User talk:Dsmi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Dsmi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Hello Daniella, I am replying to your off-topic messages at talk:Prem Rawat. I am a frequent reader and poster of the forum of the ex-followers and I think the problem for most of the ex-folllowers is not so much the change in claims, but the fact that he current students and Rawat put all the responsibility for their former faith and devotion on the then followers, the Mahatatma's, and Rawat's family, but never on Rawat. Rawat never said and should have said "what I said in the past about myself, devotion and surrender was a mistake and I am sorry." (The problem, is I think, that he cannot say this because he may not believe this himself or because he will then alienate his older followers from him who still see him as the Perfect Master.) I think Dr. Mike Finch would be willing to anser your questions about this. You may be interested to know that I am a major contributor to the articles charismatic authority and guru and I am myself a critical former follower of Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 18:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Daniella, No, I have not studied the subject at college, but I am very interested in it due to my personal background of a traumatic experience with a guru. I suggest you read the book by Len Oakes Prophetic Charisma that gives a lot of information. Please write at talk:Prem Rawat only suggestions for improving the article. Do not ask personal questions there to me, but do that at User talk:Andries Thanks Andries 18:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read Oakes. IMO this is a very speculative book, citing too much from Gallanter, Zablocki, and others with similar worldviews for my liking. I don't care much for his research, that I see it as faulty in many aspects. OTOH, I certainly know that ex-followers from many denominations and movements, have a linking to his research, due to the fact that it resonates with their own narratives. "Embittered ex-members tended to be those who had in some way failed at their great work. They felt conned, that they had been tricked into believing the unbelievable—and indeed some had, although most had contributed to their own miseries. But there is a special pain felt by one who has deliberately chosen to abandon reason to follow another—in deep trust and love—into an unknown darkness, only to fall flat on his face. [..] Now, rather than seeing the journey as the goal, the follower chooses to leave, blaming the leader when he finds out that the impossible ideal is, after all, impossible. The failed follower leaves when it suits him, sometimes with open hostility toward the group." That may sound familiar to you and the ex-followers of Prem Rawat (which I have studied for a while now). I am sorry to hear of your traumatic experience, but I think that you are making a mistake in placing all gurus in one big heap and attempting to light a fire under it. --Daniella 20:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, I know that Oakes has contestable theories, but on the other hand the book is quite informative. I do not think that I am placing all gurus in one big heap. What makes you think so? Andries 20:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your sympathy, but it will be clear that due to my background and my insider knowledge in the case of Sathya Sai Baba I oppose the methodology of some sociologists and religious scholars of treating the testimonies of critical former members with extra skepticism and I consider articles based on this methodology biased and flawed. Andries 20:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
That is obvious and understandable that you would feel that way. But there are ex-followers and there are ex-followers, and their testimonies vary enormously (unless you only interview those leavers that left in anger or disillusion). You asked what makes me think you are making a mistake in placing all gurus in one big heap: Your comments at the discussion page and your comments at the ex-followers discussion forum which I have been reading for my paper for a while now. You can read the letter from peace activist Rennie Davies for a different viewpoint from an ex-follower that explains in very interesting terms the "perfect master" phenomena associated with the guru Maharaj ji. --Daniella 21:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is great news the e-mail from Rennie Davis, but I disagree with your impression of me that I put all gurus in one big heap: I even tried to develop a methodology of how to classify them and to assess them that you check on forum 8. For example, I wrote that there that the guru Prabhupada was like a missionary from an orthodox sect. Clearly that is very different from Prem Rawat or Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 21:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Prem rawat is different from Sathya Sai Baba. I would say VERY different: no miracles, no holy ashes, no saffron, no sexual awakening of Kundalini, no matras, no chakras (maybe some pranayama), no Hindu-related idolatry, no claims of virgin birth, etc, etc, etc. BTW, Prabhupada has an ashram in West Virginia, called "New Vrindaban" and it has a very lovely temple with a golden roof and breathtaking views ot the Appalachian Mountains. Good luck with your classification. Others have tried and failed. Reductionism in this subject is a big mistake IMO. --Daniella 22:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I never meant to say that SSB and Prem Rawat are very similar, but yes, there were some similarities, for example the aarthi sung in front of the pic of the guru. Prabhupada cannot have an ashram because he passed away. Andries 22:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (amended)
Yes, I had heard of New Vrindavan, but I heard that there were serious problems in this group and it cannot claim to have an ashram belonging to Prabhupada. It probably has an ashram dedicated to the heritage of Prabhupada, but that is different and there are several of them. I was in one in Belgium. Andries 22:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sure you meant Arthi or Arti that is sung to the guru. That is very common. Arthi is sung in many temples either to the residing guru, or to the statue of a deity. It is a ritual among all Hindus where they sing the glory of God and thus encourage a spiritual elation with the inner-self. Hindus believe that singing Arthi daily pacifies the mind and heart and inspires God-consciousness. I have not seen that adherents of Prem rawat sign to a picture with his likeness, as do adherents of Sai Baba, although adherents of Prem rawat in India surely sing Arthi from what I have learned. They sing Brahmananda Swami's version, that is very common (even broadcast via radio in India) --Daniella 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Aarthi was sung by the followers of Maharaji in front of his pic, at least here in the Netherlands. I read several articles about it and I do not doubt this. Andries 23:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
What some ex-premies argue, and it will be clear that I agree with most of what they say, is that singing aarthi in front of the pic of the guru implicitly is a declaration that the guru has a divine status. See e.g. arathi. Arathi is normally sung in front of a deity, according to the encyclopedia that I have at home. Andries 23:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Could you please tell me what you think is wrong with the research by Len Oakes? I do not buy his classification between two kind of charismatic leaders, but apart from that I think there is an abundance of information and viewpoints in his book. Yes, I agree that he voices sometimes quit personal views, but very well worded and almost always plausible, without exaggerating the problems of cults and gurus and without minimizing them. Andries 22:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh! I could give a whole disertation on Oakes' failings, but I do not have the time for this now. I'm sorry. --Daniella 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Then an alternative question that hopefully takes less time to answer. What do you consider a good books/articles about the subject of cults, gurus, and charismatic authority? Andries 10:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
"The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements" by James Lewis is considered a good reference. --Daniella 01:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Welcome to Wikipedia, Daniella. Thank you for your contributions to Prem Rawat. I would love to read the paper you are working on when your complete it. If you need any source material, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 16:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Daniella! I'm excited to learn that someone is doing what appears to be an ambitious unpartisan paper on Prem Rawat. Is it alright to ask you in which context you are doing your research? Maybe I can offer help in some way.--Rainer P. 15:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for the offer of help. I am not writing a paper on Prem Rawat. I am writing a paper on the former followers that call themselves "ex-premies". --Daniella

Still sounds exciting! Are you doing it in the course of your education? What is your department rsp. faculty? Is it going to be published, and where? Will there be reprints available? If yes, could I perhaps have one? Sorry, so many questions, but I guess you will receive a lot of attention, and you might as well begin getting used to it...--Rainer P. 14:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Daniella, then I think it would be good and polite if you introduced yourself first to the people whom you are studying at their forum [1] Of course, your theories there will be scrunitized, ananalyzed and criticized there by contributors (incl. me), but I think this will make your work only better eventually. Andries 17:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Be polite and introduce myself, you say? Judging by the comments they made publicly about me in their forum, after my few comments here in Wikipedia, without knowing a iota about who I am, (coupled with the very weird posture as if the forum was private, and I can't read their comments...) I don't think it would be a good idea for me to do so. I value my privacy and will not disclose my full name, my college, or my professor. I was also advised by the faculty's legal counsel not do so.

I will only go as far as disclosing that my college is a very respected institution in the West coast, and the title of my paper: "Perpetuating a Myth: The Online Narratives of the "Ex-Premies", Critical Former Devotees of Guru Maharaj ji." As you can see from the title, I don't need to talk to them because my study is based on the analysis of their narratives as they evolve over thousands of postings they have made in their many forums, past and present, and in their websites (the original one started by Scott Perry, and the newer ones by John Braun and other anonymous authors). They have published the archives of all their forums, and these are a goldmine for a researcher. I'm just making a good use of these for my research paper, as suggested by my primary faculty mentor. I have also used and referred to their comments made in the wiki discussion pages available in the numerous archives, including the exchange with J Heller a few weeks ago, and his previous comments, some of which are quite extraordinary in their violent antagonism, not only to the guru, but to his followers, or anyone else that does not hold his specific worldview.

I am expecting that the people frequenting these forums may not be too pleased that they are being studied. OTOH by putting themselves, their ideas, their identities, their views of their common past, their rationalizations for their devotion and later apostasy, etc., in full frontal view of the public via their discussion forums, they should not be surprised if someone like me decided to study them for a paper. It was a matter of time. Actually, this specific aspect, which I call "the need to be heard" is one that I cover in Part I of my paper: how the Internet has enabled apostates to 'get together' to refine their narratives and perpetuate their rationalizations of their past affiliations. In the paper I present the possibility that these "virtual meeting places", can in the beginning, provide some solace to the disillusioned leaver, and offer some kind of therapeutic value to them, but that with time, it becomes a negative force in these people's lives, as it ties them with their past in ways that does not allow them to come to terms with their apostasy, and they then become "stuck" in the same past that they so fervently attempt to come to terms with. Last year, part of my research was to interview several leavers that do not belong to the group that frequent these forums (these people do not have an online presence). Part II of the paper presents the differences between these two consituencies. Part III of the paper discusses the transition from leaver to activist/detractor, how that happens, the MO of the main protagonists, their tactics, and the impact of these activities in their lives, as perceived through their narratives in the forums.

My intention is to sometime next year submit my manuscript to the Oxford University Press or to Taylor & Francis' Routledge "Mental Health, Religion & Culture" for peer-review and consideration for publishing. That is if I ever get through the workload that I have set myself up for. --Daniella 03:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you willing to admit that you completely took my comments about you out of context before when you missquoted me from the ex-premie forum? You claimed that I'd said you "needed to be slapped in the face" when what I'd really said was that you deserved "the academic equivalent of a slap in the face". You ignored me when I asked you about this gross distortion last time but, if you're going to perpetuate this lie about my "violent antagonism" I'll keep reminding you how you, not the ex-premies, are the one who twists words and statements beyond recognition. In fact it's richly ironic, don't you think? Here you are trying to make a case that ex-premies play fast and loose with words but you're the worst offender!--Jim Heller 13:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Any chance to read an early draft of your paper? ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 16:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Daniella, thanks for the information. Unfortunately, nothing what you write about you and your paper is verifiable, so do not be surprized that speculation about you will continue. Of course, I am also interested in a draft [2] What do you mean with "myth"? I know the sociological meaning of the word: a story, not necessarily untrue, that is important for the group. If you mean with myth (popular untruth) that Prem Rawat made personal claims of divinity then I disagree with you. Prem Rawat presented himself as the current Guru Maharaji to his followers, just as Hans, his father was Prem Rawat's Guru Maharaj ji. See e.g here Please also write in your paper that the religious scholars Melton and Kranenborg disagreed that it is a myth and that Rawat did not deny to be the "Lord of the Universe" when he was asked how it felt to be so. I have yet to find a religious scholar who wrote that Prem Rawat did not make personal claims of divinity.
Also what do your mean with "rationalizations for their devotion"? The explanation by Dr. Mike Finch does not strike me as a rationalization at all, but more as an explanation.
Thanks in advance for your answer. Andries 10:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that your refusal to interview ex-premies and your choice to rely solely on online stories yields unnecessary methodological problems: I have heard clarifying explanations and discrepancies off-line. You cannot expect to get reliable information about people only from their online postings unless you confine yourself to counting posts, etc. Andries 06:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Guru Maharaji not referring to himself when making claims of divinity?[edit]

You wrote that Prem Rawat was not referring to himself when he spoke of "Guru Maharaj ji" and made claims of divinity. This may be true sometimes, but there is clear evidence that you are at least partially wrong. Here is an excerpt of the authorized biography about Guru Maharaj Ji edited by Charles Cameron in which Maharaji wrote the following. Here are some excerpts.

"Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ......
When human beings forget this one way, then our Lord, who is the Lord of the whole universe, comes in human body to give us practical Knowlege, ....But, most ironically, we don't appreciate the Lord when He comes in His human body on this earth. Similarly, a Satguru, a Perfect Master, a Supreme Lord who is existing in the present time, can give you the practical Knowledge of the real thing... So God Himself comes to give practical Knowledge of His divinity, of His inner self, which is self-effulgent light, eternal light, all-pervading light. And the Supreme Master, the Satguru, gives practical Knowledge of that light, irrespective of caste, creed, color, religion or sex, to those human individuals who bow before him with reverence, with love and with faith." [3]

Andries 14:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been mislead. Maharaji did not wrote the above, as you say... This is a good example of the strenuous efforts made by the publisher of that website to attempt to prove that point. What you quote above is not one continuous excerpt from Prem Rawat from that book, but a potpourri of quotes strung together, some of which are not from Prem Rawat at all. Some portions are from a sat-sang by his mother, some others by the editor of the book, some others from Brahmananda, and some others by Prem Rawat. In my study of these ex-followers, this is a recurring theme: their passionate holding to certain beliefs related to their interpretation of their past, as a way to rationalize their antagonism and as a way of constructing specific narratives that support these beliefs. The person that put together that "quote" had a very specific purpose in mind: to mislead people like you into thinking that Rawat actually said that, and he has obviously succeeded. This is a very interesting development that is being studied in Sociology of Religion: the ease in which these narratives can be constructed (and replicated!) thanks to the self-publishing empowerment facilitated by the Internet. --Daniella 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It may be true. I do not have the book so I cannot check it. Andries 18:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, even the relgious scholar Reender Kranenborg who specialized in new religious movements and Hinduism held the same conviction about Rawat's claims about himself in the early 1980s as the ex-followers now. If even he misunderstood Rawat then clearly you cannot blame the ex-followers. Andries 18:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Even if it is true what you write about the excerpts. (I would like to see proof of course), then I think there are other indications that the ex-followers are right. For example this quote by Maharaji "The greatest problem all around the world today, whether in America, Japan,China, Russia, India or anywhere else in the world, is that people are not in peace. People want peace. Today, if two people fight, the government is supposed to settle them down. But when governments fight, who is going to settle them down? 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. “ And see this pic in a DLM magazine Clearly putting all the blame on followers when such pics were published in official magazine is completely unfair. Andries 18:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
He may not have made explicit claims so often, but he sure made strong suggestions often. See e.g. here [4] Andries 19:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not proposing to "blame" the former followers. OTOH what I said above is that the ex-premies go to great efforts to prove that Rawat made claims about himself, when actually arriving to that conclusion based on these examples (in which he speaks about the God and guru, for example) is an obvious case of reductio ad absurdum. I don't know much about Kranenborg, but it is unfortunate that he makes the same mistake, probably because he may have merely reflected the opinions of Rawat's followers and his family, that unequivocally spoke of him as lord of the universe in Cameron's "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji" and other literature in the 70s. FYI, I will not have time to respond to any more comments until next weekend. --Daniella 19:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you after re-reading Kranenborg's article on the DLM that his opinion about Rawat's claims about himself is a mere mistake: he certainly did have some good reason to come to his conclusion. It is undeniable that Rawat compared himself many times with Krishna and Jesus who according to Rawat were also Perfect Masters. No explicit claims, I have to admit, but what he often said came very close to it. Andries 20:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is an excerpt that shows that Maharaji compares himself to Jesus and rationalizes the tiny presents, like cars, aeroplanes given to him How much blatant can a rationalization for a luxury life style become? Rawat took the fruits of the guru role (accepting devotion and presents) without accepting the burden, that is a life style of moderacy. Andries 20:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
May be what the Dutch professor of pschyology of religion Jan van der Lans wrote is based on his observations of Maharaji and his many interviews with followers of the DLM: "the deification of a guru is a traditional element of Eastern spirituality, but, when detached from the Eastern cultural element and copied by Westerners, the distinction between the person who is the guru and that which he symbolizes can be lost, resulting in the relationship between the guru and disciple degenerating into a boundless, uncritical personality cult. " Lans, Jan van der Dr. (Dutch language) Volgelingen van de goeroe: Hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/Followers of the guru: contemporary religious movements in the Netherlands, written upon request for the KSGV published by Ambo, Baarn, 1981 ISBN 9026305214 Andries 22:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't have much time to answer your request for "proof" that the quote you copied is a collection of quotes from different sat-sangs, some of which not by Maharaj ji, but I will do my best. That "quote" (yes, it has quotes at the beginning and at the end, purportedly said in sequence in the same sat-sang and assigned to the guru) includes out of context portions from the so-called "peace bomb" sat-sang, interspersed with portions of a sat-sang by her mother Mata Ji, given in 1972 In Switzerland ( "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" page 294 to 298). It also includes the Guru Purnima mantra "Guru Brahma Guru Vishnu Gurudeva Maheshwara//Guru Sakshat Para Brahman//Tasmay Sri Guruve Namah". FYI, the term "Supreme Master" was mostly used by her mother and one of his brothers, but never by Maharaj ji himself.

OTOH, at the beginning of the section "The Questions" (a question and answer session;page 83 to page 99 of the same book), there are various very straightforward statements made by the guru:

Page 83 - Question: "Guru Maharaj Ji: Who are you?

Answer: "Who am I?" I'm just an ordinary humble servant of God, preaching the gospel of peace in the world, preaching the Knowledge of peace. Am I anything else? You are seeing my body, but I am not my body. What I am is something else inside of me. What are you? You are not your body, you are something else."

Page 84 - Question: "Do you regard yourself as being a teacher of a new religion, or do you regard yourself as God or the Son of God?

Answer: "A rose does not say "I am a rose." People who see it say it is a rose. This is the question I always get on television and on all the news programs, "Why people say you are God?" And I say, "I don't say I am God. People see something in me and they think I am God" Right?

On page 18 there is another statement about the subject:

Question: "Guru Maharaj Ji, are you God?"

Answer: "No, My Knowledge is God"

What is very revealing is that in the narratives of the ex-premies, you will never find these quotes. I will respond to your other questions next weekend. --Daniella 05:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Daniella, it is untrue that you can never find these quotes in the narratives of ex-premies. For example, the quote on page 18 is available on If you said that they do not put emphasis on such quotes then I would have agreed with you. Andries 21:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for providing proof that I consider convincing to a great extent. I really try to be open for evidence of being wrong and try to make sure that I do not write down statements with a greater certainty than the sources allow. There is no factual mistake on only some ambiguity that led to confusion. The quotes are labelled there as various excepts from the book “Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?” [5] so it is not true, as you wrote at talk:Prem Rawat, that the mistake was “surely perpetuated in the former followers' narrative for many, many years until this week.” The mistake was made by Nigel on 21/02/2006 and confirmed by Jim on the forum. The mistake was pointed out by you here on 26/02/2006. So the mistake lasted six days [6] Andries 08:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC) (amended for grammar and minor contents changes)
I hope you don't mind me joining this discussion. Prem Rawat made it abundantly clear that he can't possibly be God in his first talks in the west because he believes and has maintrained for 40 years that God is pure energy. Any suggestion to the contrary came either from confused followers or the media. The only issue for me is what does it mean to be "divine". It take the view that PR believes that God, the pure energy, the divine. the holy is in everyone. His suggestions that the guru or perfect master is holy or divine, may be a bit shocking in the west, but part and parcel of the Indian religious or spiritual experience. In India statues, trees, places and naked saddhus are routinely described as holy or divine. PR, to my knowledge, has never said "I am divine and you're not", rather the student and the master both have the potentrial to be holy and divine by connecting with the divine within each one of us. The fact that he has changed his terminology is not revisionism but a response to the confusion experienced by people who haven't got the education, experience or discrimination to understand what he is meaning. In the rational west we have no trouble calling the Pope, the Dalai Lama and others "Your Holiness" and AC Bhaktivedanta " His Divine Grace"; even simple parish priests are said to have taken Holy Orders etc. And Communion or Mass is based on the idea that the humble priest is able to perform the miracle of turning bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus. Criticising PR for saying that he or Perfect Masters are divine or holy is only relevant if he also said " and you are not"! MomentoMomento 02:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Momento, thanks for explanation. I think the problem is not that he made claims of divinity, but the current denial that he ever made them. I know the way of reasoning that you present hereabove very well, because it used to be my own way of reasoning for 9 years in the case of Sathya Sai Baba (SSB)who answered a question from a journalist as follows
"Q: From what Baba has said, it seems that there is not much difference or dichotomy between God and man. Am I right? "
"Sathya Sai Baba: Quite right, God is man and man is God. All of us have something of God, the divine spark, within us. All men are divine like Myself, but with the spirit embodied in human flesh and bone. The only difference is that they are unaware of this Godhood." [7]
But the basic implication of the claims of both Rawat and Sathya Sai Baba about themselves was that yes, you are divine, but I am more divine than you. To deny that they made very real claims of divinity is something that I cannot accept and have even difficulty to take seriously. The claims were made covert or overt, through suggestion (in the case of Rawat), basic logic (in the case of Rawat), in the third person (both in the case of Rawat and SSB) or through explicit claims (in the case of SSB). The major differences in this respect ist that Rawat sometimes denied making claims of divinity when asked and that SSB's claims were more explicit. At other times when Rawat was asked he evaded the question. Daniella wrote that Rawat speeches have to be seen in the light of Hinduism and I partially agree. But I want to make the following remarks about this
  1. Hinduism is not a single religion but a group of related religions. (Barret)Rawat belonged to the Sant Mat movement in which claims of personal divinity of the guru are common. (Melton 1986 and Kranenborg 2001)
  2. Maharaji was influenced by Christianity (Kranenborg 1982)
  3. When reading the speeches by Maharaji, the references are made to Perfect Master Krishna and the Bhagavad Gita. I know the Bhagavad Gita and I think that knowing this scripture made the claims of Maharaji not weaker, but stronger.
Andries 06:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that PR has always said that he is'nt God but what do you mean by "the current denial that he ever made them (claims of divinty). In its strictest sense, divine means associated with or derived from God. I doubt very much that PR has denied that he, Satgurus, Perfect Masters, Knowledge etc aren't associated with or derived from God. In his view everything is derived from God.Momento 09:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC) That's so funny Momento. Your 3rd sentence is so deperately verbose..3 negative's in one sentence ..whew! Of course PR has associated Knowledge with God. He used to say "I am not God. My Knowledge is God." That's my recollection anyway. "In his view everything is derived from God". How do you know?PatW 22:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Did Guru Maharaji use this title for himself?[edit]

Daniella, you wrote at talk:Prem Rawat "Also note that the statement made by 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"

How do you know that he did not sign these quotes? It is not true as you suggest that the title "Guru Maharaj Ji" was used only by followers for Prem Rawat, but Prem Rawat also used the title Guru Maharaj Ji for himself. [8] Andries 08:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Offensive comments[edit]

By the way I have tried to get the offensive comments made about you by Jim removed from the forum. Andries 08:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened...?[edit]

Hi, Daniella Samantha! Are you still in contact with this site? I keep looking every now and then into Scirus and Google-scholar, to hopefully one day find your paper! What's taking so long? Are you still on the topic? I hope you have not dropped it. Best wishes--Rainer P. (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)