Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Responsibility

Hallo . i am thomas from berlin, i lived in several ashrams in germany from 1978-1983 . i left maharaji in 1991. i can confess, that the claims of divinity are true. Our life was ruled by guidelines to surrender ourselves to guru maharaji who is lord in human form. these claims can easily be proofed by material published by elan vital at that time or audio tapes. fortunatly the agya(divine order) of maharaji , to destroy all the old material, was not followed by all the premies. This can be ruled out in court if the cult wishes to. Now a simple question equivalent to the simple way of finding rawats peace: If somebody who tries to fake the past, denying his responsibility. Can this be a solid character for guiding you inside? Isn't the character of somebody who claims to lead millions not of public interest? you can contact me under tcsh22@gmx.de if you want

Guten tag! The issue you raise is being addressed. Not everyone likes it to the fullest, but as it seems to be going, the entry will clearly state that critics say he claimed divinity, there are links to the critics' material on this, and the pro people have an opportunity to say that this stuff should be taken in context. Pretty balanced all in all. Richard G. 00:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fact that's not balanced at all in that it leaves the impression that an incontrovertible point -- that Rawat claimed divinity -- is arguable. Even more fundamentally, how do Rawat's divinity claims have anything to do with his critics, really? They're an essential and undeniable part of his past. Even if there wasn't a critic in the world, a fair article about Rawat would have to mention that he did indeed claim to be God. -- Jim

It is arguable, Jim. That is supported by the FAQs referenced. The critics are making a very big point of this, the supporters look at the same with a shrug and with arguments why that is not the case. At least that is the feeling I got when I spoke with them. So, the controversy about this is, and should be, presented in the article in that context.--Zappaz 19:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, there is so much evidence that claims of divinity were made. It is very hard to deny even if people argue about it. Andries 19:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this, Zappaz. I will say this though. My assertion is based on my intense involvement with the cult, as both a community premie and renunciate for the better part of a decade, and then my ongoing active investigation including contact and interviews with past and current presidents of Elan Vital, instructors, PAM's and even Rawat's brother, Raja Ji. I've also had direct contact with key personnel in his competing guru / brother, Satpal's organization. I've reviewed and even accumulated a small library of archival material and discussed this stuff and tons more like it with many. I've maintained relationships, some surprisingly friendly, with people who still follow Rawat and know a whole lot who've left. I've read numerous articles, books and other commentary about cults in general and, most importantly for purposes of this issue, Hindu-based guru cults like this one. Moreover, as the target of a viscious and ridiculous slur campaign rooted on the cult's own official website where they've accused me of embezzlement just for sheer fun it seems, thus giving me a rich, first-hand experience of the cult's dishonesty, as if I needed it. Beyond that, I'm more than happy to consider the evidence with a simple reference to the English language as defined in any dictionary.

Your assertion, on the other hand, is based on no personal involvement, an admitted disinterest in having any direct contact with former members, lots of contact with current followers and a proven ability to avoid the plain meaning of words.

So, bottom line, I guess we can just agree to disagree. But your opinion's worth everything that went into it, as is mine. LOL! -- Jim

Sure... Just to be clear on the motivation for all that research?

FYI, my reason for engaging current members is that there is no one here representing their POV. One of them got spooked and is no longer contributing, and a few anons making a point here and there from time to time. On the other hand, you and other ex-premies have been quite forthcoming, to say the least :). Andries is supportive of your POV and he is doing his best to remain neutral. The issue here is that it seems that you consider your testimony the only one to be valid in this discussion. Almost as if you are playing the game of "I reserve the right to trash this article unless it represents my POV". Is it? --Zappaz 22:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Funny, aren't you the same guy who said that both sides can and would argue their positions vociferously? Now you're saying that the premies aren't willing to do that? Think about that for a second, please.

Do you know, by the way, that I tried to organize a properly refereed debate about the meaning of Rawat's words between premies and exes for months? The terms were that both sides would nominate a judge who then would choose a third between them. Barry Beyerstein, a psych prof prominent in anti-cult and general skeptic work signed on for us but the premies refused to join in. No, I didn't think so.

Anyway, I'm really confused by you. I've proven to you thrice-over now that the EV FAQs are a joke and yet you still invoke them as evidence of something. Don't you now accept that EV is not fair and accurate about Arti which they claim doesn't necessarily represent a devotional expression to a deity? I thought I already proved that. You certainly had no rebuttal to the evidence I presented. Re-read the archives here; you'll see.

And don't you now concede that, contrary to the EV's claim that the God thing was just a projection of over-eager western followers on a young teacher, Rawat in fact openly scolded followers as recently as 1990 when he was around 37 for forgetting that he was, indeed, God? Again, it's all there in the archive, Zappaz. What can I do but try to reason with you?

Finally, how can you even think of invoking the FAQs as evidence of anything credible when that's the very place EV laughably accuses me of embezzlement based on nothing but a silly joke I once told which I immediately identified as such?

What does it take, Zappaz? If EV accused YOU of embezzlement in their FAQs, would you still consider them trustworthy source material?

-- Jim

In reading Geaves paper about the evolution of Elan Vital --yes, I know that he is a follower and that you don't like him :) -- I find this:

The tensions that existed between Maharaji and his family need to be assessed in the light of their varying understanding of what they were trying to achieve. As a solitary Sant figure, similar to Kabir or Nanak, Maharaji has never been concerned with creating a particular religious movement and neither has he ever considered himself bound by the teachings, practices or moral codes of any of the world religions or sub-groups within them. However, it would appear that the family perceived themselves as essentially Hindus and therefore operated out of a Hindu worldview. This tension was to fully manifest itself when Maharaji married Marolyn Johnson from California and broke with the Hindu custom of arranged marriage. As a result of this, the movement divided, with Maharaji’s mother and one of his brothers and many of the Indian mahatmas announcing that the eldest brother was now the Guru, and returning to India where they began to establish their own mission or sampradaya. Maharaji, on the other hand, focused his attention on the West for many years and began to manifest his own vision.

By the end of the 1970s, Maharaji had begun a process of removing his teachings from any association with Indian culture and focusing on the universal core of the message. In 1982, the community houses or ashrams had been closed down and the Indian mahatmas had largely disappeared from the western world. In addition, Maharaji was beginning to be aware of the inherent difficulties caused by the western followers of his teachings translating the ‘avatar’ hermeneutic of Hinduism into a ‘messiah’ hermeneutic. It does not appear that he ever seriously considered the repercussions of Indian followers believing him to be an ‘avatar’ as this is almost customary amongst bhakti movements in India. Although Maharaji and his predecessors had always been formally titled ‘Satguru’ according to the Sant idiom, both the nirguna and saguna versions of the tradition have historically debated the ‘divinity’ and the ‘humanity’ of the Guru. However, these debates are distinctly different from those within Christianity concerning the nature of Jesus Christ and do not correlate easily, since the nature of divinity and the role of incarnation arise from very different worldviews. To put it simply, it is almost commonplace for a Hindu to claim the divinity of a guru, whereas such a claim in a Christian milieu is highly controversial.

Although Maharaji had referred to his own humanity even during his childhood years, both eastern and western followers with their respective doctrines of ‘avatar’ and ‘messiah’ tended to interpret these statements as signs of humility or even the divine incarnation wishing to hide itself except to recipients of grace. From the 1980s onwards, Maharaji consciously attempted to remove himself from identification with the Divine, including even dropping the title ‘Guru’ from the publicly known epithet ‘Guru Maharaji’.

Full article: [1]

That is a very different POV, and I am sure you would agree. The idea, then is to represent both in the article.--Zappaz 23:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I asked you specific questions, made specific points -- a couple of times now, in fact -- but you've avoided addressing these directly. When I don't answer something, I get jumped on here like crazy. But when I insist on answers, I get criticized for being too "lawyerly". Will you please answer my questions now? Thank you.

Now, as for what Geaves is saying, what do you want? Again, as I've already clearly explained, as the archival material irrefutably proves, the most religious period for premies, in terms of oppressive, abject humiliation, occurred from the end of '76 until the early '80s, long after the family split. The evidence is overwhelming, it comes straight out of Rawat's mouth and what Geaves is doing here is no more credible than the stupid EV FAQs we've been discussing. Geaves refuses to discuss anything with any of us but if you're in contact with him just say so and I'll arm you with abundant documentary evidence to ask him about. And you could start with that very quote I asked you about above, the one where Rawat scolded premies for forgetting that he wasn't just some teacher or something, he was God. In 1990, Zappaz. 1990. Completely blows Geaves spin apart, doesn't it? -- Jim

If you are referring to the satsangs given by Rawat in India in 1990, in which he quotes Kabir and Tulsidas? If that is the case, then you don't have a case... :)

1. Quoting Kabir or Tulsidas is not a claim of divinity, In India, many speakers, religious or secular quotes them... Have you been in India, Jim? These quotes are very, very common.
2. Someone translated Hari into God as in the Western interpretation of deity and that is incorect as explained by Geaves in his paper and consistent with the explanations given in the FAQs that you so dimiss.

--Zappaz 02:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, Zappaz, that's the last straw. You've now made it abundantly clear that you are absolutely disingenuous. Here is what Wikipedia itself says about Hari:

"Vishnu is usually depicted as a four-armed humanoid with blue skin, often sitting or resting on a lotus flower. He also has a shapeless, omnipresent form called Hari."

There is no contrary view espoused there. Why? Because the definition is clear. Obviously.

In any event, this is how Rawat's own organization published the satsang:

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.''' You'll note that even DUO, Rawat's own people, make it abundantly clear that when he says Hari he means God or Supreme Power which is completely consistent with any definition you'll ever find for the word.

Beyond that, you STILL haven't explained how you justify taking the EV FAQs at face value when I've proven to you beyond all doubt how misleading they are. Just consider their twisting a joke of mine into a supposed confession of a felony or indictable crime. Res Ipse Loquitor -- look it up.

You have proven to anyone reading this board that you are entirely untrustworthy.

-- Jim

Jim, first this is not a board (although you are trying to make it one....). Secondly, the points I made regarding quoting Tulsidas still stand. It is interesting to see how your POV obscures any possibility of seeing things in a different light. In any case, the FAQ of ElanVital is just that and we are presenting it in the article as such: the POV of an organization that supports Rawat; same thing with the POV of the ex-premies.

My feeling is that you still have not grasped the concept of NPOV, or if you have, you are rejecting it outright. If this is the case, note that there are plenty of other forums in which you can express your point of view without these constrains. Try Wikinfo, for example. They use the concept of "Sympathetic Point of view" or SPOV. Read about the differences here http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Sympathetic_point_of_view

And regarding your personal attacks, your ongoing attacks to me and others speak for themselves and will not respond to them. Gary, Richard, Ed, Senegal and many anons have made excellent contributions to this and related articles. I just hope that my contributions are also useful.

--Zappaz 16:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, any point anyone makes is unassailable if that person won't actually hash it out. I've given you several opportunities to properly defend your position but you've refused. Whatever. The record speaks for itself. I'm done trying to communicate with you as it's an obvious waste of time.

-- Jim

zappaz is doing service for rawat/maharaji , that means his task is to represent and push the view that maharaji wishes the public to know. no matter if this is true or not. he probably knows it better for himself. the material on http://gallery.forum8.org/index.htm for example,believe me, he knows it, but there is no discussion possible, when somebody thinks, that truth is only what the lord(in this case rawat) defines. how comes, he can refer to satsangs of rawat so quickly? what is clear evidence he simply ignores it. and it is really not the matter of christian and hindu view. this would mean admitting that he definitely claimed it, by the way, rawat wouldn't like that , be careful. no ,it is what you can ask from your followers as a higher being. to completely surrender their lives to him. their is full evidence for that in the printed material from elan vital from that time. that is why rawat wanted his lawyers to close ex-premie.org. it has been a speciality of this cult to mix the differrent religions and point their origin to the heritage line of the rawat cult. they even write that on their article in wikipedia.

" Just as Rama, Krishna and Buddha had been masters in their time, his father was as well."of course they left out christ this time ,for they do not want to conflict with western view now. Hans pal, the father, included christ as well as mohammed, of course. Thomas

If you want to know my motives of being here, you can read the archives in which I clearly explain it. And no, I am not "doing service to rawat/maharaji", and yes, I have spent months researching this subject including reading many of Rawat's addresses and satsangs, both early ones and current ones. Note that most of the comments you made above, have already been made by others ex-followers, but if you want to help with the articles and have the time and energy to do so, you are most welcome. I would suggest you get a login name and help us write a great article for our readers. --Zappaz 16:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And I suggest that you answer my comments above.

-- Jim

Zappaz, I think it is wrong to have the prem rawat article to have without critical comments and this is not the Wikipedian habit in case of controversial subjects and by the way if we follow what you say consistently then all the rebuttals, and critical assessments, such as Richard_G. is making them, at criticism of Prem Rawat would have to be removed. I allow them for now because I expect that a substantial part of the new Prem Rawat article will also contain critical assessments of the claims of Elan Vital. Andries 17:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries, Zappa, for what it's worth, I think the final main article should and would have critical assessment, certainly fleshed out through hyperlinks. I've seen nothing from the pro Rawat people to the contrary. The totality of the piece should be considered, and at the end of the day, if critical material is accessible to the reader, then a good thing is done. On the other hand, I was not aware that this talk section is an ersatz internet chat room where people can insult and browbeat each other, and keep a pointless "what about this, what about that?" ping-pong game going. You can debate ANYTHING to death that way. Reasonable minds have to be able to differ. I thought this page was for marginalia. For example, I still havent gotten a citation to whether Macgregor won an appeal... And I don't see a citing URL to a 1990 satsong referred to above. Thanks all. Richard G. 18:51, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok Ok i see,maybe we will have a rawat article with all those links. my problem is,now if you enter into the wikipedia search machine the term "rawat" or "maharaji" you end up at the pro-maharaji - site, there should be a choice before that. the same with scientiology by the way, that is why i have a little distrust to zappas suggestions. if you know the common internet-users behaviour in searching , you may have a big plus on your side.Every PR man knows that. Thomas

Thomas, my experience (and I teach undergraduates who LIVE on the Internet) is that totality by way of linking is very very well-read. It is simply not practical to approach a subject with an eye to being as exhaustive on every single little objection and complaint, going back and forth endlessly. It gets swallowed up by the debate. The key to a good scholarly paper is to present a value-neutral overview and supply just enough clear precise data and sourcing for those more interested to find out on their own.

I haven't seen any reason to distrust Zappas. I tend to trust everyone until they get nasty and abusive. I certainly haven't seen him or you act that way. I suppose your distrust comes from him being a premie and you being an expremie. I'm not sure what you meant by "big plus on your side" and "PR" man? You mean Prem Rawat? Public Relations? I'm neither, as you know. Probably a language thing I'm not following. Cheers, Richard G. 20:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think Thomas' distrust of Zappaz comes from Zappaz' belittling or denial of Prem Rawat claims of divinity that Thomas has experienced (I believe Thomas) so intensely and for which the evidence is, I believe, sufficient to conclude that these claims are a proven fact. That should go into the article. Andries 20:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

thanks andries that is exactly how i feel

to richard

sorry a freudian misspelling , i meant Public Relations. i did not know zappaz being a premie, he denied that, are you sure? you are right , everybody should find out for himself, provided with all the information that is necessary. and i mean ALL. that will be something that prem rawat won't like. it is hard when you find out that you have been tricked for 14 years. that is why i am so careful. maybe for your understanding: i was once like the premies, that are still there, i know both sides. if i would still be a premie ,i would lie for maharaji to support his great work. no question. i would admit , yes it was me, i made him god, he always just demanded he is only human.But that is not the way it was. thomas

Sorry to dissapoint you Thomas and Richard, but I am not a premie. I have researching this subject for the last 10 months and I have been contributing to this article for the past 6 or 7 weeks. And Andries, please do not make judgements about my performance here. What counts is if my edits are contributing to this article or not. I have never denied the claims of divinity made by Rawat. I am just working through the materials and helping, I hope, to better present the follower's POV given the fact that not many others are doing that. Maybe that ruffles the feathers of the likes of Jim, but that would be expected given his sytle... :) I think that I have made this disclaimer several times. Only think I will add, is that I consider myself a libertarian that vehemently opposes POVs that impinges in a person's right to pursue his/her beliefs. That puts me at the core of this controversy, I guess.  :) --Zappaz

Sorry, Zappas, I just assumed by the way that other fellow attacked you that you were a premie. And Thomas, I think it's pretty evident that the feelings and disillusionment you and others feel will be only a mouseclick away from the reader. That's important, I agree. Richard G. 00:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

process and resolution

Guys: I'm seeing Andreis' and Thomas edit contributions, but not a lot of others, especially from the other hardcore anti people. Just discussions (and no small quibbling).

What is the process/timetable for resolution? What can we do to facilitate that? Richard G. 21:52, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Technically, there is no official timetable, especially since Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. Practically speaking, we are indeed working our way through a rough cooperative process, one that replaced the edit wars which previously reigned here. Right now the two foci (ooh, cool intellectualism) of activity and progress are the criticism article and the alternative versions of the main article. I believe our "critical path" lies there, and temporary relative inactivity on the main article is not a bad thing. I, too, have been disappointed we have not seen more text editing by the anti faction, but it's an all-volunteer fire brigade, you know. I myself would like to take another substantial copyedit pass or two on the criticism article now that it appears just about all the substantive points of debate have been added. The next issue to be taken up then, I think, is whether to merge the criticism and main articles together or leave them separate. Once the final form of the criticism text, either as a section of the main article or as a separate article, is basically finalized, we should look at the alternative versions of the main article that have recently been developed, along with the online main PR article as it now stands, and see what needs doing there in light of the addition of the criticism. If we have consensus among the factions at that point, we are mostly there; however, if we still have major disputes about major sections, we can bring in additional Wikipedia editors under the Request for Comment program, and take votes on what to include or exclude. Cleanup efforts following that might include continued work on the ancillary articles on the father, brother, EV organization, etc. At that point, we should have a group of article with stable text that everyone more or less agrees on (even if they don't like it), such that we can all join together and defend them against future vandalism or precipitous edits/deletes/reverts. At that point, in the words of Dr. Peter Venkman from Ghostbusters, "it's Millah time!" --Gary D 22:38, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Gary--Sounds like a plan to me. I think the criticism page is pretty much done, some typos and style matters remain, but that's a piece of cake.

I've had a chance to check out the other entries and I think the treatment given to Scientology (in formatting terms) is a great model. They are (for better or worse, fairly or otherwise) probably the most well-known group accused of being a cult. And the format works, because as a reader, you get a quick note at the top that there are critics, and on the main page a VERY skinny thumbnail of the critic's issues, and then a link to the full blown criticism page. Very orderly. I like that. Richard G. 00:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

i will start to translate the critics-site into german for i see a need for information there, also.the missing contribution of premies may be , because if rawat's view can't be put through and established alone, they loose interest. this would only change if rawat would give order to participate. thomas

Thomas, I would suggest that you hold on with the translation until the articles reach a point of stability. --Zappaz 15:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

you are right, i'll better wait, when do you think it will be stable?Thomas

Ron Geaves revisited

I have not studied this website about Ron Geaves alleged flawed scholarship yet but it seems interesting. http://www.geocities.com/rongeaves/ Andries 17:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries, that website is a spoofed website made by an ex-premie to smear Geaves name/reputation as a scholar The ex-premie that did this is actually boasting about it on the ex-premie bulletion board [2]. Nasty staff...

Providing that in the article we are clearly stating that Geaves is a studentof PR (and we are), we are doing our job. --Zappaz 18:05, 8 Sep 2004

(UTC)

Zapazz, I am still studying it, but I prefer to call, for the time being, an attempt to inform the public about flawed scholarship. Andries 18:46, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andries, please... How can you say something like that? The attempt of that page is abhorrent to say the least and is another example of ex-premies using an anonymous page to attempt to discredit an individual. This in my book is called cyber-terrorism. I am thinking of adding a reference to this on the Criticism page.--Zappaz

In any event, I wonder, Zappaz, if you'd be so kind as to point out where Geaves explains, as you say he does above, that Hari has been wrongly interpreted in the west as a deity. I've looked through the article and see nothing of the sort. Were you just making this up?

The issue is significant. If Hari really does mean God, as even Wikipedia suggests, then Geaves' entire thesis that Rawat discontinued claiming to be divine by 1980 is ruined.

-- Jim (who couldn't resist the temptation to ask you this despite my saying I was done talking with you).

Jim: Read the paper in detail in particular about the avatars discussion. Then read in the Hari article the references to the same. And please note that I am excercising restrain here after your personal attacks on me. --Zappaz 20:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz,

Would you please simply answer the question? Geaves' article is before you. Please show us where he explains that Hari -- not Vishnu or any other name, but Hari -- has been wrongly interpreted as a deity? I can't see it anywhere.

As for exercising restraint, believe me, that's my feeling too.

-- Jim

Edits by Cynthia

Added section that refers to how Knowledge was practiced in the 1970s and early 80s in order to give an historical context to how the evolution is really revisionism. These practices as prescribed by Rawat are fully explained on EPO.

CynthiaG 20:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please read the summary above.

If you want to edit, and bring the POV of the ex-premies, do so on Prem Rawat/temp2, not here. I have moved your text there.

And please write your comments at the bottom of the page. --64.81.88.140 07:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't "bringing the POV" of the ex-premies by adding that section. That's precisely how Knowledge was practiced by premies in the 70s and early 80s as prescribed/demanded by Prem Rawat. That's not a POV, that's how it really was back then (believe it or not! LOL). Words right out of Rawat's own mouth prove this many times over.

Sorry for breaking your Wikirules. Btw, every time I've tried to place text at the bottom of any talk page, it wouldn't process through and I received an error message. Maybe it's a glitch in the software here.

The writers here are more interested in the writing method rather than the truth/facts about anything even though this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! It's quite disappointing because so many facts have been distorted by supporters of Rawat and now apostate has become yet another label that means something very negative.

Keep your articles. I'm finished. These discussions and attempts to make the article factual have become exercises in futility and not worth my time.

CynthiaG 14:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it happens that people do not have the perseverance to stick with the sometimes arduous process of editing at WP... Regarding labels, both factions brandish labels as swords and arrows... apostate vs. cult member, hate group vs. brainwashed, etc. etc. And the anti faction in particular speak of the truth they claim to be the carriers of, while the supporters are always the ones distorting everything. Interesting. --Zappaz 00:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Relativity of Truth

Once upon a time there was a king who asked his mage why no one could agree on the nature of reality. The mage said, 'Command your servants to gather together in one place all the men of the kingdom who were born blind... and show them an elephant.' 'Very good,' said the king, and so it was done. When the blind men were assembled, the mage said, 'Here is an elephant,' and to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant. When the blind men had felt the elephant, the mage went to each of them and said to each, 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?' "Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, 'Mage, an elephant is like a pot.' And the men who had observed the ear replied, 'An elephant is like a fan.' Those who had been presented with a tusk said it was a spear. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a snake; others said the body was a wall; the foot, a tree trunk; the back, a mortar; the tail, a rope, the tuft of the tail, a brush. "Then they began to quarrel, shouting, 'Yes it is!' 'No, it is not!' 'An elephant is not that!' 'Yes, it's like that!' and so on, till they came to blows over the matter. The delighted mage explained to the king, 'Just so are those preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus.'

- Adapted from the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant

Like everyone else, I have buttons that cause me to react in an automatic, predictable manner when pushed. One of them is the subject of Truth. (That's with a capital "T", folks.) Recently, a statement on one of the message boards to the effect that Druidry was neither "Good nor Bad, but is Relative to the Situation" set me off. Usually, I am able to answer comments on Druidry with a certain amount of impartiality, but, push that particular button, and you will get an emotional, impassioned response every time. Long before I knew what "Druidry" was, even before I was aware that religion or spirituality required a definition, I wanted to know what was "true", what lay beneath every concept. Concrete truths, i.e., facts, are rare in any subject, and are often open to interpretation. We live in what has been called a consensual universe. Our perceptions of reality, which is what I originally meant by Truth, are defined by agreement. For instance, we see what is defined as the color 'blue' and because we are taught that what we see is 'blue', we give it that label. But, is the 'blue' we see the same color as the 'blue' seen by others? We touch an object and the sensation returned to our mind is defined as solidity. Yet, on a level beyond our physical perception, the object is mostly space, emptiness contained within a field of vibrating atoms. We hear sounds that are speech and music to some but gibberish and noise to others. We live in a universe defined in four dimensions - height, width, depth and time - all measurements of something which, in reality, exists as atoms, points or strings which vibrate. Vibration is something we have agreed to define as continuous, inherent movement. Frequency or rates of vibration can be measured by sound, by light, and by geometric shapes - but only in the range accessible to our physical senses. Like the old story of the blind men who 'saw' the elephant, our perception of reality (and Truth) is limited by what part we touch and how we translate that touch is limited still more by our personal experience. Our individual perception of Truth - and which part of the 'elephant' we are touching - will lead us to describe it in very different terms. Truth, then, becomes relative to those who believe that their part of it is the whole - and the same as all others. To those of us who are determined to see the entire 'elephant', Druidry is a way to expand our personal experience without demanding that we accept the consensus of a predefined way of processing what we experience. We were all seekers before we labeled ourselves 'druid'. If we had not found Druidry "good", that is, personally satisfying and affirming of our defined values, we would not have accepted that label. Druids, whether they are "Draoi Allta" or "Draoi Ríogaí" or some other subset of Druidry, have certain goals. The discovery of Truth through the acquisition of knowledge is a major one. A commitment to a consistent mode of behavior which requires that our words and our actions reflect our understanding of Truth, and that these will not be tempered by the expediency of any circumstance is a reinforcement of this goal. "Honor" and "duty" are labels given to this behavior; honor for constancy in adherence to truth as we know it, duty for commitment in defense of that truth. As long as we exist within the confinement of physical reality, we will remain handicapped in our perception of Truth, but we need not remain ignorant of our limitations. That choice, like so many others, is ours.

J.T.McAlister