Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 5

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 1

←

Archive 3

→

to Jim, Gracie and Mary Moore, Request for comments

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

copy from User_talk:Mary_Moore

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

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

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

Cynthia Gracie Aug 20, 2004

What is all that rant about? You must be confused... Wikipedia does not support anything. It is an encyclopedia for god's sake. It will be the same as banning Google from "including links to websites...". 64.81.88.140 21:56, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For your information, Andries

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

We shall see what The Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the FBI, and Prevent Child Abuse America's "POV" is on Wikipedia allowing pedophiles to attach links to their websites on Wikipedia that promote sex between adults and children. We'll see how NPOV you "Wikis" are when you start losing grant money because you've lost all sense of morality and common decency because of your attachment to your "Neutal POV." You've been reported to the authorities.

To make a judgment upon me that I am not being NPOV about child sexual abuse and exploitation is moronic and ignorant. You people are so absorbed in your NPOV, you've lost the plot of what happens in real life. I'm not just talking about the "ChildLove" article, which most definitely is promoting the activities of child sex abusers, I'm also talking about this particular article. But, Prem Rawat was never bothered by pedophilia or rape within his cult by his agents, so I'm not surprised by this reaction to me.

Over and out of here. Cynthia Gracie Aug 20, 2004 12:49 pm

Access to luxury goods

Access to luxury goods is a documented fact and should be stated as such. That is why I will revert Jossi's edit. Andries 15:49, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I object to your revert of my revert of Jossi's revert. I agree that your version reads better but mine is more accurate. Now it is not clear whether only critic say that he has access to luxury goods or that this is a proven fact. Facts should be stated as facts.

Here is your version

"As he came from India to the USA with little or no money, they claim that he acquired access to luxuries that average US citizens do not have, through donations from his followers. [31] (http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/finance1.htm)."

And here is my version

"He now has access to many luxury goods that average USA citizens do not have. [1], [2] As he came from India to the USA with little or no money, they claim that he acquired this access to luxuries through donations from his followers."

Andries 16:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andries, I do not see much difference... Please read the whole paragraph, it is convoluted and repetitive. It needs work.... maybe you can re-write it so it reads better. --Zappaz 16:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Claims of divinity "in Indian context"

there is not such a thing as Indian culture. India is too big and too diverse for that.
Where are your references that he made it in a Indian context? He made the claim to among others to western followers here in West. So he did not make them in an Indian context.

Hence I will reprase that statement.Andries 16:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Who's this article?

Andries, I must take exception to your wording. This is not one person's article; it is the result of collaborative editing at its best. I do not understand why would you say that this is my article, unless you are doing this maliciously to instill more volatility into this already difficult article (why would you do that, I wonder?). As annon said above, anyone can contribute. I have done the best I could to take the article to NPOV stage: I spent hours at libraries researching, exchanged emails with many individuals and scholars, read many of the speeches, read tons of pages at the ex-premie website, etc. and I feel I have taken the article to a pretty good stage. My gut feeling is that the critics don't want to contribute because they know that the article will have to be neutral and they are unable (understandably so) to be such. Contributions from supporters have been very few lately as far as I know.

So, the article as Ed said, needs more work, of course. Putting it in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment is premature IMO. In any case, I am placing the NPOV dispute back in the article, even though I think it is well within NPOV. I am doing this quite reluctantly BTW.

Another thing I would like to take exception is the conversion of this page to a Usenet discussion. Critics and supporters: I encourage you to take these discussions to the Usenet, here is not a good place for these polemics. Thanks. --Zappaz

Zappaz, I never said that this is your article. But editing this article is difficult because the edits get reverted quickly among others by you, Jossi and me. I agree that putting it on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment is premature. Andries 16:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If it gets reverted it is because the edits either don't add value to the article, the point made in the new edit is alrady made elsewhere or most probably because it is blatant POV. What about jossi? I have nor seen any contributions from him for a long time.

Regarding the luxury goods paragraph in critics section, I think that the wording of anon 64.81.88.140 is better... it makes the same points (i.e access to luxury goods), only less repetitive and more concise. Maybe you can attempt to re-write that whole paragraph? It needs it. --Zappaz 16:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Congrats for a job well done

Andries, Zappaz, Ed and others, congratulations for a job well done. Las time I visited this many week ago, the article was in shambles... Looks like it is coming together. Prose is good, although the Prem_Rawat#Critics section is a bit too verbose for my taste. Someone with good penmanship and time could easily improve it. Maybe I will give it a try, time permitting.

Zappaz, I am removing the //controversial// template. I know that it is a controversial issue but the article is presenting pro and con POVs quite dispassionately. What are that reactions to the article from followers and ex followers? Have we reached concensus in the article?

--141.76.1.122 18:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? -- Jim

I've done some further reading on Wiki NPOV and all I can say is that the more I read, the more stupid, unworkable and misguided it is. You guys go for it. I'm embarrassed I ever bothered to waste a moment here. -- Jim

Thanks .122, hope you can help out with that section. In any case, seems that the critics, for the second time, are bailing out. Hope we did not scare them off. Sometimes this happens as Ed commented previously. For some it is either their POV or nothing.--Zappaz 09:17, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arathi (Should be "Arti")

The article says that arathi or arthi is performed for family members. Can somebody please provide reference for this? In the meantime I will remove it. My encyclopedia of Eastern religions does not mention that it is done for family members. It only mentions that this done for a deity. This is also my personal experience in the hundreds of arathis in which I participated. Andries 22:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

These are correct facts. Arti is very common in contemporary India and sung on the stated and other ocassions. Ask any Indian.

See: http://www.raksha-bandhan.com/rakhi-traditions-and-customs.html (sic)First of all the offerings are made to the deities of the family. The sister then performs the arti of the brother and ties the rakhi. She then Tilaks (puts kumkum powder on the forehead) him and offers sweets. While performing the rituals the Sister chants.

See http://www.narthaki.com/info/articles/art108.html (sic) At the temple of the patron, arathi is offered to the actors and the actors offer prayers followed by recitation of benedictory verses, only when the natakam of the day is said to be complete.

"See http://www.webindia123.com/tamilnadu/People/customs.htm

Reverted back. 64.81.88.140 05:32, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WHAT A JOKE!

If you actually read the full quotes above, you'll see that the arti that sisters sing to brothers is not at all the same as what we sang to Rawat. This one is the "arti of the brother" and is basically a prayer for her brother's longevity.

The one we sang to Rawat, every morning and every night, was a prayer to our living Lord:

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

In fact, in the late 70's, long after the family split, Rawat himself amended the original song to add these verses:

You are my mother and you are my father you are my brother and you are my friend you are riches, you are wisdom You are my all, my lord to me. You are riches, You are wisdom You are my all, my Lord to me.

Guru Maharaj Ji, my life is within You From You I was born and to You now I go Forever I'm Yours, my longing is endless This heart of mine aches to be one with You Forever I'm Yours, my longing is endless This heart of mine aches to be one with You

Wherever I look, Your face is before me Your golden Love melts all my troubles away I give You my heart, for in You it will mellow Maharaj Ji my Lord, my life is Your play I give You my heart, for in You it will mellow Maharaj Ji my Lord, my life is Your play

Oh wondrous Lord, my Guru Mahraj Ji Your grace is a river which flows on and on You fill my heart with Your Love overflowing Let me come home find my rest at Your feet You fill my heart with Your Love overflowing Let me come home find my rest at Your feet

He even added this last refrain which, if I recall, was a spoken prayer we uttered but did not sing:

Oh my Guru Maharaji, you are all powerfull, there is nothing in this world you cannot do, you can do everything, kindly save me, kindly protect me, and thank you my Lord for everything.

That's hardly what Indian sisters sing to their brothers, now is it? Rather, it is a complete, direct and powerful prayer of submission to the Lord. I can't imagine stronger evidence that Rawat purported to be the Lord than the fact that he wrote this and had us sing it to him ad nauseum.

As for the time arti is sung to actors, why don't you include the whole explanation which explains that people sing the song to them because they're impersonating the gods:

At the end of each natakam, the actors personating gods and demi-gods, and the protagonist climb down the stage, walk through the passage to the temple with the Bhagavatars chanting Hari Bhajans, offer worship and “deeparathana” to the deities inside. Later, the ensemble continues the procession towards another temple maintained by the patron. As it walks through the streets of the village, the villagers offer “arathi” and pay obeisance in deification. At the temple of the patron, “arathi” is offered to the actors and the actors offer prayers followed by recitation of benedictory verses, only when the natakam of the day is said to be complete. This is one of the most fascinating spectacles of our living theatre.

So are the premies and their friends here willing to concede that that's what Rawat was doing? Impersonating a god?

LOL!

-- Jim

I have removed the whole explanation by students/followers about arathi/arthi because I found Jim Heller's explanation that the arthi to brother and actors is very different from the one to Maharaji convincing. I also removed the following sentence, ~~which is totally untrue.~~

~~::"In a handful of occasions in the past decade, students in the West have sung Arti to Maharaji."~~ ~~:Now read this from a Premie Guidebook, (DLM 1975) In which "a schedule is highly recommended" that includes Arti two times a day ! [3]~~ Andries 08:04, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

University of Virginina article, why was it removed?

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/elanvital.html why was this link removed? It is a good article. Andries 22:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't know who removed it. But please note:

It is very out of date
many, many of the links in the aritcle provided as referenece are broken
the whole article was written by quoting the pages of ex-followers.
the article was written by a student as a term paper in 1999 - hardly a scholarly article

You can add it back if you think that is still relevant. But I will add a disclaimer stating a summary of the above, same as the disclaimer about the Geaves papers. 64.81.88.140 06:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed it, Andries. Please read http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/home.htm. The new editor-in-chef of that projet is Douglas E. Cowan. The previous one Jeff Adden, passed away last year. I corresponded with Professor Cowan him during my research. Cowen an his team know that the resource is very out of date and they will be updating the resources over the next two years. So I thought to keep it out of the article till then. As I know of your interest in NRMs. you may want to read this http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/essays/miller2003.htm and this http://c.faculty.umkc.edu/cowande/sssr-2002.pdf --Zappaz 09:37, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I wrote about five emails complaining that the entry of Sai Baba contains serious mistakes and was outdated during a period of two years but I never received a reply!Andries 09:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I still think it is a good reference. I agree that it mainly refers to obsolete practices. [4] Andries 10:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Professor Hadden's web page is the best short intro to my own church (Unification Church). It's only flaw is that it's so neutral that it's not "critical" enough for church critics, who condemn the professor's even-handed tone. I daresay its info on Elan Vital is similarly balanced. If it's out of date, then our Wikipedia article can present latest developments. --Uncle Ed 13:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why were my comments on Arti removed?!

You guys have a lot of nerve. Once again I exposed some blatant, undeniable deception here and once again my comments are erased. The fact is that the sources you're relying on to support the EV spin on Arti don't actually say what you're pretending they do. Go ahead, read the actual quotes and not just the small parts clipped above. You'll see that the arti sung to brothers is not at all the same as the Arti we sang to Rawat, which he himself amended by the way. And the only reason the devotional Arti is ever sung to actors, as in the other quote above, is because the actors are impersonating gods and demi-gods!

In other words, EV's FAQ below is a complete revisionist lie:

'What about this song called Arti?

'Another little-understood practise that came from India with Maharaji in the '70s is Arti, a song sung to the teacher or to members of his family. Arti is performed not only in front of a teacher or master but also on many other occasions: a son returning from a long journey, a sister honouring her brother or to honour the successful completion of an important endeavour. In a handful of occasions in the past decade, students in the West have sung Arti.

Once again, here is the link to the Arti that Rawat ordered us to sing to him morning and night when we lived in the ashram and which was the central ritual performed by all premies regardless of where they lived on a daily basis:

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

And once again, please note, Rawat not only added the last part long after his family split and he could blame no one but himself for throwing more wood on the devotional fire, he even added this final, spoken prayer that drives the abject subservience theme home all that much further:

'Oh my Guru Maharaji, you are all powerfull, there is nothing in this world you cannot do, you can do everything, kindly save me, kindly protect me, and thank you my Lord for everything.'

So quit pretending that this song is anything less than perfect proof that Rawat purported to be God. And quit erasing my comments.

-- Jim

After I wrote this, my earlier comments re-appeared! So this last rant is a bit redundant, I guess. How'd that happen, anyway?

-- Jim

yes, Jim, your comments (that were relevant and to the point) had been removed/censored but I restored them. I will request the ip of the culprit to be blocked if s/he does it again. Please get a userid because you may be blocked too because of vandalism by another person that uses your ip. Andries 08:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Four techniques

Andries, I would agree that respecting the students' request regarding the four techniques is fair. I cheked and these explanations can be easily found on Google, so I don't think the article will suffer without them. I fear we will enter into an edit war if you try to keep them there. Let's avoid that and continue working on the article. Given that you have an affinity for the critic's POV, would you consider tidying up the critics section? IMO it is too verbose and hard to read?

Good work on the arathi issue. That version of the arathi is pretty hefty. -- Zappaz 15:35, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappa, first of all, it's "Arti". That was the only spelling and pronunciation we ever used. Yes, it was "good work" but what was the work, exactly? It was showing that posters like 140 are capable of lying outright in order to trick you and the other people who really don't know anything much about this cult. Do you or don't you agree that 140 clearly took those references out of context in order to mislead people here about the real role and significance Arti played -- and plays -- for Rawat and his followers?

What does this tell you about the group's revisionism? Don't forget, it's not just 140 but EV itself that was trying to trick people about Arti.

And, while we're on the subject, yes, you're right again, that version is indeed "pretty hefty". Doesn't it in fact prove that Rawat did indeed purport to be the Lord?

You have a choice here, Zappaz. You can either go with the truth or fight it. So far, whether intentionally or not, you've stood in its way. You now seem to have learned something. But have you really?

-- Jim

Zappaz and Jim and .140, I just found out that there are two articles on arti in Wikipedia (arti and aarti). I only wrote one of them but they both say that arti is performed for a deity. Andries 18:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I will think about it but the four techniques is what it is all about. Yes, I realized that they were kept secret but I did not make the promise to keep them secret. Currently I do not think that the article can do without a description of them. I presented them in a neutral manner so I do not see why I would mar them by inserting them in the article. Andries 15:42, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your statement that the four techniques is what is all about. If you read the texts in the official websites and the blogs where Prem Rawat's speeches are published, you hardly see a mention of the techniques. Put a URL if you have to. I mean I read the descriptions of the techniques during my research and found that they don't mean much, don't you think? And by the way, the techniques are not "secret", just that students are asked not to reveal them to others, because to really appreciate them one needs to "prepare the ground before planting the seed". That is the explanation I go from my source in the movement. In any case, you and I know that students will not let them be published here: why to promote an edit war? the article is hard work already... :) -- Zappaz 16:08, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, once again you reveal your profound misunderstanding of this subject. The techniques are indeed everything to premies. You might think "they don't mean much" but they are, in fact, synonymous with the "Knowledge" and receiving them is considered the most important thing a person could ever hope to do in their lifetime. Rawat, his father, his family, the mahatmas and instructors, and all the premies parroting them, drove this point home incessantly throughout the seventies and early eighties. The only reason Rawat's stopped saying as much is because he's taken to speaking in the most general, vague terms possible. But the dogma continues. It's burned into the minds of old premies who subtly convey it to the new. I'm surprised you still can't see how this works.

As for the secrecy, we were sworn to keep them private because, we were told, only authorized conduits of Rawat's grace (i.e. mahatmas / initiators / instructors -- all same thing) could open a person's third eye, etc. Without the grace, the techniques mean absolutely nothing. Thus it was thought a curse for anyone to get them through unoffical channels and the worst thing a premie could possibly do to reveal them.

I noticed elsewhere that you say you've researched Rawat by communicating with various sources. Are any of these exes? If so, who? If not, why not?

-- Jim

Zappaz, Apart from the question whether the four techniques should be included here I do think that these techniques are essential. The websites do not talk about the techniques because they are secret and have to be practised in the first place but instead talk about peace and Knowledge all the time, which can be achieved by the four techniques. Andries 16:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Read my last edit. As fas as I can see, the techniques are not secret. I am researching this further. If not posting the descriptions of the techniques here will allow us to continue working without any more polemics and edit wars, so be it... :) --Zappaz 16:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is a profound confusion in what Jim is saying. Maybe because he has left the movement many many years ago? I have studied this subject in-depth and spoke with current students, one of which was initiated in the Knowledge just last year. This is what my research shows me:

The tecniques are very simple and there is ample evidence that these are quite ancient and referred to in many practices, books and poems
There is no "magic" or "grace" or "opening the third eye" involved. For the last 8 years the Knowledge has been imparted via a video presentation in which people come and watch an explanation of the techniques presented by the teacher Maharaji.
Four promise are asked before the video presentation is shown (these are made verbally and no legal document signed, students are trusted implicitly.) Give a fair chance to Knowledge, don't reveal the techniques to others and keep in touch with the teachings.
The whole presentation last 2 1/2 hours.
As there is no group activities ot colective payer sessions or any other type of liturgy, students are free to use these techniques (one hour per day is recommended). There is no cohersion to do anything, beyond the very mild promise "give a fair chance to the practice."

And no, Jim, my sources do not include ex-students. This is an article on Prem Rawat/Maharaji, not his critics. We have added a critics section because there are critics like you and it is needed for a good encyclopedic NPOV article. But make no mistake, this article is about Prem Rawat/Maharaji and his movement and not about the small group of critics that you represent. -- Zappaz 16:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, what is the fourth promise? Andries 20:07, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, thanks for this interesting story. What you tell is, I believe, the other side of the story. The people who engage in a seemingly harmless meditation courses that are most probably harmless for most of them. Except for a few who got sucked in too deeply. Or participated in the wrong decade. I have often wondered why "cult" involved is harmless for many and harms other people so deeply. I have observed it myself and read it too. Andries 17:39, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is what makes this subject fascinating. My take is that some people look for a panacea and get dissapointed when they do not get that. Some people will always feel victimized regardless of circumstance. Easier to blame it on "brainwashing" than to take responsibility for one's decisions in life. Easier to say "I was told to do that" than to say "I decided to do that". As far as I can see, some of the students of Prem Rawat of the "wrong decade" that "got in too deeply", are successful individuals in society (I spoke with two of them) that seem pretty upbeat and "normal" people (if there is such a thing). Other early students like Jim, also from the "wrong decade", are very embittered and vested in being a critic (this is a known phenomenon and happens in many of the NRMs, as you probably already know). So, it all depends I guess, on the motives and expectations one brings to the playing field.... -- Zappaz 18:10, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, It is in the first place Maharaji's fault to present the panacea of Knowledge to his students. He is the main culprit that gave people expectations that could not be fulfilled. Followers were probably naive, young, gullible, idealistic. And I think quite a lot of ex-folllower will admit that.Andries 19:57, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andries, You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. Have you listen to Maharaji? Please go to http://inspire.contactinfo.net/v1_i25/story_1.htm and read the excerpt of the speech he gave last month at Harvard University. 64.81.88.140 21:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Critics agenda (beware)

Beware. The critsc, represented here by "Jim" have made pretry horrendous comments against Wikipedia. In their forum they lambast Andries and made even more insulting comments about Wikipedia, NPOV, contributors to this article and Wikipedia founders. The even go to the extent of calling Wikipeda a cult. Go figure! T They are not here to contribute, just to debate and enter into polemics and word wars. Just read these gems: http://www.forum8.org/forum8/posts/4508.html

I though these critics said they had enough of this and they were gone for good. Quoting : I've done some further reading on Wiki NPOV and all I can say is that the more I read, the more stupid, unworkable and misguided it is. You guys go for it. I'm embarrassed I ever bothered to waste a moment here. -- Jim There are more of those gems on th other archive pages.

Yikes! these people are so righteous and insufferable... like many other critics of NRMs, ex-follwoerrs or apostates as thye call them. They are all of the same: obsessed people that can only refer themselves as ex-something or anti-something, blurting victim mumbo-jumbo and unable to grow up and move on. Gives me the creeps.

Phat grrl 22:19, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you believe that such things as destructive religious cults exist, Phat grrl? If so, what would you expect of their former members? There's a reason we're called "critics" after all, isn't there? Anyway, our agenda's pretty transparent. How about yours? What's your interest in Rawat? Are you a premie? Are you, like Ed Poor, a follower of some other self-appointed deity (or whatever it is Moon calls himself these days)?

As for Andries, I think, if you'll ask him, that he's had a spectrum of reactions from ex-followers. To some extent, he's borne the brunt of some of the exes' frustration with Wikipedia. But that's just because he's the only one who's indicated any understanding at all of the problems with Wiki and this article in particular. All the same, Andries gets along well enough with most exes. Ask him.

So what's YOUR agenda, anyway?

-- Jim

You ask questions of many here, but you chose not to respond to any question aimd at you. Clever, but not clever enough.

I believe thta there is not your business or any other person;s business to dictate what another person can belive in. That is called in my country, freedom of belief. You self-righteous, obsessed ex-something, together with othe self-righteous ex-someanother are just the pits. Who the *** do you think you are? to tell people what to believe or not to believe? You even sign your name jim-expremie for god's sake. Former members my foot. Go and get a life. Use your time to help the poor or somethin. Do community service if you want to do a real "public service". I am sick and tired of people like you. My agenda? I am the Fat Grrl, callingoff the vicious game of the ex-anything-or-another, trying to instill an antmosphere of lynch and spin against people of peace. Who the **** do you think you are to pass judgement on Ed Poor or anyother human being for what they believe in. They are not harming you in any way.

Listen you: I will call each an every attempt of your or your cronies to spoil this article or any other article that deals with humans inherent right to practice their religion or belief. My agenda: I spend time here in Wikipedia showing the true colors of the self-righteous, ***** like you.

This article already gives enough info for any person to make up their own minds about this subject. So I can only imply that your motives are to limit people's freedom of belief. And I will fight aginst that with all my will.

So, keep your promise (you have made it and broke it twice) and get the *** out of here.... or stay within boundaries of the NPOV game. The choice is yours. Well actually, you have no choice, you are slave of your own righteousness. -- Phat grrl 04:05, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jim, Phat Grrl and others. Please remain civil. Personal attacks are not tolerated and do not add any value to this article. If you want to debate and attack each other, please do that on Usenet and not here. I have censored some of Phat Grrl unsavory language. And Jim, attacking a person because of his religion or belief is not welcome either -- Zappaz 16:18, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, Do you agree that Elan Vital is misleading people when it claims that Arti is sung for reasons other than worship? Do you agree that 140 was misleading people too when he said the same thing? -- Jim

Jim's Gems

(1) You guys are in a cult! Holy cow, it really does seem that way to me. You're in your own closed thought system that is not rational, it's more like pseudo-rational. So tell me, is there an article on Wikipedia itself? Because I want to start posting my minority opinion there that Wikipedia follows a set of silly beliefs that its members can't see, of course, because of their blind spots. --Jim

(2) I have done some further reading on Wiki NPOV and all I can say is that the more I read, the more stupid, unworkable and misguided it is. You guys go for it. I'm embarrassed I ever bothered to waste a moment here. -- Jim

(3)I hate premies -- and why not? Look at them. 'Hate' is such a funny word these days. Some PC policy wonks decided that after centuries of meaning simply a strong dislike or aversion to something or someone, 'hate' should now be reserved for crimes of racial bias or other such prejudice. Well fuck that. 'Hate' works perfectly fine the old way and that's how I'm using it. -- Jim

Do you stand by these statement you made or you don't?

What about answering some questions instead of asking so many?

You are the one misleading everyone here, not me.

As Fat Grrl says above, you are here for one reason only: H A T E.

64.81.88.140

Actually, I do answer questions when I get them. Show me where I don't. You want answer to these? Sure.

Yes, I generally stand by these statements with some exceptions. I do think that Wikipedia is seriously misguided in their approach to some of these subjects, at least the Rawat one. I think that some of the Wiki approach undermines free, rational thought and to that limited extent is cult-like. As for my involvement here, obviously I changed my mind, at least temporarily, and that's why I've said more. As for saying that I hate premies, why not look at the full post from then instead:

'Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:04:12 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: I hate premies -- and why not? Look at them Message:

'Hate' is such a funny word these days. Some PC policy wonks decided that after centuries of meaning simply a strong dislike or aversion to something or someone, 'hate' should now be reserved for crimes of racial bias or other such prejudice. Well fuck that. 'Hate' works perfectly fine the old way and that's how I'm using it. I feel a very 'strong dislike', a visceral aversion, if you will, for the premies who post here. Why? Because I despise their words. I despise their thought patterns. I despise what they've turned into, what they've let their cult leader turn them into: backbone-less and forked. Kind of like snakes, I guess.

I get back from work today. Now let me tell you, 'work' consists of dealing with alleged rapists, murderers, even prosecutors. Not to mention my secretary. [ :) ] None of these people, if I recall, ever made a big thing about being 'seekers of truth'. Not to me anyway.

So I get home and take a look at some of the threads. And what do I see? The same old, same old. Premies denying the obvious. Denying all contentious facts and, if they're particularly cautious, denying even innocuous ones. They're liars and they know it. Why do I hate them? Because they engender disgust and revulsion in me. I don't force it, it's a natural reaction to their lies and bullshit.

Do I like feeling this way? No, not particularly. I've got a lot of friends, friends of all stripes, rich, poor, young, old, educated, not. I've even got some friends who believe weird shit; that in itself isn't ath big a problem, just gives us something fun to argue about. But I don't have friends who are liars, who would lie to me about my own life or about the obvious implications of all sorts of matters related to the cult I spent my twenties in. No, I hate people like that. I hate what they do and how they do it. Most of all, I hate what they represent.'

I was wrong to generalize in my subject line but you can see that what I'm really complaining about is how dishonest premies who post online are in their defence of Rawat.

Like you for instance, the way you tried to support EV's lies about Arti. Yeah, I hate that. I don't hate YOU necessarily, and should probably have been more careful in my saying that, but I certainly hate the way you and your fellow premies mistreat the truth.

--24.64.223.203 23:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Who is erasing all my comments?

It's interesting watching how people fight any way they can when the facts and truth are against them.

Anyway, although many of my comments have now been erased from various parts of this page, I'll simply repeat (and amplify) a few questions I asked Zappaz:

1) At one point you congratulated me for proving that amongst Rawat's followers Arti was indeed a devotional song written and sung for one reason only, to worship him. Do you, therefore, agree that Elan Vital was misleadingly trying to minimize the implications of this by suggesting that Arti was sung on a large number of occasions in India? And what of 140 who said just what EV did? Do you agree that he took selected quotes from the two sources he posted out of context to give this same false impression?

2) Why do you think Elan Vital (and 140 for that matter) are trying to mislead people about Arti? Has this deception on their part affected your view of their credibility at all? If so, how? If not, why not?

3) Do you accept as fact that in the late 70's Rawat added the following spoken prayer to the end of Arti:

'Oh my Guru Maharaji,
You are all powerful,
There is nothing in this world you cannot do,
You can do everything,
Kindly save me,
Kindly protect me,
And thank you my Lord for everything.'

If not, why not?

If you do accept that Rawat wrote this prayer, do you still maintain that Rawat did not claim to be Satguru? Please explain.

--JimHeller 02:17, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)-- Jim--24.64.223.203 02:09, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jim, it sounds like the "divinity" issue is a major concern of yours, and by extension, other ex-primies. As a member of another church with a controversial leader, I think it's important to clarify all claims of divinity regarding the founder of any religious movement.
Please work with Zappaz on documenting any PAST or CURRENT indications that Rawat or his followers regarded him as divine. Referring to him as omnipotent would certainly qualify; so would addressing him in prayer (I hope you didn't mind that I reformatted the "Oh my...thank you" thing as a verse.) --Uncle Ed 13:42, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Morning, Ed.

Ed, I won't "work" with Zappaz until I see some indication that he can and will approach this article in good faith. My questions to him above are intended to help me and others sound out his current ability to be objective and honest. In my opinion, it is clear beyond dispute that Elan Vital is duplicitous in its account of Arti. Likewise 140. I want Zappaz to acknowledge and to comment on that. In fact, seeing as you're here, I'll ask you, please, to answer the same questions I asked him. Would you please?

Thanks

--24.64.223.203 16:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. I'm a follower of Sun Myung Moon, but he's not a self-appointed deity for two reasons: (1) he didn't appoint himself; (2) he has never referred to himself as a deity. The Unification Church's idea of the Messiah specifies a human being, not a god. (I suppose I should write a Unificationist Christology article to make this more explicit, but I hope you'll trust me for now.)
As for your questions to Zappaz, it does indeed appear that Rawat's followers were worshipping him. So the article should have at least a paragraph on the "divinity of Maharaji" -- if not an entire section. I am not concerned so much with whether the claims of divinity are true or false, as I am with ensuring that whatever Rawat and his followers used to think or claim or teach about the 'perfect spiritual master' gets described comprehensively and accurately. That goes double for any updates or revisions, i.e., if they now teach a milder version of what they originally did. Fair enough? --Uncle Ed 19:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ed -- I don't have time to comment about Moon and whatever concerns I have about how your following him affects your involvement here. But I am particularly concerned about something which you seem to be reluctant to comment on and that's EV's honesty as well as that of its members. This Arti issue is a perfect example. EV is trying to obscure its past by pretending that Arti was no big deal, why even sisters sing it to their brothers, etc. You can see now how false that is, right? So what does that say about EV?

The group's revisionism is a BIG issue in this story, Ed. It's not to be skirted. In fact, in many ways, it IS the story.

Thanks,

Jim--24.64.223.203 20:15, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Claims of divinity / NPOV

Hi Ed, glad tou have you back. I agree 100% with you that the issue at hand is not to ascertain in the claims of divinity are true or false, but to present in the article any claims and counter claims made about this subject.

Please note that these claims and counter claims about divinity are already covered in the article as NPOV, mainly in Prem_Rawat#Controversial_Beginnings and also in sections Prem_Rawat#Evolution_of_Teachings, and Prem_Rawat#Critics.

For example, you can find this in the Controversy section: (quote)

According to a transcription of a speech that Maharaji gave in India when he was 12 years old, he declared that he will bring peace to the world and that he was the true master (satguru) of his time, [5]. Some interpret this speech as a declaration of divinity. [6]. According to Barrett (see references) Maharaji used to have a near-divine status. Official publications used to contain statements that proclaim Maharaji as divine in Hindu terms. [7], [8], [9], [10]. The FAQ of one of the organizations that support his work (See Elan Vital), rebuts this by saying that in Indian culture it is routinely declared the Guru as God or even greater than God. To the man on the street in India, "Guru is greater than God" is a common statement.[11]. They also say that in India the title of "Lord" is given on the the basis of affection or admiration[12]. In the last 20 years Prem Rawat Rawat has replaced what some consider claims of divinity, with a presentation of himself as a teacher, guide, friend, etc. and most certainly human, not god-like[13];

I think that this covers this subject pretty well from a NPOV.

In regard to Jim's accusations that I am not working in the article in good faith, I dismiss these as completely and utterly. Jim has no right to judge anyone's honesty or integrity. Please note that I choose not to engage Jim unless he stops accusing, judging and attacking me and other contributors, and shows a level of civility that warrants an acknowledgment from me. Given that Jim has heavy concerns (to put it mildly) regarding the validity of the NPOV concept, I would suggest he raises his concerns at Talk:Neutral_point_of_view, and gets them resolved, one way or another- Zappaz 20:35, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What a lame excuse for not answering, Zappaz! Too hard to admit that EV and members like 140 are lying about the past, isn't it?
Ed, I'm especially looking forward to your answer now.

Thank you, Jim --24.64.223.203 20:38, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, what Jim is trying to say is that the writings about arti were proof that the students/followers will sacrifice intellectual honesty and accuracy only to make Prem Rawat look better. He says that this arti is just an example of several cases in which you and I who do not know very much about the Elan Vital/DLM/Prem Rawat are manipulated by followers. This is relevant for the article. Andries 21:04, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Andries, it does not seem that Jim needs any help from you make his points :) - Yes, followers will do anything to make Prem Rawat look good, and critics will do anything to make Prem Rawat look bad. Critics will say bad things about the followers, and followers will say bad things about the critics. No surprises there! Go to any article in dispute and you will find the same behaviours. And believe me, I do feel the manipulation pressure from both sides. Pity that you don't seem to see that.
Regardless of all the above, what we are trying to do here is to write an encyclopedic article about Prem Rawat and his teachings within NPOV as stated by Wikipedia. If some people, being pro or con don't like NPOV, they have plenty of outlets for expressing their POVs other than here. -- Zappaz 21:54, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz,

You say followers will do anything to make Rawat look good. Does that include lying about things like Arti as in the EV FAQ which pretends it was much less significant a sign of devotional fealty to Rawat than it really was? That's the issue. How far will they go? Will you please answer that?

As for exes, what exactly do you mean that we'd do "anything to make him look bad"? Are you accusing us of lying too? How? Jossi, you'll recall, accused me of distorting Rawat's words but that wasn't true, was it? Are you going to play the same game?

Anyway, I'm still waiting for your answer, please, Ed.

Thanks,

Jim

Jim... please soft-pedal your remarks about other contributors' character or motivation. I suggest you review Wikipedia:no personal attacks and Wikipedia:staying cool when the editing gets hot.
Andries & Zappaz... I think Jim's underlying concern is valid. It's one that I've kept in mind during my entir. 27-year membership in another, similar group: the issue of followers' puffing up with praise the same leader that ex-followers are comdemning with complaints and criticism (no alliteration intended! ;-)
It may not be enough, in this case, to make indirect or scattered references to the divinity issue. I think it merits a section of its own -- in addition to the references Zappaz quoted above. Something along the lines of the following might get us started, and I hope Jim will work with A/Z to flesh it out. --Uncle Ed 14:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Divinity of Maharaji

Devotees of Rawat addressd him in greetings and songs that seem to Western eyes as affirmations of his divinity. For example,

Addressing Rawat as "Maharaji" or "Lord"

"You are all-powerful." (check this quote)

"You are greater than God." (check this quote too)

Much of the criticism of ex-devotees focuses on these apparent claims of divinity, on the fervently held grounds that no human being can possibly be divine, and to pretend otherwise is an enormous dececption (how about egregious fraud?)

Elan Vital dismisses these charges as exaggerations or distortions of the devotees' words. They maintain that addressing one's spiritual leader as "Lord" or calling a guru "greater than God" does not imply a belief in that leader's divinity.

Ex-devotees complain that the devotees' words succeeded in conveying a different, stronger meaning to Western devotees -- and what's more, they charge that Rawat and his immediate staff knew this and deliberately took advantage of this (sheer speculation on my part, but is this what the ex-premies say, Jim? If not, then scratch this paragraph!)

I submitted the above, in ignorance, but based on (a) my reading of the article, (b) my reading of this talk page, (c) random (and very light) skimming of a couple of ex-premie websites, and (d) extensive research into the anti-cult/counter-cult movement.

I've met Steve Hassan twice, and talked to a number of Unificationists before and after their "deprogramming"s -- and read TEN books by church critics and FOUR books by or about "deprogrammers". --Uncle Ed 14:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Ed. I would not have an issue with something along the lines of your proposal above, providing it is stated within a time context.
Contrary to you, I have spend the last 9 months studying this movement (both sides of the controversy.) I have spent countless hours in libraries, talking to people, reading hundreds of the pages on the ex-premie website and their forums, and reading tons of Maharaji's speeches. I am also well versed on Hassan, CESNUR, and many aspects of the anti-cult movement, particularly their influence during the 70's.
The ex-premie website is managed and run by a group of ex-followers from the early days of the movement (30 years ago). One of their main complaints is that they were duped by the implied claims of divinity made at these early days. Everything in my research points to the fact that the claims of divinity are very related to the cultural context they came from: India. Nowadays, and form the last 15-20 years there has been a divorce from these cultural trappings by the movement. Speeches of Prem Rawat have almost zero reference to the divine (unless referring to the "experience within"), and in recent interviews he calls himself "just a human being". That is what the article explains. Critics call this "historical revisionism", supporters call this "evolution".
FYI, people that have been initiated in the last years have done so 100% outside of of any such claims or any indian cultural trappings. I spoke with a person that was given the Knowledge one year ago, and that person had no idea that these claims were ever made in the past and was in fact quite amused by the whole thing. Critics, of course, will negate this, but that will be understandable. Given that according to the stats I was given, 125,000 individuals are preparing to be initiated, clearly without any of these claims playing a role in their preparation, I would argue that any reference to claims of divinity must be made within a time context.
Glaringly missing from this discussion is the presence of current students to present their POV. The heavy pressure placed by Andries and Jim to make this article lean towards the critics POV, is puting me in an akward position, making me a victim of the Guilt_by_association fallacy. Nevertheless, I will make sure that the article remains within NPOV, regardless of pressure by critics.
We need a statement by Jim and critics that they accept NPOV as the basis for this article and that they will remain civil. (We have asked Jim at many times to remain within decent boundaries of expression to no avail). Lacking that reassurance, I have no intention to work with any of them. Sorry Ed, call me stuborn... but I do not enjoy vituperation with my morning coffee :) --Zappaz 15:49, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, what you say is proof that Prem Rawat still misleads his current followers by telling nothing about his past. This should be reflected in the article. Andries 18:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why "soft pedal" the truth?

Ed,

This is really too much. First, before you read another word, I want you to appreciate that I'm sitting here,smiling, casual, happy. Life's good. I'm actually on holidays now visiting my mum. I'm not heated up. If anything, I'm just a bit bemused.

But the fact is, as I've been trying to get across to you guys, an important part of these PR wars, if you will, between Rawat and his ex-followers is the issue of truth, who is willing to distort it, to what extent and how. I maintain that you now have before you a perfect example of EV -- and premies' -- willingness to lie and attempt blatant revisionism. The Arti FAQ, is both recent and official and, as any reasonable person can now see, is undeniably misleading.

Another perfect example was Jossi, a very representative follower's, attempt to mischaracterize the quotes I posted of Rawat as somehow distorted or inaccurate or taken out of context. Again, that wasn't true. It was just a typical device Rawat and his followers use to whitewash the past.

Obviously, lying and deceiving people is not a pleasant thing. It's not honorable and it's not nice. But when that's an integral part of the modus operandi of a group like Rawat's, well either that part of the story gets told or there's no story at all.

You seem intent on maintaining some middle ground that allows the benefit of the doubt and the possibility of honorable intentions on Rawat and his followers' part regardless of anything. Really, Ed, that's quite impossible here.

Another example. As I said up above somewhere, EV intentionally took a joke I made -- and which I admitted was a joke instantly at the time -- my claiming to have stolen $18k -- and posted that on their FAQs as an admission of theft. You have to know that no money was ever stolen, even the community coordinator then, a premie named Jack Tuff, posted online to confirm that there never was any theft. Still, EV in one of their FAQs about their critics, simply lies, saying that I admitted that I embezzled that money. (I don't have the quote at hand but could get it for you in if need be). There are no two sides to this. It's just simple, classic cult tactics, lying to avoid the truth. It's not possible to "soft pedal" this and explain it for what it is. That's the issue here.

As for Zappaz, I'm osrry, but he REALLY doesn't know what he's talking about. :)

Jim: That is exactly the problem with your position: your inability to understand the policy of NPOV. NPOV has nothing to do with truth or falsehood. Please orient yourself by reading the NPOV pages. I am quoting form the NPOV article below: (highlighhts are mine)

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But we (humans) disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different theory of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it's a collaborative effort; but, whilst collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts that not-p?
A solution is that we accept, for purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use the word "know" in the sense, we often use so-called scare quotes. In the Middle Ages, we "knew" that demons caused diseases. We now "know" otherwise.
We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of these views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents.
To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But since Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we surely cannot expect our collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them.
There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, and thus to encourage in them intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our nonbias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

Unless you accept the basics of NPOV, you will have a really hard time here, Jim. I know that it is difficult for you given your early statements about your visceral hate of Prem Rawat and his followers, but NPOV is the foundation upon which Wikipedia has developed thus far quite successfully, and NPOV is not negotiable. 141.76.1.122 16:47, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jim, how about adding this sentence?

"Ex-premie Jim Heller complains that one of the websites that supports Prem Rawat and his work has committed libel against him by falsely accusing him of theft. [14]"

Andries, you must be jocking... If Jim has an issue with the owner of that website (that by the way, is the work of an individual, not an organization), he can go ahead and sue him for libel. This page is an article about Prem Rawat, not Jim Heller.

Sorry, but you're wrong, whoever you are. It is EV's official site that libels me that way. What do you say to that? -- Jim

I say: sue them, then.

Getting back to the article

Jim, you asked me to address the questions you posed to Zappaz. I did, as well as I could.

Sorry, Ed, but I don't believe you. I think you could answer the questions MUCH better. Read them over again, please. It boils down to this, do you or don't you agree that EV is misleading people about Arti?

-- Jim

Now I have proposed an addition to the article, about the divinity issue. I await your response to this proposal. --Uncle Ed 18:33, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also awaiting your response about your unambiguous acceptance of the NPOV policy. Without that common ground, any proposals by Ed, myself or anyone are useless as they will be short lived due to ensuing edit wars. --Zappaz 18:41, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ed,

I don't mean to ignore your question re your proposed comments re Rawat's alleged divinity. One basic problem is that I believe there's a very strong case to be made that Rawat still claims to be divine. That's right, amidst all the protests that he's just a person like the rest of us, there's an implicit contrary message consistent throughout his teaching that he is, in fact, the very same Lord of the Universe he always was. In broad strokes it looks like this:

1) Rawat used to claim to be the Lord of the Universe. This is proven beyond any reasonable question by a plethora of incontrovertible evidence.

2) Rawat and his followers deny this fact. This, too, is beyond question as is evidenced by EV's FAQs which, I repeat, aren't on just some followers' website, they're official Rawat PR material.

3) Rawat no longer overtly claims to be divine. However, his refusal to deal with his past honestly, coupled with various mixed signals he gives his followers, leaves many of them still believing he's divine. If you have any doubt that this is so, just read some of the posts on Enjoying Life with Knowledge, again, an officially-recognized followers' site. He still has followers sing Arti to him, line up to kiss his feet and worship him. He has done nothing to truly disabuse his followers of this notion.

The evidence for all of this is overwhelming. But first, one must deal with EV's honesty. -- Jim

No, Jim. first one must deal with your agenda.

Yiu ar unable, or rather, unwilling to understand or accept the policy of NPOV. This article is not designed to deal with ElanVital's honesty or lack thereof, the same as it is not desogned to address your visceral aversion or hate for that organization, his leader and his followers. This is not a court of law, a soapbox, nor a journalistic article, neither a place to "expose the truth" as you see it. , and definitively not a soapbox for your POV.

The assertions you make are yours only and without merit in the view of the followers. That is the problem, Jim with your standing. you are unable to accept that.

If you are asking help from Ed or other editors here, be sure to understand what that means. They are not your minions, you know?

And yiou have not replied to zappa's request about yiur accpeptance of NPOV as the basis for this artilce.

And finally, please write yiour comments at the bottom of the page and indent yiuyr replies.--Phat grrl

Phat grrl,

This article is most definitely about Elan Vital's honesty or lack thereof. Elan Vital is the official mouthpiece for Prem Rawat. If it is publishing defamatory and libelous lies about its critics, that says something. If it is publishing ridiculous, revisionist lies about Rawat and his past, that says something too.

Doesn't ANYONE here agree with that? :) -- Jim

Tssk, Tssk... wrong again.... this article is an article about Prem Rawat and his teachings. Go and have your ax ground somewhere else. Stop claiming to be a victim, when you are the attacker. Why don't you talk about your campaing of hate against innocent followers? Why don't you talk about your obesssion with Prem rawat? Why don't you talk about your agenda of bigotry to anything that resembles a guru or a teacher? Why don't you talk about your very public hateful comments about individuals that have chosen to continue being students? Why don't you talke about your campaing of harrassment, your attempts of disruption of meetings? No... you prefer to be play the victim and claim to be te bearer of the thruth. After all you have done do you have the chutzpah to speak about libel and defamation, Give me a BIG break, puleezz. If they are so libelous why don't you sue them? You know that your character will not held for 30 seconds. . 168.143.113.138
Claims of Divinity (proposed text)

In the early days of the movement. followers addressed Maharaji with greetings and songs that seem to Western eyes as affirmations of divinity.

Addressing Maharaji as "Master" or "Lord"

Performing the puja of arathi and darshan according to Indian traditions

Much of the criticism expressed by critical ex-followers focuses on these apparent claims of divinity, and the seemingly lack of effort by Elan Vital to disabuse followers of these claims.

Official sites in their FAQs, dismisses these charges as exaggerations or distortions. They maintain that addressing one's spiritual leader as "Lord" or calling a guru "greater than God" does not imply a belief in that leader's divinity, and that these traditions have to be appreciated within the context of certain Indian traditions that are no longer pursued by students or the organizations that support Maharaji's work.

In the last 20 years Prem Rawat has replaced these apparent claims of divinity, with a presentation of himself as a teacher, guide, friend, etc. and most certainly human, not god-like. Critics see this evolution as hypocritical and deceitful and say that he made these changes to avoid embarrassment and loss of credibility, that many followers still regard him as divine, and that Elan Vital misleads the public by engaging in historical revisionism. Supporters say that the critics are refusing Maharaji the right to evolve like any normal human being, and have persisted to make a point that what he is saying as he is nearing the age of fifty is not what he was saying as a child.

I propose the above text (with references, not included), as a sub-section under "Evolution of Teachings" We will then need to rewrite portions of the article to avoid repetion. -- Zappaz 03:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Excellent work Zapazz & Ed! You have a knack for good NPOV writing. Ed, I agree to adding this last version to the Prem_Rawat#Evolution_of_Teachnings and removing the duplication from that section.141.76.1.121 05:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
141.76.1.121, Zappaz, Jim, Jossi, Uncle Ed/Ed Poor,

What do you think of the following alternative proposal dealing with the claims of divinity:
Maharaji used to make many adamant claims of his divinity, mostly in Hindu terms. Later he stopped openly making these claims so frequently. He now denies having made them but even continues to make them in India and to some close followers. He still occasionally allows his followers to worship him as a deity, for example during arti. He does not tell most current and prospective students about these claims.
Andries 17:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think Zappaz's version of the Claims of divinity controversy is better than mine. Let's wait for a comment from Jim, and if all goes well add this section to the article.
We might even be able to unlock the article, if adding this section breaks the logjam. The key point seems to be that ex-members feel deceived and thus (probably) betrayed or defrauded in regands to the divinity issue. Something like, "We were led to believe he was God, so we trusted him and gave him everything. Now we realize he was a fake who took advantage of our trust, the dirty Raaat!" (Jim, am I getting any closer to understanding your position?) --Uncle Ed 14:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would avoid generalizations of this kind. If some exmembers feel that way, that is their problem. Hundred of thousands of people feel absolutely otherwise, and love Maharaji as a wonderful teacher that he is. I am one of them. If you put in this article the characterizations expressed of a minority of obsessed and irrational group of ex-students, you will need to preface with an explanation of who is this group and who are its leaders. Fair enough? --64.81.88.140 15:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ed,

First, I'm bemused by the fact that you're letting these over-the-top insults fly against me unchecked. Anyone reading these threads will see that anything I've said here has been rational, relevant and mild in comparison. Oh well, eh?

Second, I'm disappointed that you won't comment on my argument that EV's honesty is very much part of the story. After all, people like Zappaz, who won't interact with exes at all, depend greatly, to say the least, on Rawat's organization for the facts. Your refusal to go there just screams out how unfit you are for this task.

Third, this is all bullshit anyway. As I said, the evidence is overwhelming that RAwat claimed to be God. There was nothing subjective about it. Moreover, he STILL does! Here's what he said in 1990 -- already part of the "modern era":

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

The radiance radiated from my beloved is of such an amazing hue ... They say, "Oh yes, because Kabir saw a sort of redness..." But what sort of redness was it? Such so-called gurus have marred the reputation of this institution. It has been ruined. Actually the guru is such a personality about whom it is said:

I bow down to the lotusfeet of my Guru Maharaji who is the ocean of mercy and is actually Hari (God) himself in human form.And whose words are like sunbeams to disperse the accumulated darkness of gross ignorance. So Tulsidas says that he bows down to such a Guru Maharaji, the Master, who is really Hari (Supreme Power) in the form of man.

So the main thing to understand here is that he bows down to the feet of that guru whose utterances, whose expressions are able to illuminate. And what is that which is illuminated by his words? It is the heart which is illuminated. His words are able to sever and dispel the spidery web of illusion, infatuation and ignorance. This I have seen myself and realized in my own heart. Yes, in my own heart!'

I trust you can appreciate what he's saying here.

)

Jim

Wold any premies here please comment?

Would some follower, like 140 for instance, please comment on that 1990 quote where Rawat favourably quotes Tulsidas who was making the point that the guru is "actually" God in human form? Don't forget, Rawat wasn't just saying this is passing, even. His whole point in bringing it up was, as he explained, to chastise people for "forgetting".

So what's the explanation, huh guys? Perhaps Hare doesn't really mean God, eh? Or maybe Rawat didn't really say this, the exes have forged the publication? Or how about context? Let's not forget context ... maybe this is meaningless because, after all, he was talking to Indians and who knows what goes on in their quaint minds and culture. Is that it? Or, here's one -- maybe he was still under the thumb of his family in 1990 (even though he hadn't talked to them for 15 years!). Or what? He was joking?

Zappaz, tell us about the evolution of his teachings, please. I'm all ears. Why don't you go ask one of your premie contacts or, better still, an expert on NRM's for an explanation. Ed, how do you handle difficult evidence like this in YOUR group? Surely, there has to be SOME way out of this!

-- Jim (LOL!!!!)

Also, see how this proves the significane of darshan?

The other thing this quote proves is the real significance of darshan. Like it does with Arti, EV pretends that this ritual does not imply the guru's divinity. Of course that's a lie and here, in his own words, is Rawat to prove it:

So the main thing to understand here is that he bows down to the feet of that guru whose utterances, whose expressions are able to illuminate.

In the context of Rawat scolding premies for forgetting he was God, this quote says it all, don't you think?

Come on, be fair now!

)

-- Jim

141.76.1.121, Zappaz, Jim, Jossi, Uncle Ed/Ed Poor, What do you think of the following paragraph dealing with the claims of divinity:

’’Maharaji used to make many adamant claims of his divinity, mostly in Hindu terms. Later he stopped openly making these claims so frequently. He now denies having made them but even continues to make them in India and to some close followers. He still occasionally allows his followers to worship him as a deity, for example during arti. He does not tell most current and prospective students about these claims.’’

Andries 17:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Context
I do not know about any of you, but I am getting tired of this guy's rantings. Hope he goes back to work soon and gives everybody a nice long break. (I know that it is wishful thinnking, but oh well, hope springs eternal...)

Nice try in "pre-empting" my response. a) yes, most probably this speech was given to Indians and as such the issue of context clearly fits. In India talking about " guru as greater than god" is as common as saying in the west" in "God we trust". b) Nicely how you made him speak with parenthesis. The concept of "God" or "divine" in Indian culture is very, very different that most people are able to understand within the judeo-christian tradition prevalent in the West. Just go and read the Wikipedia entry for Hari.

Ah, and by the way, speaking of context, Tulsidas is to Indians as Shakespeare may be to us. . Get "context" Jim? read this (from Tulsidas article in Wikipedia - quote)
...an apt quotation from (his verses) by a stranger has an immediate effect in producing interest and confidence in the hearers. As with the Bible and Shakespeare, his phrases have passed into the common speech..., and are used by every one (even in UrdO) without being conscious of their origin. Not only are his sayings proverbial: his doctrine actually forms the most powerful religious influence in present-day Hinduism

So, guess who coined "guru is greater than god:?. yep. Tulsidas...

As as masterful speaker that he is. (Call that it evidence :)) Maharaji uses context in his addresses in order to make his point to create a common ground in which his message can be understood by the listener.

To a Western adudience, he will speak differently, of course. For example he said this at Harvard's University Sander's Theatre a few weeks ago:
There is a peace that is not temporary, not tied to politics, not found in the formulas of what the world thinks ought to be. It is not somebody’s vision, but resides within the individual, whether they are rich or poor, good or bad, right or wrong—even in their darkest hour, even when they are surrounded by an ocean of confusion and doubt.

This peace is not the absence of anything. Real peace is the presence of something beautiful. Both peace and the thirst for it have been in the heart of every human being in every century and every civilization.
You call this duplicity, right? I call that a wonderful, soothing message of hope and peace.

64.81.88.140
Taking a break

I've had it, for this week, at least, but as a parting shot:

Everyone, please stop the over-the-top insults against Jim.

For the record, I consider the question of Elan Vital's "honesty" to be a crucial one.

This article does matter, and I hope the "claims of divinity" section can now go into the article; Jim is welcome to add additional evidence of old or recent claims; Andries & Zappaz, please edit for BREVITY but try to keep the flavor of Jim's discontent.

I'm unlocking the article. --Uncle Ed 17:44, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for you effort but I think you unlocked the article too early. We were still debating what should go in the article. I now put replaced it with "my" version. --Andries
Andries - Relax

Andries, please go easy.

Let's do this one step at the time. The fact that the page is now unprotected does not meam that we want a new edit war and have it protected again.; Go easy.

If you want to discuss an item, please do so BEFORE doing it in the article.

--Zappaz ~

I had discussed already all the major changes including the claims of divinity. I really do not know what do now. Andries 18:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Take it easy. That's all. We arrived to an agreement with Ed to a certain wording as the basis for removing the protection. Let's put that wording first. Then let it settle and see what others can add to it to make it better. We can look at other parts of the article once that section settles. --Zappaz

Zappaz, have you read my alternative proposal?Andries 18:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nice try, Zappaz!

You guys agreed to an alternative wording BEFORE I proved how wrong you were about Rawat's claims to divinity.

Andries,

Please post the truth and nothing but. And that includes something, if you will, about how EV lies about its critics.

-- Jim (who never embezzled nothing!)

To alll people imvolved, please compare the current version by Ed Poor/Zappaz with my version. I think my verion is better. Andries 19:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)