Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Prem Rawat's alleged claims to personal divinity

This isn't a response to Jim Heller's — 24.69.14.159's — call for me to act as "referee" above, under the heading "Another compromise Lead"; that would be most presumptuous of me, and I'm far from supposing anybody else would accept me in that capacity. I'll still answer Jim's question though: yes, from links that he has e-mailed to me, notably this one (though not indeed from the ambiguous and "wink-wink" quotes he posts above), I do agree that Prem Rawat has made claims to personal divinity. I have no personal experience or specialized knowledge of the subject, but IMO it's an easy call to make. I respectfully decline to get into any huge debate or any historical ramifications at this time; I don't mean to blow people off, I apologize if it looks like that, but I just don't have the time. Bishonen | talk 15:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

This is already covered in the various pages. What is new?

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat#Claims_of_personal_divinity". One of the ex-premie group's central criticisms is that from the age of eight until his mid-twenties Prem Rawat made public claims of personal divinity and that he and his students continue to make such claims in private while denying them in public. They demand that Rawat and/or Elan Vital explicitly disabuse all his current students of such claims. They point to statements made by Rawat like "Guru is greater than God" (an expression also voiced by Brahmanand and somewhat in correspondence with the elevated status that some traditional Indian saints gave their guru), and "The only one who can settle the governments down is the Perfect Master, the incarnation of God Himself, who comes to Earth to save mankind." Tokyo, Japan, October 3, 1972 (from the Divine Light Mision magazine And it is Divine, July 1973)"

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#Early_Western_students. In this speech he attributed great power and possibly divinity to "The Lord, Guru Maharaj Ji", apparently referring to his father and teacher. The fact that he himself also came to be called "Guru Maharaj Ji," may have led to confusion, whether intentional or unintentional, in the minds of Western students between Rawat personally and this called-upon figure of divine power. It may be that during the 1970s as praise and divine connotations were further heaped upon "Guru Maharaj Ji," those in charge maintained in their own minds a distinction between the young living man, his deceased father, and the lineage title itself, although that distinction appears to have been lost on some who believed Rawat was referring to himself when using that phrase.

And also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#Indian_customs_around_Prem_Rawat. Some ex-students are frustrated that Rawat has never taken the trouble to go through the whole list of Hindu concepts which he expressed and taught in his earlier teachings and interviews, as well as those taught by his family, his father and his 'mahatmas', and specifically separate those which he no longer holds any stock in from those he still does. Some confusion no doubt arises because according to them Rawat still allows himself to be feted as a Guru (in the Hindu sense in India) where he holds "Darshan." It would appear that there, many of the Hinduistic concepts (which he so derides in the West) are acceptable in India. Critics see this as an example of double-standards, while supporters see this simply as the complexities of cultural and geographical contexts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmi (talk • contribs)

Saying that Prem Rawat made claims of divinity by quoting speeches in which he describes "Guru Mahaharaj ji" as the "all powerful", is a good example of Reductio ad absurdum, in which one side pursues an opponent's argument to an illogical conclusion. If you want to understand what is being said, you need to delve into Hinduism, in which you will find drastic differences in the concept of divinity from Judeo-Christian concepts of the same. You may also need to delve in the concept of devotee/guru in Bhakti yoga. Those that have a hard time reading obscure Hindu philosophy, can delve into Jung's notion of transference and the archetype. Reductionism is the easy way out, but not the best path to understanding. Dsmi

You have some good explanations here in Wiki. The article "Guru" reads: "In the traditional sense, the word guru describes a relationship rather than an absolute and is used as a form of address only by a disciple addressing his master. Some Hindu denominations like BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha hold that a personal relationship with a living guru, revered as the embodiment of God, is essential in seeking moksha. The guru is the one who guides his or her disciple to become jivanmukta, the liberated soul able to achieve salvation in his or her lifetime through God-realization." A devotee may address his guru as the embodiment of God ... but a guru is also a devotee of his own spiritual teacher. No guru is born a guru. He needs to be initiated by one: this is called a parampara. The title "guru maharaj ji" has been used for centuries by devotees to describe their gurus. It is not new to Prem Rawat. This is not different than some Buddhist traditions, such as the Tibetan and the Tantric traditions, in which the relation with one's guru is key to self-realization. His father was dead when he made these speeches, but for him, he was still his guru, with all the reverence and hallowed meaning it carried. Dsmi

What should be added more explicitly is that his followers saw Rawat as a "Perfect Master" and not just as "early Westerner's devotion". If you are right about the misunderstanding about Hinduism then Rawat is at best incompetent, because he did not explain all this to his follower. He clearly allowed the official DLM magazine to mislead his followers. See e.g. the following scan of a DLM magazine. Rawat said with his pic labelled Guru Maharaj ji "Guru Maharaj ji gives us the essence of everything (...)" Andries 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That is already covered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#Importance_of_the_living_teacher "Rawat has explained many times that, just as a deceased doctor cannot help a patient, it takes a living teacher to help students. He says that to progress on this path, students need to maintain a relationship of trust with the teacher that is fresh and fruitful, and that without such a relationship, the benefits of Knowledge cannot be obtained. According to his authorized biography Maharaji expressed upon his father's death that he did not want to be a satguru [5] but accepted his father's and teacher 's request to be one and take Knowledge to the world. That day he referred to the term satguru as "Perfect Master"--meaning, teacher of the perfection within--which is the free-form translation of this Hindi term."

In here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#Devotion_for_the_Guru "In the ‘70s, Prem Rawat was surrounded by displays of devotion typically given to Masters in the Orient. These have largely dissipated. To this day, some see him as a friend, some as a teacher, and some as a Guru or Master."

As well in this very article: "Some of the Western students claimed that Rawat was personally an incarnation of God, and indeed the greatest of such incarnations. The source of this belief has been a subject of controversy. Most students attribute the belief to unintended confusion in Western minds over what was being said and done by Rawat and the movement, while critics charge this confusion was either deliberately fostered or negligently ignored for his personal gain." Dsmi

To me it is indisputable that he claimed to be a Perfect Master and I have edited the article to that effect including references. He was not just the passive subject of the faith and devotion of his followers, but repeatedly and actively encouraged that. Andries 06:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

also the word "perfect master" is not a synonym for satguru. The first is a literal translation of an Arab expression, jossi found out. Andries 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the term "Perfect Master" is a literal translation of the Sufi expression "Murshid-i-Kamil". See talk:Hans Ji Maharaj. Andries 17:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And “Murshid-i-Kamil” is probably again a literal translation from some other language, as the actual phenomenon has existed before, at many different times in many different cultures. There is always something arbitrary in where to start translations, and does not really increase understanding, but seems to rather foster that type of pseudo-knowledge, in which you seem to be developing a certain mastery. To a really knowledgeable person it might appear as a waste of highly precious time. If you sincerely want to trace the origin of words, you have at some point to leave the plane of words and ask for real experience, and that won’t translate into any language.--Rainer P. 19:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

See Perfect Master. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Devotion belongs to the guru/student tradition. No guru that I know of will disclaim any type of devotion heaped upon him by a devotee. What is interesting is that he abandoned such intentional or unintentional claims almost 20 years ago, apparently without diminishing his charisma. Most gurus will protect their image of "avatarship" with tooth and nail, as a way to keep their flock. Prem Pal Rawat seems to have managed to remove himself from these claims without suffering a major loss. This may be quite unique, and that is what attracted me to this subject about which I am writing a paper. Paradoxically, the only ones that care about these claims are those that feel betrayed that he decided not to continue making these claims, and have been raising hell about that since the Internet gave them a voice. Here we have a situation that does not fall within the traditional Weberian model of charisma ("a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities" Weber 1978: 242)", inasmuch as he was able to continue with his father's mission without the need for the clutches of crown, throne and robe. Furthermore, the lack of a hierarchy that usually engenders a culturally given sacred central symbolic system of accepted significance, did not diminish his ability to continue gaining adherents both in East and West. This may be a unique case, and quite remarkable. Dsmi

Off topic: Dsmi, there is some truth in what you write, but also untruth and I think I am able to say so because I am quite knowledgeable about the subject. I will reply on your talk page. Andries 18:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you studying the subject at college? --Daniella 18:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Added some more material from the Boston Globe interview (so that we do not fall in the fallacy of quoting out of context). Also added additional reference about what Prem Rawat said about himself, from an interview in Tokyo in 7'3. Finally I also did some copyediting to integrate the new material and organize it for better reading. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you cite, it is better to summarize the cites and intersperse them at appropriate locations in the sentence. That is what I have done, as well as clearing some misspellings, and inserting missing commas here and there. --Daniella 01:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

In the "Criticism" subheading, there is a mention of an article by Reender Kranenborg, but there is no mention of of the date and publication name. Same about a paper or article written by a Ralph Larkin. I tried finding citations for these works but could not find any. Does anyone have that information? Same about the Ph.D. dissertation by Paul Schnabel. Was that ever published?--Daniella 23:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• The Foss and Larking's article is cited in Robbin's The Sociology of Contemporary Religious Movements as Foss, D., Larkin, R. 1978. Worshipping the absurd: the negation of social causality among the followers of Guru Maharaj-ji Sociological Analysis 1978. The article's premises were challenged by Professor Ron Geaves in From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond: An Exploration of Change and Adaptation, Nova Religio, March 2004, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 45-62
• Schanbel's dissertation was titled Tussen stigma en charisma: Nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en geestelijke volksgezondheid ("Between stigma and charisma. New religious and mental health"), Van Loghum Slaterus (1982). It is in dutch and out print (Schnabel did only a short print-run to satisfy Ph.D. standards)
• Kranenborg's article, was called Oosterse geloofsbewegingen in het Westen: Bhagwan-beweging, Hare Krishna gemeenschap, Transcendente Meditatie, Healthy-Happy-Holy-Organization, Divine Light Mission, Yoga, Verenigingskerk ("Eastern religious movements in the West"), Zomer & Keuning (1982). It is available only in Dutch and also out of print. Andries can correct me. If we are exploring these, it will be good if Andries can post here the Dutch version of the cite, so it can be added as per guidelines related to non-English language sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Excerpts of the paper by Foss and Larkin are available on the ex-premie website [1]. Jossi is correct about Kranenborg and Schnabel, though I do not know whether Schnabel's Phd. dissertation was available only in small numbers. Some original Dutch text and its translations by Kranenborg, Schnabel and others are scattered on the different talk pages. I have no problem to collect them here or on Daniella's user page. Or to cite and translate some more. I know that it is difficult for non-Dutch to assess the Dutch language sources, but I can assure you that none of them are Christian counter cult movement or anti-cult writings: the writings are more anti-anti-cult than anti-cult. Both van der Lans and Haan wrote that they were criticized for not writing critical enough about the DLM and cults. Of course, all writers have some bias, but that is almost impossible to avoid when writing about religious matters. Schnabel's dissertation is very thorough and in my opinion better than most English language sources. If you do not trust my translations then may be you can ask other Dutch language contributors or Schnabel himself.Andries 09:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC) (amended)

I do not doubt your translation abilities. I just asked that you provide the text for the Kranenborg citation, so that we can comply with policies about non-English sources. Regarding Schnabel, I contacted him last year to get a copy of his dissertation and he told me that it was out of print for these reasons. The two Dutch religious scholars and obviously biased. Kraneborg, being an orthodox protestant minister, is very unambiguous about his criticisim that is based on his Christian world-view (that he makes without reference to the opulent lifestyles led by many prominent Christian priests and politicians.) Van der Lans is similar (he was trained as a pastor) but maybe worse as he makes his assertions based on personal opinions based on reading a few magazine articles from the 70's rather than researching the subject (he does not provide any references for his disparaging criticism, beyond mentionint a magazine article). Haan, well, don't get me started on that one, a student of religion with no academic credentials, basing his assertions on some private observations. Schabel, used many of the other Dutch sources in his dissertation, an obvious case of circular referencing. All in all these Dutch religious people and Schnabel are hardly cited and have only become known by the good effort of Andries himself. These are mentioned in about 40 pages in Wikipedia thanks to Andries good work. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess that Jan van der Lans' opinion was partially based on the stories that appeared in the Dutch magazine HP in which ex-premie Jos Lammers was quoted. Van der Lans also published an English language article together with Derks about the DLM in a book edited by Barker. "Subgroups in Divine Light Mission Membership: A Comment on Downton" in "Gods and Men: New Religious Movements in the West". Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. pp. 303-307. (1983)

Needless to say that I disagree with you on all the other points that you mention, except that Haan, van der Lans, Schnabel, Kranenborg had and have an an unavoidable bias, like all other scholars and writers about religion. Andries 22:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Only difference with other shcolars is the fact that these three persons represent a very specific POV, that is the Christian Protestant POV, and as such will have a natural bias against anything anything that in their views was not compatible with their religion. If they had written about growing tomatoes using hydroponics, that would have quite a different scenario :) . ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide the source and Dutch original for the Kraneborg cite located in the "Early Western students" section. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this relevant?

This is in the section about the conflict with Mishler and the transition but there is no indication that it deals with a serious conflict nor with the transition. It seems just like an incident.

According to John Hampton, an early student and assistant of Rawat, Rawat was concerned that Mishler was not practising the techniques of meditation that were essential for any student. <ref>John Hampton. “Agendas in the Organization”. [http://www.avoiceforpeace.net/2005/11/agendas_in_the_.html]. Accessed 5 February 2006.</ref>

Can you please explain why this should be included? Thanks .Andries 21:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that if it is okay to write about the private life of Mishler then it is certainly okay to write about the private life of Rawat which you until now keep deleting from the article. Unless you give a good explanation I consider your editing behavior in this article once again hypocritical. Andries 21:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The article speaks about a rift between Mishler and Prem Rawat at that time, so I think that it is relevant. Do you really think that that information is not relevant? Please explain why do you think so. I am not overly attached to that material, so if I hear a good argument for its deletion, I will certainly consider it.

As for your other comment, your attempt to disguise a personal attack by using fancy grammar, I would remaind you, yet again, of WP:NPA that reads:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.

≈ jossi ≈ t

I do not make comments about you as a person, only about your editing behavior here. No, it is not about a conflict between Mishler and Rawat, probably only an incident and as such it does not belong in the para about the conflict with Mishler and the section about the transition. Andries 21:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You are commenting on me as a person, clearly stating that you consider my behavior hypocritical. That is the same as accusing me of hypocrisy, that is a personal attack. You could have done without that comment, and you know it. I would simply not accept these kind of veiled ad-hominem attacks and comments from a fellow editor. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

if you defend this statement about Mishler in the article then why do you insist on deleting comments by Mishler about Rawat or at least moving them to the criticism section? I think that this behavior of yours is indefensible and shows your double standards in editing this article. Andries 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The question you need to ask yourself is why this comment about Mishler you see it as negative. I don't, and I do not think anyone would. Rather than making comments on what you consider to be my double-standards or hypocrisy or whatever you think of me, or any other personal issues you may have with me, talk to me about the edit. Is that information relevant or not? If it is not relevant, let's remove it. If it is relevant, let's keep it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary should include the following

The following is essential in the summary and should be included

• family rift
• specifics of criticism

Andries 21:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Newly Discovered Documentary Evidence That Affects this Article's Accuracy

I have recently found a 1979 booklet of questions and answers with Rawat printed and distributed by Divine Light Mission, Inc. which bears heavily on some of the issues central to this article. This document was published at least five years after the family split, seven or eight years after Rawat came to the west and when he was either 21 or 22 years old. In other words, at the time he uttered these statements, he was an adult who was long familiar with western culture, spoke good English and was very much his own man. Here are a few of the questions and answers:

Some people say you are a divine incarnation, and some people say other things about you. What's the truth?

You yourself must realize what is the truth.

So God cannot teach anything, except through a Master?

What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light. God is Power. God cannot talk. Electricity cannot give light, only the bulb gives light, but electricity has to be put through the wire for the bulb to give light. It's power. Power cannto do anything. It has to be put through a medium.

Why does a Perfect Master have to have a living body to give Knowledge? Why is he necesssary?

Are you feeling thirsty? Can you see that photo of Lord Shiva? You see the water coming out from the top of his head? Drink that water. Drink, drink. Can you? You can't drink that water. It is a picture. You need everything living. If you have doubts, you cannot ask Lord Krishna questions. What's why you need a living Master for the circumstances of this world today. When Jesus was here there were no nuclear bombs. But now there are nuclear bombs, and the Perfect Master, the Perfect Savior [sic], has come to save you from nuclear bombs.

Is the living Master able to reveal Knowledge?

Yes, that's why you call him a living Master.

Guru Maharaj Ji, Jesus Christ performed many cures. Can you do the same?

At His time there were not so many doctors, that's why he did that. But I am curing mental sickness. If you have got mental sickness, come to me. And when you do meditation, you become so natural that any other diseases you have are automatically cured. That's why I tell you this Knowledge is very practical. It makes people natural. They stop being plastic. They become natural and the best way of ending disease is by nature.

What happens to a person's karma when they receive Knowledge?

It starts choking up. It starts finishing up, because when you realize Knowledge, you've got to go and be one with God.

Will this Knowledge save us from rebirth?

Yes. Once we have this Knowledge we reach the heaven from where we cannot return.

Guru Maharaj Ji, are you permanently in God consciousness?

......[torn page] ...permanently in God consciousness.

The lower part of the last page in the book is intact and it's a quote that reads:

"I have found that missing link. As soon as I found that missing link, I became one with everything. And therefore I became everything. Not as an individual but by merging into that infinite thing which has no beginning, which has no end, which cannot be destroyed. And I have that for you to experience."

He signs this last quote:

"Guru Maharaj Ji"

I maintain that there are several aspects of the article that need to be corrected or, at minimum, balanced by this evidence. For instance, it flies in the face of the 1999 quotation from Rawat's then-website wherein he said:

People through the years have tried to place me in a mold, and from the very early years I have not been able to oblige them. When I was very young, people were looking for the "old silver-haired Guru with flowing white robes." I was only eight. When people were flocking to India for their search, I was in the West. When people were looking for sophisticated discourses, I spoke of simple things. When people wanted nirvana, I said, "You need peace." When people said, "Tell us of the scriptures," I said, "Look within you." When people asked, "What is your qualification?" I said, "Judge me by what I offer." To this day, some people see me the way they want to. After all, I guess it is rather inconvenient to see things as they really are. I have evolved, but my message stays the same. Externally, I have changed but within me, something stays the same.

Long after Rawat was "only eight" he was playing games about whether or not he was God, he was saying that the reason he doesn't cure people like Jesus did is because we have lots of doctors today, that Knowledge cures all disease, eliminates karma, makes one one with God and takes us to heaven. Moreover, about himself he is found saying that his is like Krishna, he is the "perfect saviour", he is in permanent God consciousness and he has merged with everything. Most amazingly, perhaps, he says that he has come to save us from nuclear bombs.

Any suggestions how we should proceed with this? --24.69.14.159 00:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what in the above contradicts the existing article. Could you please be specific?Momento 03:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Deconstruction of the "Newly Discovered Documentary Evidence" and other analysis

Pre-empting the comments I wanted to make over the weekend, after seeing the post about this "evidence" I see the need to warn that the former followers were caught already once assigning some controversial statements to the guru, when actually these were from his mother. You can see my deconstruction and proof in my page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dsmi

After what I wrote, this poster (24.69.14.159 aka Jim) went on to say many nasty things about me in the former followers public forum, such as that I am an a***hole, stupid, pompous, a fake, ignorant, offensive, and that I need to be slapped in the face, after I alerted Andries that he was being misled by the too obvious subterfuge of quoting out of context and mixing-in words from the guru's mother from another sat-sang and assigning these to the guru. Most probably was an honest mistake by someone long ago (although I doubt it) but was surely perpetuated in the former followers' narrative for many, many years until this week. I also know that after reading this I will be the recipient of more ad hominems, but hey!, I guess that is the price a girl has to pay when crossing a person with his type of MO. Even though I have a thick skin, I hope it does not get any nastier.

Now, having said all of that, now it is time to deconstruct this "Newly Discovered Documentary Evidence". Ready? This is clearly is a selection of answers to questions from many different interviews that took place in different years, from 1972 to 1973. Some of these are included in the book "Who is Gruru Maharaj Ji" pages 84 to 99. Others Q&As are from London 1972, and LA in 1973. The giveaway was the use of "Savior" as this term was how his mother used to describe him (she used "savior of love" and "savior of humanity" in her sat-sangs), and what the publishers of these booklets wanted people to believe. My estimation is that this "booklet" was either published much earlier than 1979 or it was not published by the mission. Also note that the statement made by 24.69.14.159 aka Jim that "He signs his last quote Guru Maharaj Ji" is misleading as well. He did not "sign" these quotes: That was the name his followers used, and of course it will be added at the bottom of these and any other published quotes.

Further deconstruction: See this question that did not make it to that booklet, or any of the former followers websites for very obvious reasons as you will probably gather. The highlight is mine:

Question: Guru, you’ve said that it’s the presumption of the press among others that claim has been made on your behalf that you are the Messiah, and that is not your statement. I understand this is not your statement. I have read on several occasions that you have disavowed any such claim. The question I am interested in is, since the presumption and the confusion seems to arise because your followers, especially those who are involved in the publication of the magazines, have made this claim on your behalf, are there any plans that you have to put an end to this confusion and these presumptions by directing them to quit making such claims?

Answer: Only thing I can do is pass my comments about it, pass my statements about it, which I am as a matter of fact doing. (Houston, Texas, November 9, 1973)

Let me attempt to make some points here, to clarify why I'm brining this up:

Look at this, for example. This time the guilty party is the editor of the book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji" (1973) and not the former followers. Page 13 of the book presents a quote from the "Peace Bomb" sat-sang:

"These tears are not because I am remembering my Father, but because I am feeling so much power in me. They are tears of strength. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come, the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the savior of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who come to me are already saved. Now it's your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy?

Analysis: Note the term "savior of humanity". That term is not to be found in the "peace bomb" sat-sang published by the Mission a year earlier. The sequence and choice of quotes from that sat-sang published in the book is also misleading as these are carefully selected for effect and not sequentially from the sat-sang. Note that there is no mention of "Whenever the great come, the worldly oppose them", and no mention of "Those who come to me are already saved". This sounds more like the voice of the mother promoting her little boy-guru as the Messiah, or overenthusiastic devotees vested in Judeo-Christian beliefs, rather that the voice of the 12 year old child-guru.

Les us look now at the same quote from the "peace bomb" sat-sang as published by Divine Light Mission in 1972:

"And the tears that I am shedding on His anniversary are not because I remember Him, or because I feel sad. They are because of the power I carry with me. Right now, I feel such a power in me, I do not know where it has come from; I feel as if I want to shake the world. Soon I will leave my studies and spread the Holy Word of Guru Maharaj Ji throughout the world. "

You may say YYSSW, but see the difference in wording and tone? IMO, the choice of words used in the book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji" is consistent with the editor's attempt to "embellish" these quotes in order to portray Maharaj ji as a messianic fiigure, even though the child-guru expressed himself quite to the contrary when asked direct questions by journalists and TV hosts. OTOH, as expected, the whole book is hagiographic in nature, and it is filled with a new age, aquarian/messianic emphasis, probably very suitable to the context in which it was published, and consistent with the beliefs held by those that wrote it.

I am researching the possibility of obtaining the original transcription of the "peace bomb" sat-sang in Hindilanguage and compare it with the different versions published later on in the West by his early followers under the tutelage of the guru's family. The reason for this interest is that the sat-sang as translated does have several linguistic inconsistencies that are very difficult to explain. For example, I am puzzled by the tension between the first statement below and the other statements excerpted from that same sat-sang, in particular the passages I have highlighted.

1. "Guru Maharaj Ji is such an ocean of Grace, what shall I say of Him? How is it possible to understand Him? No ordinary person can sing about the love within him, about the love of Guru Maharaj Ji; only a true devotee of Guru Maharaj Ji can sing about it. If you do not obey what Maharaj Ji says, what is the use of your living in this world? Rather you should die of shame! Now Guru Maharaj Ji has come. Whenever He came before, you did not accept Him. Now I have come again to reveal the Knowledge, and still you do not understand me. "

2. "I do not feel shy of anyone because I have entrusted the reins of my life to Guru Maharaj Ji."

3. "! I have so much faith in Guru Maharaj Ji and I pray to him, “Oh Guru Maharaj Ji! Increase my faith twofold; and increase it threefold in those who do not love you. Increase it for them fivefold so that they too are blessed."

4. Finally, read the closing statement: "What can I say about Guru Maharaj Ji who has sent me amongst you and has given me this chance to serve you? The name of such a merciful Guru Maharaj Ji is Shri Hans Ji Maharaj. How shall I sing of Him? How shall I express the love He has for you? He has deep love for humanity. I cannot express the great love He has for you. I do not have sufficient words to express how much Guru Maharaj Ji loves you."

So, there are too many discrepancies to be taken as a bona-fide translation. IMHO, both versions published by the Mission have been obviously tweaked. I hope I will succeed in getting the original in Hindi to compare notes.

I understand that there are many versions of this sat-sang, and the discrepancies very likely to have been introduced by the mother, or the devotees that published them. Unless I get access to the original Hindi transcription, it will be highly improbable to confirm what the 12-year old guru really said in that occasion. Does anyone have a copy? --Daniella 05:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact: The booklet that contains these questions and answers was indeed published by Divine Light Mission in 1979. How funny that you have to resort to calling me a liar. Anyway, I'll scan it as soon as I can get near a working scanner which I don't have. Indeed, if anyone's suspect, it's you and the supposed paper you're writing.

Fact: Whether Rawat said these things in '79 or earlier does not change the fact that his organization then published them. Unless you're going to argue that Divine Light Mission, Inc. was not acting under Rawat's auspices and authority, you can't avoid that this was indeed his message.

Fact: Rawat spoke out of both sides of his mouth all the time. Many have speculated why. Perhaps it was just boredom but no matter. These are specific quotes that say what they say. It's funny to see you sidestep the individual claims he made. For instance, that he, the Perfect Saviour, has come to save us from nuclear bombs. Or that he is merged with everything. Etc.

I could go on but my movie's started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.14.159 (talk • contribs)

It seems that you are right that the words of Rawat's mother were added -- not mixed with, which leaves open the possibility of being obviously and thus deceptively interwoven, but added to some quotes of Rawat's in the quotes section of EPO. But even a cynic like yourself must concede that it was probably an honest mistake. First, there isn't a single other case of false attribution, mistaken or otherwise, that's ever been made out against EPO that I can recall. John and Jean-Michel who've done most, if not all, the work have been meticulous throughout. Plus, they have openly invited corrections if and when any mistakes were noted. This is an opportunity for you, then, to make EPO even better. Congratulations for doing a small part in bringing the truth about Rawat to the general publice.

Also, the Mata Ji quote is in a set of sample quotes from the book, Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?. It is just that. The only error is that the quotes are in the section of Rawat's own quotes and not the more general category of all quotes of interest. In other words a simple mistake just like you said. On the other hand, you also make accusations of quotes "out of context". You have offered no support at all for this accusation. It's time you did or gave up that scurrilous accusation. On that score, you also alleged that the editors of the above book themselves wrote some of the quotes in question. Where's your evidence for that? I say there's none and if you know better now's the time to show your proof. Otherwise, why say it?

But what's really funny is how you yourself are so clearly guilty of doing just that, taking quotes out of context. For some reason you felt compelled to drag in comments from an ex-premie forum here. Whatever the wisdom of that, you'd think you, a serious academic with a keen eye for "contextual abuse" would know better than to say that I said you "need to be slapped in the face" when what I really said was:

"Her entire thesis is offensive and unsubstantiated by the evidence. She deserves the academic equivalent of a slap in the face." (My emphasis).

If you can't tell the difference, you're not fit to do the kind of careful analysis you purport to do. If you can tell the difference, you're being purposely misleading and provocative. Your choice. --24.69.14.159 14:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Daniella got the "slap in the face" wrong, but what about the a***hole, stupid, pompous, a fake, ignorant, offensive? Note that although the the policy of no personal attacks is not applicable to other websites outside of Wikipedia, many editors are of the understanding that it is unacceptable to publicly make personal attacks against an editor outside of Wikipedia, only to come back here and attempt to engage editors as if nothing was said. Call it tact if you wish.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim did not say that at the forum about Daniella. I checked it with the forum's search function. Andries 17:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He did, Andries, he did. I don't want to deface this page by reposting these comment, but he certainly did. Please do not defend this type of behavior. It is not acceptabkle, period. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you for cleaning up my text below. It does look better simply using italics that way. As for my commenting on Daniella, you or any other editor elsewhere, sorry, unless and until there was a rule against it, I'll follow the dictates of my own conscious on this one. I personally think that what you guys do is far more insulting than anything I've said as I say that you insult my memory, my life experience, my intelligence and my common sense. And I DO doubt Daniella's sincerity in that I don't really believe that she's a student working on a research paper on ex-premies. So there you go. BTW, when you say that she maybe got the "slap in the face" wrong, don't you think that she substantially misrepresented what I said? Surely a slap in the face and the academic equivalent of same are two entirely different things. One is a physical assault and highly illegal. The other is not. Do you agree? Why, then, do you think she'd have misrepresented my words so and don't you think it rather rich that she herself is complaining about things being taken out of context?--24.69.14.159 16:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a "forum" or USENET, and the rules here are different. What Daniella thinks, what I think Daniella said or did, is of no consequence and irrelevant. As for the "evidence" and and the counter evidence, and all these polemics that have been re-hashed ad-nauseum, these are already fully explored in the article. Please read the full section Prem_Rawat#Early_Western_students. Regarding quotes, you can add these and other quotes in Wikiquotes, at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maharaji were there is already an extensive collection of quotes in chronological order. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

To Daniella: Though I much appreciate your research and your incisive commments, please note that Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, and What Wikipedia is not meaning that your research cannot be used unless it is published. If you ever get your paper published, it will be my pleasure to cite from it in this and other related articles. Also note that this page is desined to discuss the article and not a general discussion forum. If you wish, you can keep your notes and comments on a subpage such as User:Dsmi/notes and then provide a link here. The befefit is double: this page remains clean and easy to follow, and your comments/essays are not lost. This applies to 24.69.14.159 as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The first thing to realise about the answers is "who is asking the questions?". If there is a picture of Shiva on the wall, it is almost certainly in India and judging by the questions, the interviewer is an Indian.

24.69.14.159 says : "Long after Rawat was "only eight" he was playing games about whether or not he was God", in fact, Prem Rawat says in the very quotes you provide that " You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light. God is Power. God cannot talk." Can he be more straight forward?

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat "was saying that the reason he doesn't cure people like Jesus did is because we have lots of doctors today", he did not. He said Jesus cured people because there weren't many doctors.

24.69.14.159 says that Prem Rawat said " that Knowledge cures all disease", he did not. He said that meditation makes a person more natural and that the best way of ending disease is by nature". This is a fair comment that enjoys a great deal of medical support.

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "Knowledge eliminates karma", he did not. He was asked what happens to Karma when you receive Knowledge and he said "It starts choking up. It starts finishing up, because when you realize Knowledge, you've got to go and be one with God". It doesn't eliminate karma. "it starts finishing up". This is a common understanding of people who believe in Karma; that a person who believes in Karma should live correctly to reduce creating negative Karma.

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said Knowledge "makes one one with God and takes us to heaven". Yes he did.

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said that "he is like Krishna", he did not. He said that unlike Krishna, he is alive.

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "he is the "perfect saviour", he did but this is part of a longer quote when he talks about the "Perfect Master saving people". Do not confuse a Perfect Master who is a perfect saviour (saver) with the Christian concept of "Saviour".

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "he is in permanently in God consciousness", but this assumption on your part since you say that the page is torn and you can't read it. But even if he did, he is entitled to his opinion and since it is an internal experience it is entirely subjective.

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "he has merged with everything", he did, but it is part of a longer quote in which Prem Rawat said "And I have that for you to experience".

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "he has come to save us from nuclear bombs", actually he says the "Perfect Master has come to save us from nuclear bombs" but this is clearly in reference to his statement that in Jesus's time there were no nuclear bombs and Perfect Masters must be alive because situations change.

In short, there is nothing in those quotes, that contradicts this article. One of the major qualities of a Wiki editor is to adopt a NPOV and that means being true to the source material. Your version of what Prem Rawat said are in stark variance to the quotes you provide.Momento 07:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The first thing to realise about the answers is "who is asking the questions?".If there is a picture of Shiva on the wall, it is almost certainly in India and judging by the questions, the interviewer is an Indian.

Actually, the pictures are of Rawat in a suit. Your point's irrelevant anyway. It's what Rawat said that matters.--24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

24.69.14.159 says : "Long after Rawat was "only eight" he was playing games about whether or not he was God", in fact, Prem Rawat says in the very quotes you provide that " You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light. God is Power. God cannot talk." Can he be more straight forward?

The "games" I was talking about were when he was asked as directly as possible if he was divine and he wouldn't answer yes or no. That's a game. --24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat "was saying that the reason he doesn't cure people like Jesus did is because we have lots of doctors today", he did not. He said Jesus cured people because there weren't many doctors.

He was asked if he could cure people like Jesus and he answered that Jesus did it because there weren't a lot of doctors then. My paraphrasing is logical and incontrovertible. You're denying the fair meaning of words and, in particular, the fair inferences of statements. --24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

24.69.14.159 says that Prem Rawat said " that Knowledge cures all disease", he did not. He said that meditation makes a person more natural and that the best way of ending disease is by nature". This is a fair comment that enjoys a great deal of medical support.

What Rawat said was "And when you do meditation, you become so natural that any other diseases you have are automatically cured." How funny to see you leave out that most salient part only to complain that he never said it! --24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "Knowledge eliminates karma", he did not. He was asked what happens to Karma when you receive Knowledge and he said "It starts choking up. It starts finishing up, because when you realize Knowledge, you've got to go and be one with God". It doesn't eliminate karma. "it starts finishing up". This is a common understanding of people who believe in Karma; that a person who believes in Karma should live correctly to reduce creating negative Karma.

If you're actually arguing that "eliminating" something and "finishing it up" are significantly different, that's absurd. What you're doing doesn't even amount to sophistry. It's .... it's nothing, really. Just flailing at the evidence with your eyes closed. --24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said that "he is like Krishna", he did not. He said that unlike Krishna, he is alive.

Yes, but any fair person would understand that, for him to distinguish himself from Krishna, like he did with Jesus, means that he also sees himself as belonging to some more common, general group as him. Otherwise, there would be no relevance in the comparison. --24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "he is the "perfect saviour", he did but this is part of a longer quote when he talks about the "Perfect Master saving people". Do not confuse a Perfect Master who is a perfect saviour (saver) with the Christian concept of "Saviour".

What he said was "When Jesus was here there were no nuclear bombs. But now there are nuclear bombs, and the Perfect Master, the Perfect Savior [sic], has come to save you from nuclear bombs." It's quite funny to see you say one shouldn't confuse "saviour" with "saviour" in the Christian sense when again, Rawat himself is making that very comparison. Besides, what other sense is there? --24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "he is in permanently in God consciousness", but this assumption on your part since you say that the page is torn and you can't read it. But even if he did, he is entitled to his opinion and since it is an internal experience it is entirely subjective.

So? What's your point? Mine is just that he made these claims and, more particularly, that his organization was publishing them when he was 21 or 22 in 1979 five years at least after he split with his mother, etc. --24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "he has merged with everything", he did, but it is part of a longer quote in which Prem Rawat said "And I have that for you to experience".

Again, so what? What's important is that he claimed to have accomplished this amazing feat himself and also to offer it to his followers. Agreed? --24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "he has come to save us from nuclear bombs", actually he says the "Perfect Master has come to save us from nuclear bombs" but this is clearly in reference to his statement that in Jesus's time there were no nuclear bombs and Perfect Masters must be alive because situations change.

I think you forgot that you were supposed to come up with something -- anything -- to rebut or minimize Rawat's statements. Care to try again?--24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the major qualities of a Wiki editor is to adopt a NPOV and that means being true to the source material. Your version of what Prem Rawat said are in stark variance to the quotes you provide.

You know, I do strive to develop that NPOV but, I have to admit, I fall short sometimes. Hell, I'm only human. But you, on the other hand, seem to have the discipline and skill to stay fantastically NPOV and never waver. It's really something to see.

Now, should we move on to discussing how the quotes above might best be incorporated into the article? For one thing, I think that they clearly contradict Rawat's 1999 quote that suggests that a lot of these "big" ideas about him occured when he was "only eight" but that he's done what he could as an adult to disabuse them. What his organization published here in 1979 suggests quite the opposite. --24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

May be the quotes should go to wikiquote instead of this article wikiquote:Prem_Rawat Andries 16:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, with the proviso that the dates of these quotes are found and the quotes added to the approriate year section. The wikiquote article is pretty big already, but I see no reason not to add them there if someone cares to do the work. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Maharaji.org 1999 version

On another point, the article includes a quote of Rawat's supposedly drawn from his first website:

In an article named Journey that he published in his personal website on January 1999, Prem Rawat writes about this apparent contradiction: People through the years have tried to place me in a mold, and from the very early years I have not been able to oblige them. When I was very young, people were looking for the "old silver-haired Guru with flowing white robes." I was only eight. When people were flocking to India for their search, I was in the West. When people were looking for sophisticated discourses, I spoke of simple things. When people wanted nirvana, I said, "You need peace." When people said, "Tell us of the scriptures," I said, "Look within you." When people asked, "What is your qualification?" I said, "Judge me by what I offer." To this day, some people see me the way they want to. After all, I guess it is rather inconvenient to see things as they really are. I have evolved, but my message stays the same. Externally, I have changed but within me, something stays the same. In that same article Rawat states that people wanted to see him as a figurehead and as a leader but that he does not want to be one or the other, and that all he wanted to do is speak to those who wanted to hear him, and impart the Knowledge to those that sought it. He also said that if people like what is given, to practice it and if not, to leave it.[14]

However, the attribution link takes one to Rawat's current site instead. If there is no proper attribution here, this passage should be deleted, no? --24.69.14.159 19:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No. The reference reads "(1999). Maharaj.org. URL accessed on January 1, 1999." That is the standard web cite format used in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I've just been directed to an archived copy of that website. I think it's worth adding, and in fact I have just added:

However, on that same personal website, Rawat stated that he was the latest in a line of "Masters" going back to Sri Totapuri Ji Maharaj (1780 - 1886).

Corrected by citing the whole text from that page as well as the names of these Masters linking to the respective aticles in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @23:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Added same cite to the Techniques of Knowledge article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed your edit a bit. It's important and only fair to include some word reflecting the contrast between Rawat saying, on the one hand, that he didn't want to be seen as some "silver-haired Guru in long flowing robes" and then, on the other, citing a centuries-long lineage of guys just like that. It's such a weird inconsistency that it deserves to be introduced by a word like "strangely", "surprisingly" or "amazingly" but I'll settle for "nonetheless". --24.69.14.159 01:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia and as per the WP:NPOV, verifiability, no original research and what Wikipedia is not content policies we do not make value judgements or editorialize facts. Wikipedia is based on the understanding that readers are intelligent enough to make the their own conclusions about the material presented. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't lecture me. The article has many such words and phrases. Do I need to point them all out to you? This isn't a matter about making value judgements or editorializing facts, it's simply a conventional way to acknowledge the contrast. Avoiding any sort of term like that frankly looks weird. For example:

"On the other hand, in an interview given to a journalist of the Boston Globe a year later, he confirmed the view that there has been steady succession of Perfect Masters and that will be another one after him..."

or:

"In contrast these and other declarations, Reender Kranenborg, a Dutch religious scholar and minister..."

Even the very paragraph in question begins with such a lead-in:

"In the preface to his personal website on January 1999, Prem Rawat writes about this apparent contradiction.."

Sorry, but the whole relevance of the edit is to set out the conflicting statements Rawat was making then about being seen as a steretypical guru. The edit stays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

I am not lecturing you, just pointing out the applicable policies, that you may not be aware of. The reason why your edit cannot stay, is because this is your opinion that there is a "contrast" between two statements made on that website, while in the other cases we are stating the opinions of notable people. Your opinion may be that these two sentence contradict each other, and my opinion that these don't. But neither my opinion nor yours are notable enough to be stated as such. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, come now. Certainly you can see that it's downright hilarious to have Rawat, on the one hand, try to disabuse the notion that he's anything like the "silver-haired guru with the flowing robes" and then assert a position in a legacy of nothing but silver-haired gurus with flowing robes! Is this going to be another go-round like when you tried to say that Rawat didn't call himself "Perfect Master"? Please, explain to me and anyone else reading here how these two sentences do not contradict one another? If you can make a rational case, I'll listen. Otherwise, I won't relent.

For your edification, here are a few pictures of the "Masters" Rawat claims preceded him:

[2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.14.159 (talk • contribs)

Please note that you can be blocked for violation the [[WP:3RR|three revert rule}}. I have placed a warning in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 08:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. I edit the article by adding something to it. You then edit my edit by, amongst other things, taking out any words that signify the contradiction between Rawat's two positions (I'm no stereotypical guru/I'm proudly the latest of a long line of stereotypical gurus). That then becomes the status quo that I have to respect? What if I say that you're the one who keeps "revertting"? Couldn't I have alleged that with even more justification than you? Sorry, I'm putting it back in and you can do what you want. Show some other Wiki editors how "bad" I am(?!) Let's bring this madness to a head, shall we? "Nonetheless" is going back.

By the way, is there such a thing as a "conflict of interest" here? I note that you yourself were the webmaster for Rawat's old site! Funny, you never mentioned that.]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.14.159 (talk • contribs)

I have placed a notice in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about your violation of three revert rule. As for your second question, anyone can edit any article in Wikipedia as long as he/she does it within the content policies of the project. You may ask your friend Andries about it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

How about the FIRST question? Come on, if you sincerely think the comments don't reflect a contradiction that warrant a conjunction like "nonetheless" say why. Also, what about my actual SECOND question? Who's to say YOU aren't the serial revertter here? Also, where do I go to respond to your complaint?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.14.159 (talk • contribs)

I responded to your second question above. As it pertains to reverts, note that in my experience in editing Wikipedia, edit wars never achieve anything productive. Best you will achieve is being blocked for breaking the WP:3RR rule, or the article being protected from further editing until consensus is achieved on how to proceed. My argument against the seemingly innocuous "Nontheless" prefix to that sentence is that it portrays a specific POV (the POV that these two pages in Maharaji.org of 1999 are contradictory in nature) by a non-notable person, you). That is not allowed as per the non- negotiable principle of WP:NPOV. That is why my edit, rather than passing a value judgement on the contradictory or non contradictory nature of these two pages, simply states the fact. Let the reader make their own mind about that. I would also advise you to read the official policy of What Wikipedia is not, as well as the guideline about Biographies of living persons so that you can be oriented in this subject and avoid long discussions in this pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But as Jim/24.69.14.159 pointed out, he is simply following the example of the many words indicating contradictions and I think it is reasonable that when the word "however"/"nonetheless" is removed in this case then at least some of the other words should be removed too. I had removed some of them but got reverted. Andries 18:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, aren't you mixing two issues: whether or not "Nonetheless" is NPOV and who's doing the revertting regardless? I add to the article with a sentence that began with "However". You then deleted that conjunction. I replaced it with "Nonetheless", not because of any arguable substantive difference but just because I thought it sounded better. You then kept deleting the word. So how is it that I, not you, are the repeat revertter?

Also, you say that you don't see a contradiction and I say I do. Surely, if you're editting in good faith, you'll discuss this. But I've yet to see how you justify your view. Isn't the onus on you to do so, especially as you're the one who originally decided to alter my edit?

Finally, what about Andries' point -- which was my point earlier -- that there are all sorts of contradictions laid out in the article that didn't need some "notable person" to describe as such. What about them? --24.69.14.159 18:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

See Andries last edit. I think that it addresses the issue as per NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this:

The same website also stated that "Even though references to the technique of Knowledge are made earlier than 1700, this is the traceable story so far" featuring a lineage of Masters from 1780 to 1966 incuding Totapuri, Anandpuri Ji, Dayal Ji, Swarupanand Ji, and his father Hans Ji Maharaj.

If so, I like the new, small paragraph but I don't see how this addresses the issue at all. Anyway, are you going to eventually answer my questions or not? You sure haven't done so yet. --24.69.14.159 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries removed other non-notable value judgments from the sentence, as per the removal of yours. Concerning your questions that you say are left unanswered, please note that these pages are not a discussion forum, so I will not address questions designed to start a polemic, practice the disputation of alleged controversies, or express my views of these in opposition to yours. Again, please read What Wikipedia is not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of these talk pages was to discuss edits. Both Andries and I are of the view that there is a contradiction between the two passages from the 1999 site and that it warrants a connecting word reflecting that. You say that you disagree but you won't say why. You should be using this page to try to justify your position, not stonewall. Again, why do you say the passages are not contradictory? --24.69.14.159 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already expressed my point of view: I do not see such contradiction between these two pages on 1999 Maharaji's website. I one page he discusses how people have seen him through the different stages of his life, and in another page he states that Knowlegde has been made available prior to 1700 and that these are some of the previous masters, that accourding to him, offered the same Knowledge that he offers. Obviously we have difference of opinion on how to treat this n the article. The way to go about this is what I and Andries did: Removing our opinions and interpretations, stating the facts, and let them speak for themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In the first passage, he's saying that people are wrong to see him as a "guru". He even mocks them for thinking that way. In the second passage, he places himself in a lineage -- his word, Jossi, not mine -- of gurus! The contradiction is obvious. Your explanation above so obviously skirts the contradiction, it's apparent that even you can see it.

Also, who decides who's reverting and who's editting? You didn't answer that. --24.69.14.159 20:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Also again, Andries, do you agree with what Jossi's doing here? --24.69.14.159 20:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion with which I disagree as stated above. "Revert war" is a term in which two editors undoes the other edits again and again. As you can see I reverted you a couple of times, and then stopped as I did not want to violate the three revert rule. You continued reverting hence the warning in your page and the Admin noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

24.69.14.159 will you please be more accurate when quoting Prem Rawat. Prem Rawat did not say he is not a guru, he is said "When I was very young, people were looking for the "old silver-haired Guru with flowing white robes." I was only eight". He is making the distinction based on age.Momento 21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah but, Momento, my NPOV role model, I think you need to look at the larger picture. Rawat said:

When I was very young, people were looking for the "old silver-haired Guru with flowing white robes." I was only eight. When people were flocking to India for their search, I was in the West. When people were looking for sophisticated discourses, I spoke of simple things. When people wanted nirvana, I said, "You need peace." When people said, "Tell us of the scriptures," I said, "Look within you." When people asked, "What is your qualification?" I said, "Judge me by what I offer." To this day, some people see me the way they want to. After all, I guess it is rather inconvenient to see things as they really are. I have evolved, but my message stays the same. Externally, I have changed but within me, something stays the same.

which suggests that 1) his trip isn't particularly Indian; 2) he doesn't offer nirvana; 3) he doesn't quote scriptures; and 4) his qualifications are only found in what he offers.

This flies in the face of his claiming to be the latest in a lineage of Indian gurus. --24.69.14.159 22:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You say that "he claims to be the latest in a lineage of gurus", when in reality he only says that "Even though references to the technique of Knowledge are made earlier than 1700, this is the traceable story so far". Your interpretation is consistent with your bias. Mine with mine, Momento's with his/her. That is why we do not include these types of asessments in WP articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually saying that this isn't a purported lineage of "masters"? What is it then? --24.69.14.159 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, who do I complain to about your editing of this article? I think your regular refusal to discuss and seek consensus about the fair meaning of words makes your editting like what one would expect from a Holocaust denier editting an article on Hitler. I'd like to show the powers that be what you've done here, starting with this latest example. I think that any fair-minded person would be rather bemused by your attempt to deny that Rawat was claiming that he was part of this guru lineage. The link on his website didn't say "Masters" for nothing! So, because you're so familiar with this turf here, and because you obviously feel you have nothing to be ashamed of and further, because you're so quick yourself to call foul on any procedural transgression you can imagine, I'm asking you to please direct me to the proper complaint box. Thanks, --24.69.14.159 18:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have a complaint against me as a sysop of Wikipedia, you can make it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If you feeel at liberty to compare my edits with an holocaust denier editing the article on The holocaust, would it be OK for me to compare your editing sytle with the one of a Nazi editing the article on Judaism? I am sure you would agree that these do not add any value to these discussions. It does not help. It only creates a poisonous atmosphere that is not conducive to editing.

(BTW and FYI, a nazi is allowed to edit the article on Judaism and an holocaust denier is allowed to edit the article on the Holocaust, providing they respect the Wikipedia content policies and do so in a civil manner)

My comments about your edit were on the subject of interpretation and editorializing, that as you probably know by know, are not welcome in articles in Wikipedia. Your first edit was as follows:

However, on that same personal website, Rawat stated that he was the latest in a line of "Masters" going back to Sri Totapuri Ji Maharaj (1780 - 1886).

When the facts is that the website contained a page in wich he stated: "Even though references to the technique of Knowledge are made earlier than 1700, this is the traceable story so far". So your edit is just your POV rather than the fact of what he said in that page. The current edit says:

The same website presents the traceable story of "Masters" that according to Prem Rawat, referred to the techniques of Knowledge since 1780, incuding Totapuri, Anandpuri Ji, Dayal Ji, Swarupanand Ji, and his father Hans Ji Maharaj

...that is accurate and NPOV, and not too distinct from yours, as any fair-minded person would surely agree with. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have no problem at all being subjected to the highest scrutiny. You, on the other hand, seem to want to avoid anyone really reviewing what you're doing here. Were it not for my threat to report you, you would never have discussed this edit further with me. That's obvious. So I do plan to follow through. Thanks for the link.--24.69.14.159 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed funny, that you consider that a "threat" and that I responded because of fear. You give yourself too much credit. Note that I have been editing Wikipedia for several years now, I have clocked more than 15,000 edits, and I am very proud of my contributions to this project as many other editors would attest. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You have your view of your credibility and I have mine. If your 15,000 edits are anything like what you've done on this article it just goes to show that the old adage must be right -- you get what you paid for.--24.69.14.159 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. Read WP:CIVIL. Discuss the edits, not my character. Thanks. From now on I will ignore each an every comment you make on me or any other editor, and I encourage all other editor to do the same. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I WAS discussing your edits and merely saying that, if they're anything like what you've done here, they must be excellent!

)

--24.69.14.159 00:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree that the first paragraph of this article needs verification please?

At present, the article states that Prem Rawat "reportedly started addressing audiences on the subject of inner peace, self-realization, and the meaning of life, at the age of three and gave his first published address when he was only four"

Could we have references for this "report" and also for the published address, please - and also confirmation that the address concerned the subject matter as claimed? otherwise I propose to remove it, unless verification can be cited. Revera 22:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

References added. As you are a new editor, I have placed some pointers in your talk page so that you can familiarize yourself with the content policies of Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The reference from Rawat's own page says "Born in India, he started addressing audiences at the age of three and gave his first published address when he was only four. At eight, he started presenting his message of peace throughout the Indian subcontinent." Two concerns come to mind: 1) shouldn't the article say that his own website claims .... "; and 2) even still the citation only says he was addressing audiences. It doesn't say what he was telling them so how could the article properly cite that reference regarding content?

The other reference you've added was to a quote ostensibly from Prem Nagar. Is that sufficient proof? Doesn't the source document need to be available somehow? Frankly, I'm sure that, if it does exist, it has Rawat talking about how important it is to surrender one's life to Guru Maharaj Ji (then his father) and how human life is otherwise worthless. I'd like to include that along with the topics already mentioned. So where is it?--24.69.14.159 23:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can attribute the statement to the Prem Rawat Foundation, if you wish, although "reportedly" does not mean that an event took place only that it was reported that it took place. That is why the sentence reads "reportedly". Regarding your second question, some material may not be available in print, but the cite clearly states the specific date in which that address was given, so it may be sufficient. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, please do not assume that the text of this article is from my pen. The sentence "reportedly started addressing audiences on the subject of inner peace, self-realization, and the meaning of life" was not added by me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed that sentence, but the opening lead does not read as well now. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And I tried to add a qualifying phrase explaining where the report came from but I obviously got the format wrong. --24.69.14.159 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Which sentence have you removed, Jossi? Please clarify. And as regards the references to the claims on the tprf website - there is no mention of the origin of the source material. As someone who would like to see Wikipedia be the best that it can be, I'm surprised that an editor of your apparent renown would cite a secondary reference such as that as being a primary source. Revera 00:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Revera

I removed the sentence "on the subject of inner peace, self-realization, and the meaning of life". As for your assertion that I cited a secondary source as a primary source, I don't think I did that, please clarify what you mean. Thanks. See also new reference provided for first published address. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The lead paragraph has another problem which must be addressed. It states, in part, that "Rawat started taking his father's message to people throughout the Indian subcontinent promoting a personal, individual experience of inner peace through his talks and by what he refers to as "Knowledge" or the techniques of Knowledge."[6] First, there is no attribution. Second, even if there was, I'm sure that the message Rawat was telling people included things like life is worthless unless it is surrendered to Guru Maharaj Ji and should be edited accordingly. --24.69.14.159 00:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

On the second point, if you are "sure" that Rawat's message included "things like life is worthless unless it is surrendered to Guru Maharaj Ji", then you must have a reason for saying that. If the reason is a verifiable source, then include it. But you can't ask that someone else finds your evidence for you, on the grounds that you think it must exist. On your first point, evidence and sources have already been provided. Errol V 05:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Errol, Kranenborg writes about the importance of surrender to God/Maharaji. I will included it in the lead section as per your request. Andries 14:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The lead sentence is not the place for a statement such as that. The lead is a summary of the the most salient aspects of Maharaji's life, not the place to add commentary by a pastor. I see this an attenpt of undue weight to push a certain POV ad it is not acceptable.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason for that contributor's certainty can be found by following this link: http://gallery.forum8.org/one%20thing%20to%20understand%20is%20to%20surrender.jpg. And Jossi, my point about primary and secondary sources was intended mainly to address the claims made (on his behalf?) about Prem Rawat on his own tprf website. To cite such claims (e.g. "addressing audiences" at the age of three) as being factual without having any evidence to that effect is, I'm sure you would agree, unacceptable for any Wiki article. So thank you for supplying the reference to his first published speech, and for the link to his website, but do we not need more actual proof than just his word that he "addressed audiences" at the age of three? Revera 12:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Revera

We are not asserting in the article that he "addressed audiences at the age of three", but that he "reportedly addressed audiences at the age of three", providing a reference in which that statement is made. In other words, we are not providing "proof" that he addressed audiences when he was just a three year old child, only providing "proof" that it is reported as such in the source provided. In any case, the opening sentence now reads quite convolutedly after the last few days' edits. I will attempt a better flowing version later today, time permitting. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Two things: It's misleading to say that someone "reportedly" did something when the "report" in question comes from none other than that person themself. "Reportedly" implies that someone else, arguably a reasonably believable source, is making the claim. But even if Wikipedia doesn't assess the reasonableness of references, it must still distinguish between first person and third references, especially when, as here, the subject is in the very business of promoting themself. The sentence should begin something like "According to his own website, Rawat ......". The other thing is, in answer to Errol, I'm not asking Jossi to do my research for me. I'm just asking to see the entire speech attributed to Rawat when he was three or four because I suspect that it says much more than what's been quoted and that, in fact, the summary offered here is misleading. So I just want to check the reference myself. If the reference isn't available for inspection, the whole point of having references is ruined.--24.69.14.159 16:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The full text of the first published address is in Wikiquote [3]. It was a very short address. In regard to the opening sentence, as I said before, I will be working on a better version that may resolve this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

But that's a larger quote than what was there yesterday! Where did you get it from? Where's the original document? Do you have it? How else did you get the added text and, more importantly, how can I see it too?

--24.69.14.159 19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a partial copy of the address in Wikiquote. I added text that was missing on March 8. The original are two pages from the magazine ("Hansadesh"). The cover, with a woodcut of Hans Ji Maharaj, and the page were that transcription of the address is printed. It includes a very beautiful photo of 4 year-old Maharaj ji, with a garland around his neck. It was supplied to me by a friend that lives in India. It also includes a page with the translation in English. I cannot put the scan on WP as I will not be able to provide permission from copyright owner (Wikimedia Foundation's policy only allows images that have specific copyright clearances before they can be uploaded into Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia) .≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this boil down to our only taking your word for the fact that the satsang exists and is just what you say it is, no more, no less? See, with that article I just referred to below, I am planning to submit the admittedly terrible copy I have to the Gallery where it can be seen at least, if not perfectly read. That's how it's done, isn't it? Doesn't the reference have to be subject to confirmation? Also, I'm troubled by the fact that you first put up a small part of the quote, then more which you claimed was the full text. I would like to see the article myself, please. Does that seem unreasonable? It shouldn't. --24.69.14.159 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Does this boil down to our only taking your word Yes. It does. The same way we have accepted sources that are out of print and sources that are not available online. For example, sources submitted by Andries, such as:

1. the thesis by Paul Schnabel (ref 61 (out of print)
2. the Wim Haan article ref 95 (only available in Ducth and in certain libraries in the Netherlands)
3. the various articles by Reender Kranenborg ref 99 (ditto) and many other sources throughout this and other related articles.

In Wikipedia we assume the good faith of its editors. Also note that we have accepted prima facie the inclusion of a transcript of an interview with Robert Mishler, that is only available in a detractor's website and nowhere else.

Back to this source, note that I have provided the date of publication, the name of the magazine and its publisher. I have also posted the full text of the translation in Wikiquote (FYI, I did not post the partial quote that was there previously as you mistakenly assume). As I do not have permission of the copyright holder, I cannot upload a scan of these pages to the Wikimedia servers. If you insist that we need a scan of this article online, I will attempt to get copyright clearance, but then we will be forced proceed to apply the same standards to the above sources as well and that would not be possible. In regard to the full text, I am having a friend that reads and writes Hindi to transcribe the text so that I can post it in Wikiquote in its original state and confirm the translation I have posted there. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that you actually have the document. Would you consider sending me a scan so that I, too, can have a Hindi-speaking friend take a look at it?

--24.69.14.159 20:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits

• Added reference for first published address ( Birthday Celebrations, Prem Nagar (Haridwar), August 21, 1962 as published in "Hansadesh" magazine, Issue 1, Mahesh Kare, January 1963)
• Removed somewhat hagiographic statement about continuing his father's work
• Added reference from US Army Handbook for Chaplains for above
• Added Prem Rawat US citizenship date and reference

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Refactored the lead sentence for clarity, proper attribution, and NPOV. Hope this works. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Could someone suply the sources?Momento 09:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed 2.3 "Permanent residence" from "much media attention" to "some". We have been through this argument before, and no evidence of the "much" has been presented. Errol V 10:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Discarding the trappings. In previous discussions on these pages with Jim Heller, it was made clear that the original recording of the interview is no longer in existence. I contend that the "transcript" is not of the interview, and was originally posted on the ex-premie website with such a rider in the mid to late 1990s. Given the lack of even a modicum of verifiability, these changes must be made. Indeed, it seems difficult to suggest that anything that refers to the so-called Mishler interview should be kept on the site. Errol V 10:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The existence of the Mishler interview is undisputed. Andries 11:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is untrue that the original recording of the Mishler interview is no longer in existence. The original recording and the transcript of it are available on the ex premie website. Andries 12:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, Please read this extract from the discussion above.

Errol, unless you explain why you say you have "reason to doubt" the veracity of the transcript, you're just being provocative and insulting. Come on, that's a viscious accusation and you should back it up properly not with vague innuendo. So I will ask you once again, who told you that the transcript is fraudulent? If you won't say, that says it all. Your reference to the judicial process is so misplaced it's not funny. If you're calling me or, perhaps more importantly EPO, fraudulent, you should explain why and not simply say that a little birdy told you so. As for the tape itself, God, I have no idea where it is. What happened is this. Either Rick Wallace sent me a copy which I kept and David Stirling another which he transcribed or he sent me one which I forwarded to David. It was a long time ago and I just don't remember. What is your relationship with premies, by the way? --24.69.14.159 21:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So Jim, what we have is a transcript of an alleged interview. As you don't have it any more (although you did keep the other interview), it will only ever have that status of unsupported and unverifiable material. Whilst not worthless, it is close to it in the general scheme of things, as your legal training would tell you. It is certainly not evidence of anything. Thus, from this point on, any references to the interview must contain "alleged". I stated above why I question its authenticity. No-one suggested anything to me; I don't understand why you keep suggesting that. You seem to think that there are a group of people sitting around feeding me with information. Hardly. I'm a very independent person. I've been around for a long while, and I have been reading the EPO site since it first appeared. Errol V 21:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Andries, get the facts straight. It is very important. First, Heller clearly states there that there is no tape of the interview. Second, on the ex site are two transcripts. One is a transcript of an interview that Mishler apparently with someone who called him up. There is a voice recording of this. The other transcript is of the interview that purportedly occurred with a radio station. There is no voice transcript of that, as Heller clearly states above. Andries, I don't mind a good argument, but when the facts are there and you ignore them, then there is no argument. Take care. Errol V 12:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There you go again, Errol. First, no one said that there isn't a tape of the radio interview. I just said that I, for one, don't have it. On the other hand, I wasn't the guy who transcribed it. It went to David Stirling for that. But it is flat-out wrong to say that EPO ever stated that the interview wasn't real. Now you really do sound like a holocaust denier. By the way, you say you've been reading EPO from the start. I assume you're a premie.

24.69.14.159

Criticism. Some points have to be made here. The number of ex-premies is decidedly small, and they always focus on events that happened in the 1970s. This should be stated, as their voice far exceeds their numbers, relative to the numbers of people who are not exes. They also forget that those whom they now laud, such as Mishler, Donner and Dettmers, were those who promoted the "personal divinity" belief. But many did not believe that, nor was it relevant to their practice. Errol V 11:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that you cannot insert your personal opinions in the article. Opinions have to be attributed to a notable source. I deleted a couple of unattributed opinions that you had inserted. Andries 12:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not personal opinion, Andries. It is analysis based on material presented (in the next paragraph) about the nature of the organisation at the time. In addition, you change other things as well. I've changed them back. Errol V 13:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Further, new material has been published that throws a different perspective on Mishler's rule of DLM. David Lovejoy is no longer closely associated with any organization that promotes Maharaji's message. His recount of the times is clearly indicative of Mishler's policy of control. Errol V 11:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

References. Fixed up a misplaced forward slash in reference 9, which was preventing all references from being printed to screen. Errol V 12:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I thank all editors for the many contributions over the last few days. I would encourage editors not use a journalistic tone when editing. Please provide sources, describing the attribution of statements, and avoid making inferences from the sources provided. One example is edit in which it is stated that "The irony is, of course, that those who promoted these claims to divinity were executives in the organization". It is very likely that there are letters or other material that can be provided as references to support the statement that these executives were promoting such claims, while at the same time Maharaji was responding in interviews to journalists in which he clearly denied these claims. When we have these references, we can just describe them neutrally and let the readers make their own conclusion about their significance. In regard to the Robert Mishler interview reference, I don't see why it would be a problem stating that there is no official copy of the transcript and that it was transcribed, copied and posted in a website of detractors of Maharaji. I contacted KOA a few weeks ago, and the person I talked to could neither confirm the interview, nor provide a transcript. As it reads now, the reference is to KOA, when it is not so. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should you thank anyone for contributing? Is this YOUR article? Don't be so patronizing. Your proposed edit is not acceptable as the executives in question did no more to promote Rawat's claims to divinity than the other premies, mahatmas and, especially, Rawat himself. Any edit along those lines will be vigorously opposed.

On the other hand, I have a proposed edit too. I found a newspaper interview with Rawat when he was 24 where he said that there can be only one person on earth at a time able to spread knowledge and that he was "chosen" as the current representative.:

:::"The source of this divine light as we call it, is inside everyone and has been spoken about by all the great prophets throughout history. I am the messenger in this age chosen to spread the knowledge. There can be only one messenger at any particular time, though there have been many before me.

The interview was by Michael Gawenda, a respected, well-known journalist in one of Australia's leading papers, The Age, on March 24, 1982. --24.69.14.159 16:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I thank anyone that contributes to this and other articles. Why you would find this "patronizing? In my country we call this "good manners". I have no problem on adding a reference to that cite from "The Age", in the section about the 80's. You could even copy a portion to Wikiquote and/or add it in the footnote text in this article. If you send me the text I wil be happy to do it myself. In regard to your vigorous opposition to an edit, you will be able to argue against it when it is made and if it made. What I was referring to is that it would be OK to cite from official correspondence in which Robert Mishler promotes claims of divinity. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose that an entry be made just after:

The organization that supported Prem Rawat began retreating from Hindu trappings, and this time the trappings did not return. His supporters assert that during this period Rawat was able to free his core message from irrelevant and even hindering religious and cultural connotations to make it more universally appealing.[61]

and that it read something like:

At the same time, in a 1982 newspaper interview, Rawat compared himself to the "great prophets throughout history" and said that he was currently the one and only "representative" chosen to spread knowledge.

By the way, you can see how this further confirms his claim to be part of a lineage of gurus, right?--24.69.14.159 16:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to post here a few paragraphs preceeding and following the cite you made above from said interview? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You can read the whole article on the PRTF ( http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/3200.html ). What's particularly funny, which I haven't decided what to do with yet, is this other part further on:

At 24, Maharaji claims to have something like a million followers in India, South America, the United States and Australia. He admits that many of them almost worship him. He does not ask them to do this.

"I do not ask people to put me on a pedestal," he said. "But I am their teacher and guide and they love me. I love them too. Did Jesus ask to be put on a pedestal? Of course not. His people were so grateful and loved him so much that they wanted to do anything for him. Of course I am not saying that I am Jesus."

What could be funnier than comparing himself to Jesus in the course of supposedly discouraging people from putting him on a pedestal? Too bad you don't have a sense of humour for this because this, Jossi, is actually quite hilarious.

--[[]] 00:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said previously I am not interested in engaging in polemics, in particular about what tickles you or what doesn't. And as said many times already, we ought to make an effort and present material as is, describing the content cited dispassionately, and without editorializing. I have edited the cite from The Age accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny how you left out the best part: that Rawat claims he was chosen to be the only one on earth who could spread knowledge. A little oversight, Jossi? :) And why did you call the divine light "so-called"? But the best part really is the claim that he was chosen. Put it in or I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.14.159 (talk • contribs)

Okay, I've added (or should I say, put back)something about Rawat claiming that he was chosen as the messenger for this age and added further to the quote comparing himself to Jesus, in particular where he says that Jesus' people would do almost anything for him. I've also added Rawat's comments in the interview about the family split. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.14.159 (talk • contribs)

Moved comment about family rift to the appropriate section and copyedited the sentence just a tad. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed "apparently" from " In this speech (Peace Bomb) he attributed great power and possibly divinity to "The Lord, Guru Maharaj Ji", apparently referring to his father and teacher[44]." Because at the end of the Peace Bomb satsang PR says "The name of such a merciful Guru Maharaj Ji is Shri Hans Ji Maharaj". So he was definitely refering to his father.

As a consequence I am proposing to remove "intentional" from "The fact that he himself also came to be called "Guru Maharaj Ji," and used that title for himself may have led to confusion, whether intentional or unintentional, in the minds of some Western students between Rawat personally and this called-upon figure of divine power". Because it is obvious that in this satsang he was refering to his father.Momento 04:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue of who PR is talking about when he refers to "Guru Maharaj Ji" is an important one and one which we should seek to clarify. So I am concerned that in the section "Early western followers", Andries has inserted a quote of Prem Rawat talking at an event to celebrate his Guru's birthday when PR says - "I think that's every human being's purpose in this world: to have faith in their Guru Maharaj Ji, to love their Guru Maharaj Ji, to see their Guru Maharaj Ji, to do satsang, service, and meditation" without including the precursor - "by Guru Maharaj Ji's Grace, whose jayanti we celebrate", which makes it obvious that PR is once again refering to his father. In my experience when PR is praising "Guru Maharaj JI" he is usually talking about his teacher who he clearly venerates.Momento 08:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that whenever he referred to "Guru Maharaj Ji" he specifically intended to exclude himself from the veneration/adulation he encouraged - and profitted from? Can you seriously want this kind of revisionism to be what Wiki records as supposedly "accurate" history? Heaven help us ... Revera 18:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is clear to me that in almost all of these satsangs when PR is praising the role of GMJ - he is talking from his experience of being a student of his teacher and expressing his opinion of that relationship. And what he says about GMJ is a mixture of his extreme veneration for his teacher and to encourage his students by his example to also respect and value their GMJ. In the Peace Bomb satsang, used in this article to suggest PR made divine claims about himself, PR says "What can I say about Guru Maharaj Ji who has sent me amongst you and has given me this chance to serve you? The name of such a merciful Guru Maharaj Ji is Shri Hans Ji Maharaj", his father. When I pointed that out, Andries inserted a talk froom Kissimee Hans Jayanti satsang, but did not include "But by Guru Maharaj Ji's Grace, whose jayanti we celebrate" which again makes it clear PR is talking about his teacher. Critics of PR would like to maintain he was only talking about himself in these talks, the evidence however is irrefutable - he is talking about his father and his experience of him. Momento 21:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Prem Rawat's GMJ was Hans and that Prem Rawat actively and intentionally promoted the idea that Prem Rawat was the current GMJ and hence the GMJ for Prem Rawat's followers. Andries 22:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is like a music teacher praising his teacher to his students. It is a way of teaching by example. PR uses his experience and opinion of his teacher to inspire his students. He usually says "we" must do this or "we" should do that, which includes him as a student also.Momento 22:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Enough already, put this interview stuff to bed!

We now have here on this page, two of the original three founders of EPO, myself and Jim Heller, and the person who first secured the tape of the Mishler Interview on Denver KOA Newsradio. For the record I will state my role in initially hearing this interview live on Denver KOA Newsradio when I lived in Denver in the late 70's, and also my role in finally getting it transcribed and uploaded onto the Internet in the mid 90's.

I first heard this interview live on KOA while living in Denver, Colorado in 1979. At the time, nobody anywhere in Denver, either within the Divine Light Mission (DLM), or from outside of it, posed the slightest question as to the veracity of the fact that it was indeed a live interview with Mishler. Probably nearly all of the followers of Maharaji who lived in Denver, which was then the world headquarters for DLM, were aware of this interview at that time. It made very big news in Denver. Also, I knew Mishler's voice, as did most of us followers in Denver, and all of us knew that it was genuine. Also, at the time, none of us had any concrete evidence capable of contradicting the veracity of any of Mishler's claims made in the interview.

I first posted this interview to the EPO Internet site ca. 1995 after first hearing from Jim Heller that a third person, David Stirling (the third founder of EPO) had just finished transcribing the audio files into a written transcipt. When I first posted this transcript to the EPO site, I represented it as exactly what it is, namely as the verbatim transcript of the interview with Mishler. I never represented it as anything else. Neither have any of the other webmasters from EPO ever represented it as anything else. When I first posted the interview, I also "HTMLized" it, summarizing it in a hyper-linked topic index. It is not until 2006 that anyone anywhere seems to have tried to disprove the sources of this transcript, after 27 years of the interview's widely known public existence.

I do believe that Wiki standards for verifiability do include airing on a news radio station. We have taken the time and effort to contact KOA, get an audio copy of the interview, transcribe the lengthy interview, and post it to the Internet some 11 years ago. It seems to me that if anyone truly wanted to disprove the interview, all they would have to do is contact KOA, but for some reason so far, nobody has lifted a finger to do so. Now a written denial of the veracity of the interview from a KOA staff member would seem to me to be quite easy to obtain (if the interview were a spoof), and this would seem to me to be the only way that those who would attempt to disprove the veracity themselves might be able to meet Wiki standards for verifiability of their own claims that this interview is a fiction.

We have the tape and numerous witnesses right here to attest to the veracity of that interview. The fact that Melton apparently erroneously lists Mishler as having left Maharaji in 1997, and that he fails to mention this interview in his book, and the fact that it is a known fact that Melton often accepts significant honorariums and payments from the various cults that he writes so supportively about, seems to me to in no way cast any doubt on the veracity of what I once heard live on the radio, and what I once helped to get onto the Internet.

Sincerely,

-Scott P. 05:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott. Nice to hear your "voice" again. Feel free to stop in and say hi on the ex forum if you can. I'm sure the folks there would love it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.14.159 (talk • contribs) (apparently by Jim Heller)

Hello Scott, hope you are well. I called KOA a few weeks ago (you really have to have a lot of patience to get a person to talk to you) and the person I spoke with said that he could not provide copies of interviews from these years. He put me in contact with another person that promised to come back to me if she finds something. Note that I am not arguing that the interview did not take place, only that we do not have confirmation other than the transcript on the ex-premie website. As such, we should not state that the source is KOA.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jim and Jossi,

Jim, if you sign your edits and/ or comments with a dash, then four tilde's like: "-~~~~" then Wiki will automatically sign and date your comments and edits for you.

Jossi, I appreciate your desire to get the best info available on the interview directly from KOA, and once you might get written info directly from them about this interview, that would naturally trump our info from them. At this time our info amounts to me (and several others) having seen and heard the tape stamped KOA Radio, which admittedly we have since misplaced, due to the fact that nobody challenged the veracity of the tape for over 20 years. Meanwhile, until you might have anything more than a theory about why you think this interview must somehow be fabricated, I think that generally Wiki standards tend to accept as reliable the long-standing published statements of multiple credible witnesses about the accuracy of such a thing. As always document, document, document. Theories generally get us nowhere without documentation, which I feel we have at this time amply provided.

-Scott P. 16:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course Scott. I am not arguing that it is a fabrication, and that is why it is cited in this and several other related articles. What I am sayng is that as the only material available is a transcript published in ex-premie website, we ought to describe it as such. I hope this person at KOA comes back with some useful info in this regard. I'll keep you posted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If Jossi was Prem Rawat's webmaster, isn't there a conflict of interest?

Jossi has stated that he's of the opinion that "anyone can edit any article in Wikipedia as long as he/she does it within the content policies of the project"

Well, here's a short excerpt from the guidelines given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_page:

QUOTE "These vanity guidelines are intended to assist Wikipedia users in determining exactly what is and what is not to be considered vanity information within Wikipedia, which is not suitable copy material for Wikipedia article pages. Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates ..." (my emphasis)"... of the author. ENDQUOTE

Jossi isn't just a "student" of Prem Rawat's with a vested interest in his promotion, (which is a peculiar qualification for authoring a supposedly NPOV article) but he's also the former webmaster of some of Rawat's sites.

Therefore an associate of his.

I think that represents a conflict of interest. What say others? Revera 17:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC) revera

Unfortunately we all have personal interests, and most of us tend to contribute to articles on Wiki that tend to address whatever these personal interests might be. For myself, the beauty of Wiki is that it teaches us all to better see one another's viewpoints. Whenever I post anything on Wiki that is challenged, I try to take the challenge in the best spirit of the challenger, not taking it personally, but rather making every attempt to respect the challenger's efforts and desire to ultimately arrive at a greater truth. Sometimes I have been found to be mistaken in what I've posted, at other times others have been found to be mistaken. The point is that everyone wins when the truth is finally uncovered. I feel that anyone's contributions to Wiki ought to be respected, for however so long as the author displays a greater willingness to discover the ultimate truth about whatever he or she may be posting, than a desire to prove any given point without proper documentation. In the dialogue above about the interview, I sense that willingnes, and I respect it.

It seems to me that the Vanity page guidelines were written more due to concerns that articles and information might be posted on Wiki that was not truly "noteworthy", than with any kind of an aim to censor out potential contributors who may have any kinds of vested personal interests in the articles that they contribute to. Certainly Rawat is noteworthy, and I think that so long as contributions to the article are fair, reasonable, and follow Wiki guidelines, that they should be welcomed.

-Scott P. 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Scott that Revera misinterprets the vanity guidelines. Andries 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Slanting an article" (better known as POV pushing) is contrary to the WP:NPOV policy regardless if an editor is an associate, a detractor, or a supporter of a certain political affiliation, religion, church, company, organization, etc. Declaration of bias/interest is seen as good manners, but not a requirement for editing Wikipedia (I have clearly disclosed my bias in my talk page). Note that many people use aliases for their usernames or edit anonymously (we have a strong privacy policy in place to protect editors from others disclosing their personal details to prevent harassment), but I and others have chosen to use their names. I would argue that WP:NPOV and WP:V provide a very strong foundation to protect it from POV pushers, and have served Wikipedia admirably well so far. As Scott said, note that WP:VAIN is a guideline (a suggested approach), and not a policy (that are non-negotiable) and it describes some suggestions about "associates" as it pertains to "little known" companies or subjects. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Scott presents a point of view which offers his opinion about the motives of the author(s) of the Vanity page guidelines thus:

"It seems to me that the Vanity page guidelines were written more due to concerns that articles and information might be posted on Wiki that was not truly "noteworthy", than with any kind of an aim to censor out potential contributors who may have any kinds of vested personal interests in the articles that they contribute to."

I have a question for Scott about this interpretation of his - Are we supposed to take Scott's opinion of what motivated the author(s) in preference to what they actually say?

Is this how Wiki is meant to survive?

Scott, I'd love to know how vested personal interests (as you describe them) like Jossi's - and his successors when he (doubtless) gets replaced as Rawat's spokesperson - how are those interests to be differentiated from those of us who would simply like truth to be told about the factual history of the likes of Prem Rawat?

I believed what Rawat told me, back in the 1970s. Now Rawat denies he ever said such things. Caveat emptor has to be the byword for current - and future - afficionados of his propagation, no? Or is Wikipedia to be a soapbox for every propaganda campaign that future spin-doctors will attempt to impose on the public at large? I hope not. Wikipedia's epitaph shouldn't be that, surely? Revera 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

For Revera's benefit and other people not familiar with the history of this article, please note that this article has been and it is being edited by a large number of contributing editors, was one of the most edited articles in 2004, and by our collective effort this article is now one of the best referenced articles in Wikipedia, citing from more than 38 published books. I would also kindly ask Revera to tone down the rhetoric about his pursuit of "the truth", as it implies an accusation that other editors do not have the same interest. Read WP:AGF. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you say (of yourself) that you have clearly disclosed my bias in my talk page. Your talk page is rather long. I hope you don't mind if I request that you restate your "bias" again here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revera (talk • contribs)

It is at the bottom of the top section. BTW, I do not see where you have stated your bias. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"at the bottom of the top section" you say, Jossi? Where's that precisely?

For myself, my own bias is clearly stated in the post I made about six hours ago, and here it is:

I believed what Rawat told me, back in the 1970s. Now Rawat denies he ever said such things. Caveat emptor has to be the byword for current - and future - afficionados of his propagation, no? Or is Wikipedia to be a soapbox for every propaganda campaign that future spin-doctors will attempt to impose on the public at large? I hope not. Wikipedia's epitaph shouldn't be that, surely? Revera 23:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Revera

Dear Revera and Jossi,

I personally wrote that sentence in the Vanity page guidelines, so I think I can honestly say that I may have a bit of familiarity with the intention of the author of that sentence. Still, I do find that this page here does seem to at times border on POV violations of Wiki policy, and perhaps Revera, that is where you might best find a rationale to work towards creating a more neutral article here. Wiki NPOV is the general philosophy that the truth always trumps personal agendas. I think it is a beautiful philosophy, and it happens to be what makes Wiki work. As with the questions about the Mishler interview, truth will always trump. Jossi has agreed to abide by whatever KOA comes up with. That to me shows a willingness to let truth trump. I don't feel that he has chosen to hide whatever KOA might say. He has placed truth ahead of personal agenda. To me, that is NPOV.

I have not always had as much NPOV in my contributions to Wiki as I would like, but to me, this is the "gold-standard" of Wiki editing. It does not condemn or judge anyone. It merely is. And the closer we align ourselves with it, the better our contributions will be, and the less need we will feel for defensiveness or aggressiveness.

-Scott P. 13:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)