private phone numbers and floor plans of Prem Rawats house, and more.

Several of these detractors have been found to have broken the law and some have been incarcerated. One of them, from Brisbane, Australia, admitted to stealing information from a computer belonging to a student of Prem Rawat. He was also found guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced to two months in prison. Another one was arrested in the largest drug bust in the history of Queensland and spent 8 months in jail. A US person was found guilty to have forged internet domain names to divert traffic away from legitimate sites. More recently, the forum used by this small group was shut down by the ISP after it was discovered that it was being used for “phishing” which consists of acquiring private information including credit card and bank account information. A journalist in Australia, in an authenticated affidavit signed in 2005, acknowledged having been duped by the detractors group and stated: “The goal dos the group are often obsessive, malicious, and destructive in nature. Through the use of the internet, they interfere with the rights of people to experience their own spiritual discovery ad for the purpose of harassing individuals who are students of Rawats. The groups actions have included the contacting of employers of students of Prem Rawat, letters to regulatory agencies and the media with unsupported allegations and rabid personal attacks on the character of individuals. … and the internet publication of false and defamatory stories about Rawat designed to cast him in a false light.”

My sense, after conducting the above research, is that the topic of Prem Rawat appears to attract people with polarized and extreme views, and it is incumbent upon neutral editors to uphold the WIKI standards and ideals and ensure that balance, fairness and NPOV prevails.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabellaW (talk • contribs)

Please remove this libellous material. The only sources for your so-called research are Elan Vital and one-reality -- the website that was sued by Marianne Bachers and in settlement of the same was required to remove all defamation material about her. Those are the only two such places you could have possibly done any research to gather the "information" you placed above that libels myself and other editors here using our names. But, here's website you can peruse if you're really interested in reporting about fairness: Marianne Bachers v DOES 1 TO 20,INCLUSIVE Cause of Action: DEFAMATION. Wiki's well-regarded editor, Jossi Fresco is named in that legal action. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not used any names, and therefore my posting is not libelous.

I have, while conducting research, found many hate postings containing hateful statements, threats and harassments at http://www.one-reality.net/hate_speech1.htm Are you denying that these postings were ever made? I also see a connection between a participant in WIKI discussions and this "Andrew Carpenter" (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-14218076.html) see: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-india/2006-March/0322-d4.html I can also provide the link to the affidavit by the Australian journalist,this is a public document from the Supreme Court of Queensland. http://www.elanvital.org/faq/JMG_AFFIDAVIT.pdf I can also document that this other person was arrested with $25Million of drugs as well as unsecured and unlicensed firearms. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/neville2.htm Copy of newspaper article: http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/PDF/ackland_drug_bust.pdf Regarding Mr. Fresco, my research indicates that he was not named in that lawsuit, instead he was a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabellaW (talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The posts by IsabellaW violate WP:No_personal_attacks as she attempts to associate editors here with unrelated people in an attempt to defame by association, and by linking to a site that attacks former followers of Rawat that is not WP:RS. Also, she makes no attempt to comment on the content of this article. Jossi, if you are reading this I hope you will remove Isabella's posts and give her an appropriate warning on her talk page. --John Brauns (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have warned the user, but I have been asked at WP:AN/I not to refactor any comments from talk pages anymore. Maybe Jaen or others can use {{hat}} at the top of this thread, and {{hab}} at he bottom to collapse the thread. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar

... was the name of Rawat when he was a child. See Balyogeshwar. I do not think that it is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a redirect to the page. Again, Wikipedia is not a puzzle where average readers have to connect dots via information that is available elsewhere, or even worse by digging into diffs at Wikipedia (how to find diffs is not prerequired knowledge for being a reader of a Wikipedia article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We had a long section on the names and meanings of them (in the "Childhood" section), but it was agreed that it was not necessary.

In these early days, Rawat was known both as Sant Ji^[1] and as Balyogeshwar.^[2]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Compare [9] – Sant Ji is currently not a redirect, but the "Sant" tradition is still explained in the article, so no problem there.

Sant Ji (section break)

As I mentioned above Sant Ji was a redlink, that is: was: I just started it as a disambig page. For as far I can tell "Sant" is not a part of the name properly speaking (as The Honourable would not be part of someone's name, properly speaking - only very few people were successful in making a given epithet/honorific become their actual name, compare Augustus/Augustus (honorific)); "Ji" on the other hand is a name shared by many (among which Prem Rawat), some of whom are also "Sant" (see disambig page I created).

As for the Prem Rawat article, I resume my previous argument: the "Sant" tradition is explained in the article. "Sant + second part of the name Maharaj Ji", is a combination self-evident from the article as a name that can refer to Maharaj Ji. In other words, I don't see the "principle of least surprise" as a valid argument to keep Sant Ji in the lead section. There's no real confusion to be avoided. Apart from that, Sant Ji is less often used than (for instance) Balyogeshwar (that's my personal appreciation, after going through quite some text external to Wikipedia on this person). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sant Ji was an affectionate diminutive for Prem Rawat as a child, never used since. Sant is Hindi, roughly means "holy man." Ji is not a name, it is a mild honorific, like Mr in English, or San in Japanese. Rumiton (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis, Guru Maharaj Ji referred to himself as "Sant Ji Maharaj" in many letters to premies over the years in the 70s, including after he was married at age 16, by virtue of signing those letters "Sant Ji Maharaj." These letters were published in "And It Is Divine," and "Divine Times" magazines in which he was listed as the "Supreme Editor in Chief." They were published in the United States out of DLM Headquarters in Denver, Colorado. Sant Ji was a moniker that Rawat commonly used when writing to his devotees, so he absolutely was known as "Sant ji Maharaj." Here's one that was published in "Divine Times" in Volume 3 Issue 4, October 15, 1974, in which he thanks premies for providing him and Durga Ji (Marolyn) with his home in Malibu, California (the same one in which he now resides): Thank You Letter, and here's the one inviting premies to Millennium: Millennium Letter. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I think, Sylvie. I had forgotten that Sant Ji signature, it was a long time ago. Still, in 1973 at 15 years old Prem Rawat WAS still a child, so my statement really holds. I doubt whether it has been used in the last 34 years, and it still seems profoundly irrelevant. I was right about Ji, wasn't I? Rumiton (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just learned that James Randi was also known as Randall Zwinge. How should we deal with it? I think we need to say something like "James Randi, formerly known as Randall Zwinge, a former magician claims Rawat was fat and a fraud". Any thoughts?Momento (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My thought is that your sarcasm is not constructive. There is a consensus that the other names used for Rawat belong on the page, as a natural part of an encyclopedia. Readers should know that the names point to the same person. To take you comment seriously for a second, feel free to edit the James Randi page along the same principles. Msalt (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So we still don't have "Sant Ji" or "Sant Ji Maharaj" in the article. It's entirely verifiable. If the theory is that things which happened 34 years ago are irrelevant we can cut out half of the article. If past actions are legitimate material for biographies then we shold include past names too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be added. The source is available above somewhere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There may be consensus that the names might be appropriately added some where but there is no consensus that childhood names should appear in the lede.Momento (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So fix it... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Momento, please re-add the "Sant Ji" anme that you've inapproprately deleted. As for the position, there's no consensus moveing other names. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus about the position of these names. Not a big deal, IMO, but lets call it as it is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See Sant Ji. Seems to be a popular nickname... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Do you endorse Momento's deletion of this sourced material name from the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the names should be added, and that we still need to find consensus about the best section in the article to place the names by which he was known as a child. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So will Momento delete the name again if it's added? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The odds are good that s/he will, in my opinion. But it's still correct to add it. I've suggested adding all of the alternate names in the second paragraph of the lede. Did I miss a reaction to that compromise? Or maybe I thought it and didn't actually post it. Anyway, whaddya think? Msalt (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me, but I'm not the editor who's edit warring over this. Momento appears to be holding this article hostage to his preferences. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we still don't have any mention of "Sant Ji Maharaj". Current footnote 20 says: "A three-day event in commemoration of Sri Hans Ji Maharaj, the largest procession in Delhi history of 18 miles of processionists culminating in a public event at India Gate, where Sant Ji Maharaj addressed the large gathering." I suggest we add to the text it references (in the "Childhood" section), "...then known as Sant Ji Maharaj..." Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Balyogeshwar (continued)

The way Balyogeshwar is bolded in the Lede, alongside with Maharaji, is rather misleading, as Maharaji is for some decades now state of things, while Balyogeshwar really isn't, and enough people know that, too. So it appears to me as a piece of, albeit highly literate, ignorance and should be changed, there have been enough suggestions in the incredible discussion above. I would put both child names - Balyogeshwar and Sant Ji - into the childhood section, where they VERY OBVIOUSLY belong, but I hate being reprimanded again for a revert...--Rainer P. (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Putting a name by which he is only known in India in the lede is illogical.Momento (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The name Balyogeshwar is bolded because it's a redirect to this article. Does anyone object to my adding "Sant Ji Maharaj" as proposed above? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK in the childhood section, along with Balyogeshwar, see above extremely extensive discussion--Rainer P. (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks awkward in the lede. Remember, the prefix "Bal" in Hindi means "Child" (doesn't it?), as in "Bal Bhagwan Ji" and Balyogeshwar. It really does not fit a 50-year old person. Neither is Satpal Rawat referred to as Bal Bhagwan Ji any more, except in a historic context. And your source Mangalwadi mentions the name only to differenciate Prem R. from his also mentioned brother, which was a plausible issue in their young years. And I find it hard to understand, why this seems to be so hard to realize, and it's not even really contentious per POV, so what's the motive for so stubbornly defending the deficient status quo, when it's so easy to improve?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Balyogeshwar" should be included in the lede for convenience in further research. Until the middle of 1973, Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature lists Prem Rawat as "Balyogeshwar: Boy Guru." I believe this was done to avoid confusing him with Baba Ram Das's more famous guru, also called "Guru Maharaj Ji," and more formally known as "Satguru 108 Neem Karoli Baba." Wowest (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but why in the lede, on equal footing with the current denomination from decades? When it's only a historic (1973!) bit? In a way it derogates the current notability of the subject (unintentionally, I presume).It goes together well with the dominant backward orientation of the article and some of its editors, but contrasts with all the quality research that has been visibly put into it. Researchers would find it just as easly, if it were put into the childhood section, wouldn't they?--Rainer P. (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep Balyogeshwar in the lede, but to add "in his childhood" instead of "in India". I think it is correct that the name can only be used about a child, because of the prefix Bal- (which means child), but on the other hand, he was a very prominent figure, playing an adult role in his childhood. There is a 1973 article by Khushwant Singh in the New York Times which uses the name Balyogeshwar to refer to him ("Balyogeshwar, the Child God ... Shri Guru Maharaj ji, the title by which devotees refer to Balyogeshwar."). So the name has enough notability to be in the lede IMO; it was not only used in his family, as a term of endearment, but was the name under which he was known for several years as the leader of the DLM movement. Jayen 466 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

An agreeable compromise, I think.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Jayen 466 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no: it is still in a sentence after "known as..." He was known as Balyogeshwar far beyond his childhood, proven by sources (there are many more in Google Book Search, which not necessarily lists all sources either, e.g. this 1996 University of Chicago book). We don't need to qualify any of this: there are books published in the US in the late 20th century favoring Balyogeshwar over any of the other names he is known by, so why would we provide elaborations that are neither accurate, nor applying brevity expected from lead sections.

And again this is becoming all a bit childish (pun intended), he was known under that name, and mentioning that is all that is needed per Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title for the lead section. If you want to reiterate any of this with a broader scope in the article, no problem for me, I said I didn't comment on that yet (and probably won't). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now it sounds as if he were called both Maharaji and Balyogeshwar in his childhood, when really these names belong to not even contingent different stages of his evolution. There must have been a decade or more between the use of these names. Suggestions to make this plain?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put a comma in in the hope that that helps. As for the contiguousness of the names, note the above from Singh's 1973 article: Shri Guru Maharaj ji, the title by which devotees refer to Balyogeshwar. Jayen 466 01:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "Prem Rawat (b. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, 10 December 1957 in Haridwar, India), also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) and called Balyogeshwar in India,[2][3] is a speaker".Momento (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to stick by what the words mean. Balyogeshwar means, literally, a "child master of yoga" or, given that he is male, "boy master of yoga". As such, the name is specifically, and explicitly to those who speak the language, a honorific for a child. It is natural for books covering the events of his childhood (and especially those written by Western writers unfamiliar with Hindi) to refer to him by the name he was then, as a child, known by. I very much doubt that there would be Hindi sources referring to him as Balyogeshwar, except in the historical sense, after, say, 1975. Jayen 466 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The translation I had from a Sanskrit scholar was (Sanskrit: बालयोगेश्वर = child master of yogis.) Prem Rawat was known in India under that specific name when he was 8 years of age. Later on people referred to him as Guru Maharaji, or simply Maharaj ji. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See Macdonnell Sanskrit dictionary: "yogesvara (p. 247) [ yoga-îsvara ] m. lord of mystic power; adept in magic." (yoga = union, connection, etc.; isvara = ruler, lord, prince, king.) From the same dictionary: "bala (p. 193) [ 1. bâla ] a. young, not yet full-grown; recently risen (sun), early (rays), new, crescent (moon); childish, puerile, foolish; m. child, boy; minor (under sixteen years of age)." Hope that helps. Jayen 466 00:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, one might add that "Lord of the Universe" is a literal translation of yogesvara, i.e. balyogeshwar without the prefix bal(a)- (= child, minor). Again, it should be noted that universe here does not relate to the external universe, galaxies etc., but to the actual etymological meaning of universe as "all turned into one", i.e. the inner experience of union (yoga), or non-duality. Something not many commentators would seem to have understood. Jayen 466 00:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this commentator certainly didn't know that. Fascinating, thank you. On the other hand, it points out the pitfalls of using foreign language words anywhere in any Pedia article, including names and titles. They attract POVers as honey does bears, and extensive explanations and footnotes don't really solve the problem. On balance, while I don't think it is very important, I think Balyogeshwar should be left out altogether as being one small detail too many. To me a lot of the subtext of this article and the controversy that has arisen concerns the value and difficulties that arise when a foreign culture/religion is swallowed without first chewing it. The job is already difficult enough. Rumiton (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating indeed. Thanks Jaen. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Westernization

We have ...and gave way to an exclusive focus on "Knowledge", a set of instructions about living life. We know, and the article says so, that the Knowledge is the four inner techniques, not a set of instructions about living life. Any problem with clarifying that? Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I was wondering about that myself. Jayen 466 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. How about adding word "meditation" before "techniques", for clarity? Msalt (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made it "techniques for inner exploration." Hope that does the job. Rumiton (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Meditation is a neutral description used by nearly all of our reliable sources. "Inner exploration" is POV cheerleading, and has no meaning to the average reader. Msalt (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, in fact I agree. The word meditation had already been used, so I stuck in inner exploration while I tried to think of a synonym. Rumiton (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Msalt. "Inner exploration" sounds like science fiction. "Meditation techniques" sounds better to me.Momento (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Jayen 466 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As it stands this section now has Rawat giving up his "divine status" twice. Jayen, you seem good at smoothing chronology, perhaps you can give it a tidy up.Momento (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems he kind of did give it up twice. The first time was around 1975, when premies did their own American-style magazine, did Human Potential-type groups and so forth, and left the Ashrams to get jobs; but then Rawat encouraged devotion again, and the whole thing took a step back, it seems; so it took a few years, and then the Indian-type devotion was finally given up for good. Sound near the mark? Jayen 466 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but the westernization section deal from 1980 until 1999 and during that period he gave it up once and for all in the early 80s.Momento (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's try for middle ground

Francis, I don't think edits like this one [21] ("all evil should be attributed to the mind") are ultimately helpful. As a statement by itself, it lacks context. It implies a kind of criticism that the authors quoted (who do explain in neutral terms what is meant by "mind") do not express. The more edits of this sort we have, the more the article will look as though – as I read somewhere the other day about Wikipedia – two people had fought over a keyboard, alternately achieving possession of it and entering a few words, until their opponent grabbed it again and entered their text. This is exactly what happened here; Momento has added a balancing statement from the same article, but the sentence still seems to me to be a sentence of two halves, more indicative of our conflict here than of what the scholars in question said. Unless we strive for middle ground, it will never end. Jayen 466 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the article should explain what Lans and derks thought that the DLM or Rawat meant with the mind. Andries (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right Jayen. This article used to be facts based on scholars opinion. When editors add stuff like "the mind is evil" or "Rawat is banal", it is clearly a cheap shot that needs to be reverted or rebutted. Since you can't revert this drivel, you have to add material to explain a comment taken out of context. As for middle ground, we don't want to end in the middle, we want to end up with the truth, Rawat is innocent until proven guilty>Momento (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly against these cheap shots. Apart from that, we don't have to make a judgment on Rawat; and the truth is also that some people have made these criticisms. I am not against including that criticism, as long as it is attributed, accurately represented, and the article does not identify with it. To that extent, Francis made sense above. Jayen 466 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, really, I don't see why we would need to get into fragmented discussions again. I don't like the disruption caused by that either, and have pointed it out multiple times. The Van der Lans and Derks edit was explained above in #Teachings Section, and extensively discussed there, nobody objecting to my final assessment of the situation there. Yes, there I made a reference to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=189984883&oldid=189956902#_note-41

Which was an earlier version of the article, directly linking to the full relevant Van der Lans & Derks quoted text in the footnote (so, Andries, please stop complaining I'm not doing my utmost to show what is going on); And also the pro-Rawat camp stop complaining the scholarly opinions have been removed. Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them (that's about the time when I insisted on Jossi he'd take a more relaxed approach to editing the article, and I still appreciate his reaction to that suggestion) - I only tried to find a middle ground. Msalt had moved the Van der Lans and Derks footnote, clueless about what it was doing in a paragraph on criticism of the content of Rawat's teachings. There's no reproach there, and Msalt will have no problem I wrote those words (I'm confident) - but how could Msalt not have been clueless: the Van der Lans and Derks footnote had been stripped from everything that would have made clear why it was where it was before Msalt moved it. So I explained what had happened, above in #Teachings Section, and went for the middle ground: not making the quote in the article too long (some might object and remove it as had happened multiple times before), and not too short either, at least make it an understandable sentence. I was glad Momento added the somewhat longer explanation shortly thereafter, [22], because that really made more sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, sorry, forget I mentioned it. Jayen 466 14:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you mention anything? - I already forgot. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's last edit to the article was removing about 90% of them ???? No, Francis, no. I reverted your edit: Your edit dismissed more than a year's worth of edits by many editors, to your last version. Stick to the facts, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. But FYI, my contention doesn't contradict yours. The only substantial changes in that year had been removing quite some scholarly sources, and adding multiple references to the Cagan book that had appeared in 2007 (which, as I think we agreed, is not a scholarly source). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Francis. The version you reverted to, removed a completely re-written article based on peer reviews and GA feedback. The fact that you disagreed with that version, was no grounds for dismissing one and a half year of edits. In any case, that is behind us now. Let's focus on moving forward, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The version Francis reverted from was an article rewritten entirely by Momento, Rumiton, and yourself, Jossi while you took ownership of it and stonewalled myself and everyone else from making any substantive edits. I disagreed with many of Vassayana's suggestions but was ignored as was Andries and PatW. I never approved of it, agreed with it, including Vassyana's recommendations. The three of you essentially considered it a concensus when the three of you agreed, while ignoring everyone else. Stop revising history, please.

Getting back to the subject. Maharaji's major teachings included his frequent demonization of one's mind. That was his primary focus for many, many years: By receiving Knowledge and practicing meditation, listening to satsang, and doing service, premies would find happiness, inner peace, surrender and devotion to him, and therefore, all of life's answers would be found (without the mind chattering away in our heads). It's not up to editors to try to define and/or interpret what Rawat meant by "mind." I strongy discourage doing that. Just report what the sources say and trust readers to come to their own conclusions about the definition of "mind." That said, there are plenty of his quotes that represent the way Maharaji views a person's mind. Especially read "Mind, the Unseen Demon." Maharaji on "Mind". Sylviecyn (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this section is getting at, or what middle ground is being suggested. But this discussion points up a continuing problem. So many changes are being made that footnotes are constantly being separated from what they reference. The article is being "worried" constantly, esp. by Momento, who literally appears to have made several edits a day for months if not years. For example, this edit [23] separated three sources from a statement by inserting a sentence in the middle, then adding a source for the statement after the 3 sources. No one can readily figure out what happened, and statements are often removed for being "unsourced." How can we stop this? Msalt (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)