Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat/Archive 4

edits: rationale
In the miscellaneous criticism section, I tightened up the bit about the exclusivity of the techniques. I have to say I don't understand what the anti group is really getting at here (other than a credibility attack), but that being said, the current students' material focuses on the here and now and I don't see any reference to exclusivity, but they do seem to say that Rawat can teach these techniques to people. I left it there but the anti- folks really ought to ask themselves if it does any real work.

Similarly, I copy-edited the brother and family stuff. Again, I don;lt know what this is supposed to accomplish other than cast doubt, but it seems straight forward enough. The guy was the guru, the family seemed to go along with it, and when he married a westerner his mother freaked out. Personally, it's a "so what?" to me, but that's because I have too many friends with Jewish mothers who also freaked out when they married gentiles. Nonetheless, it remians, but in a more readable form.

This Jakdeo business is far more serious. I edited it to be as accurate and fair as possible. It there was an instance of exual misconduct, it is for the victim, not the critics to make the factual claims about what was and wasn't reported, when, and to whom. I've read the material quite closely,and while anyone with decency has great sympathy for this girl, it is her story, and hers alone, to tell. Also, this is surely a defamatory charge, to say that the organization knew but didn't do something. That's got to be very well supported.

In that light, it is imperative to point out that there was no arrest report or anything like that, and that it is a single instance. In the context of the Catholic church scandals, you can not leave the unspoken implication that this is somekind of widespread practice, absent very solid proof to the contrary. To do otherwise would be highly irresponsible. At the same time, the organization seems to admit that some indicent did in fact occur, and I left that in the text.

As to the renting spaces bit, again, this is wierd, because it posits what the critics assume is motives must be. This is impossible to prove right or wrong. Nonetheless, the facts are laid out and readers can decide for themselves.

The part where critics assault the quality of the intervoews with Rawat are duplicative, as they are repeated already in text higher up, so have been removed at bottom. Similarly, the part about Maharaji drinking alcohol is duplicative.

More later Richard G. 13:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Richard G. Thanks for your rationale
 * I hope you agree and understand that the whole issue with Prem Rawat is about credibility, faith and doubt. That is what it is all about. Andries 13:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Understood and agreed. Personally, I think the interview thing is silly, but these folks seem to have an awful lot of emotional investment. Whatever. Richard G. 14:17, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The alcohol anxiety thing was not duplicated and you removed the only reference to it in the article. Please be more careful next time.Andries 13:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Same for the interviews. Andries 13:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * One follower admitted that renting the space is true to create a false image is true and it is possible to prove it if you take the effort. (I am not prepared to leave Western Europe though). Andries 13:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Richard, you seem to think that a lot of what some ex-premies have to say is "silly." It's quite condescending. Just because you are a person who knows someone who is is a student of Maharaji doesn't make you an authority on the history of Prem Rawat.


 * There is a difference between EV or students renting space, holding an event, inviting Rawat and then he attends, and putting out a press release saying "Prem Rawat Speaks at United Nations," which implies he spoke to the United Nations officials. It was the same when Elan Vital put out a press release saying "Prem Rawat Speaks at Harvard University." The implication is that he was invited by Harvard University.  When you did deeper into the methods used by Elan Vital to promote Prem Rawat as someone who is "internationally renowned," you will find that he has no name recognitition.  Ask anyone if they ever heard of Prem Rawat at your university.  However, "Guru Maharaj Ji," the boy guru of the 70s does trigger the memories of people old enough to remember back to the 70s. My point?  Revisionism of his past.


 * Another example of this in this "Criticism" article is the section called "Elan Vital's characterization...." it states: "In an indepently (sic) verifiable court decision by the United Nations-sponsored World Intellectual Property Organization..." The footnote #47 takes you to the decision made by the National Arbitration Forum. NAF is not a court and on the NAF's website it states:


 * "The National Arbitration Forum is not affiliated with any party. The Forum is compensated on a case-by-case basis only for doing the work associated with administering mediations, arbitrations and other ADR proceedings." http://www.arb-forum.com/


 * Are you getting the picture of how Elan Vital alters the truth by using grandiose statements? The case was mediated by the NAF.  There were no "world courts" involved. It was mediation.


 * Prem Rawat has a history that he has striven to revise for a long time. I cannot take you back to the days when there were huge communities of then-called "premies" when Maharaji was openly worshipped and referred to as our Lord.  The real deal.  A god-in-a-bod.  I can't do that.  Therefore, by Wikipedian standards, anecdotal evidence isn't accepted.  But, that doesn't make something untrue either.  EPO was not written in one day.  It has taken several years to accumulate evidence that includes testimony as well as anecdotal evidence of Rawat's private behavior as well as how he has treated his followers in the past up to the present.


 * Also, the issue of "claims of divinity" is not so controversial, IMO. Evidence of his claims of divinity is that Rawat encouraged and also demanded reverence towards himself. The evidence is in his own words.  Greater evidence is that thousands of then-called "premies" openly worshipped him directly, had altars in their homes to him, and in "satsang" halls the focal point of the rooms were an empty chair up on a pedestal with a large photo of him, with a silk pillow for his "Holy Lotus Feet."  And Rawat never said, "Don't do that." We never were told by visiting Instructors or Mahatmas "Maharaji says don't do that." Rather, Rawat encouraged it. Even in the mid-90s when aspirants were not around, us older premies (and some folks still do use that term in private) would talk about the days when we were allowed to openly worship him.  We still referred to him as our Lord in private, and our view of him as the Lord Incarnate hadn't changed, but we were simly censored from saying it in public. Around 1997 at a program in Long Beach, California in celebration of twenty-five years in the west, Rawat was speaking about death and dying.  He said in that talk:  "When you are dying, think of ME."  The crowd of "students" roared.  How many "inspirational speakers" do you know of tell the people they speak to that they should think of them specifically, at their moment of death, Richard?


 * When I was at DECA from 1979-1980 Maharaji would come into the design room and while looking at presentations on a table, the draftspeople would crawl under the table to kiss his feet. It was clearly a devotional gesture and it wasn't in India, it was in Hialeah, Florida. And no one did anything at DECA that Rawat didn't approve of. I saw this nearly every day for close to a year.  What company are you aware of in the U.S. that employs people (who don't get paid) who kiss the feet of their clients by crawling on the floor under a table?  He never said "Don't do that." And, btw, whenever Rawat was present on the premises of DECA, any outsiders, i.e., non-premies (vendors, etc) were escorted off the premises.  I did this myself because one large goal of that project was to hide the identity of the "Client" who was Prem Rawat.


 * Btw, this isn't heresay. I'd swear to it under oath in a court of law with penalty of perjury.


 * Richard, you trivialize (by calling ex-premies "silly") the decades that many ex-premies spent trying to dedicate their lives to Rawat on the basis of their belief (that he encouraged and promoted) that he was the living Lord. Did you know that at the 1979 Hans Jayanti Festival Rawat commanded from the main stage that all the thousands of premies who attended were not to engage in what he called "chit-chat?" He told us we were only to "give satsang to each other."  Satsang at the time referred to two or more people talking about their experience of Knowledge and praising Maharaji.  Maharaji forbade premies from having normal conversations for a week.


 * The basis of this article is geared toward the POV of the sociologists of NRMs. It you haven't read anything written cult experts (a perjorative used by these sociologists) then you don't have the full picture. People gave up huge chunks of their lives, their futures, trust funds, inheritances and yes, devotion to Rawat because of what Rawat told us about himself, and Rawat's promise of an experience of perfect peace that he told us only he could provide because he was the Lord of the Universe. So you can call ex-premies silly and insignificant, but you don't know what Rawat has done to the minds of so many of his early followers. Just because Rawat is a little-known personality cult leader doesn't make him any less destructive to the many people who gave so much of themselves to him and have felt spiritually and emotionally abused by him and his revisionism.  That's why this article is so biased towards Prem Rawat.


 * Cynthia Sept 5, 2004

Cynthia, I never called you or other anti people silly. I said the bit about whether the interviews is germane or dispositive to any significant issue is silly. I understand you have a lot of emotional issues with this whole thing, but you have to put that aside. There's an irony here. Much of the anti side complains that Rawat tried to stifle your critical thinking process, and instead be all touchy-feely. But when you want to justify unsupported allegations you point to your own feelings and shared sense of loss or anger as justification. Please, you can't possibly have it both ways? But there's no offense meant here and I did not call you silly---or anyhting else. Thanks, Richard G. 16:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have "a lot of emotional issues" concerning Prem Rawat anymore. Who told you that? Yes, I am involved in writing on the ex-premie forum, but that's only to help people sort out the major mind-f**k Rawat has put so many people through. If you don't understand that process, then you are missing a huge segment of what really has happened to people's minds courtesy of Prem Rawat. I'm simply trying to explain to you what has happened in the past that caused premies to believe that Rawat was the Lord and their behavior as a result.  Your term "touchy-feely" is also condescending and inaccurate.  I guess you had to have been there. :-)


 * Cynthia Sept. 5, 2004


 * With all due respect, there is a lot of emotional context to deal with. Let's face it. Otherwise editing these pages would have been a walk in the park. The way you and other people write, the thousands of postings on the discussion forums, the long, verbose polemics point to that fact. Let's call the cat a cat. --Zappaz 17:36, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edits/Rationale: Macgregor stuff
I've walked through all the stuff, and re-organized the section in a more chronological fashion, and added citations to the court documents whenever appropriate.

The key points are that this guy did what he did, and expressed that he had a right to do it to "expose" some wrongdoing. It is very clear the court didn't agree, and you have to let the reader see that. I saw where some anti people had charged that the judge was bribed, and that the case was "fixed." This seems like some pretty weird conspiracy-theory stuff.

Also, they really seem to go all-out to say that Gubler "didn't mean it" when he told his story, and that he was coeerced, but the transcript shows that the judge wasn't buying that either. Nonetheless, that fact (without a long argument) belongs in the text and I left it there. Surely, an encyclopedia is not the place to re-litigate claims. If readers really want to delve deeper into this, they can go to the debating webpages themselves.


 * Question-- Did Macgregor appeal this? If not, why not? That has got to be dispositive of something...

Frankly, there is an awful lot of chatter out there about Macgregor's credibility and honesty (pro and con) and I wonder if that belongs here, or in a minor treatment in the section about the critics? Some of the claims seem well-founded. What say you? Richard G. 14:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you aware Richard, that the press release linked on the article is written by Elan Vital? Here's another one, identical to the one here.


 * http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/company?id=118869


 * Are you aware that in the Court's decision the words "hate-group" are not used?


 * Cynthia Sept 5, 2004

Ex-premie article now redirected
The ex-premie article is now redirected here, as all important material and data has already been lifted from there. If you need to pick up some more you can go to the history page and lookup the last version. --Zappaz 16:01, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edits/rationale
In the Miscellaneous section, the part where the critics question the probity of the magazine articles remains, but the use of ironic quotes around the words journalist and interview had to be removed. It is a way of signifying that the encyclopedia does not believe that is is genuine. I don't think Wiki has a position on whether these are "real" articles or "PR" articles or anything in between.

Once you start that game of ironic quotes, you're done for, because you could put ironic quotes around anything to cast subliminal doubt. It's cute, but not fair or scholarly. Besides, the important part is that the anti group says that the uncritical tone and lack of questions about the divinity stuff is proof that these are a sham, so why not let that be shown and let the reader evaluate? Don't think for the reader, I say.

I took a shot at clarifying the subheading for the part about Macgregor and Gubler. I thought a more accurate heading is "Legal Actions Against Ex-Premie Activities." Is it fair to these two to call it "the Macgregor and Gubler affair?" After all, the point of the whole thing was that there was court action taken against the activity. In other words, I thought the headline kind of demonizes these two. I don't mean to imply that that's what the pro-Rawat people are doing, but it kind of personalizes the focus. It's what these guys DID that brought them into the story, not who they are, right? In that same way, I moved the bit about Jeffrey Leason and the NAF decision here, too.

changed the heading of the next section to "Rawat's Students Question Critics' Motives and Credibility". In that section, I tightened it up, and -- please, pro-Maharaji folks, don't jump on me -- I cut a lot of the stuff that didn't have direct evidence. For example, I went back and looked at the Ackland stuff (he and Macgregor are close, I learned) that there is independent factual evidence, as does the Leason/Drek stuff (With some copy edits).

But absent independently verifiable material, I cut and condensed the generalized allegations about the anti-peoples's character. The link to the Elan Vital article will suppply more facts in someone needs to read the minutae. In fairness, it's important to add that there haven't been any criminal charges in connection with this stuff, and I added that. If there have been any police reports or charges, you should add them.

I also tightened up the part about appearing at schools. I cleared up the run-on sentence and got right to the point, that critics say he uses these venues to increase his prestige. But you can't say that he just "rented" it. In almost all cases, you need an invitation from a student union, a student government member, or faculty member, at the very least. I looked at the transcripts of these events, and Rawat was introduced by someone from the institution. You just can't imply that he secretly "rented" the place (by the way, HE rented, or one of his front groups rented? Be accurate!) and later claimed to have their endorsement. That's just not the way schools and institutions work. Richard G. 23:15, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Richard, what do you mean? Universities have conference rooms that they also rent for commerical purporses. That is how it works here, as far as I know. Andries 23:17, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * These aren't small conference rooms, they're pretty darn big places! But in either event, the real question is whether it's fair to say that the institutions didnlt know he was there or anything. Given the awards and speeches thay made in his favour, that doesn;t make a lot of sense. It's apretty small issue in the scheme of things anyway, don;t you think?

Richard G. 23:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Richard G., well, yes, I admit that is part of it but not everything. The main controversy is that the presentation to the public suggest an affiliation with the university or invitation by the university that is not there. This would be a propaganda trick to increase his credibility to current and prospective followers. Andries 23:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I understand, but given the size of the piece, the far more serious allegations made, it's pretty small potatoes to argue that his appearing on one campus or another is "propaganda" or not. The underlying theme is that the anti people just don't trust him at all. Maybe they shouldn't, but it's a matter of seeing the forest for the trees. Of course their press releases say "at Harvard" or whatever. I do the same thing when I present a paper at Columbia University or Georgetown. Is that "propaganda"? How on earth will you ever prove that I did it ONLY to increase my prestige? Thanks for the logical and calm approach. The anti people seem to have a lot of aggression they like to take out through the Internet! I hope that the threast that Jossi recieved were only a joke... Richard G. 00:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * yes, but when you present a paper then it is a university related event and that is the difference. I mean, it depends on the degree of discrepancy between reality and presentation. If the discrepancy becomes too big then I believe this is unethical. Andries 17:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

style question
1. Is it Ex-Premie, or Ex-premie or ex-premie? 2. Should subheads be in initial caps? thnxRichard G.


 * There is no mystery about the term ex-premie. We were premies, and now are no longer premies. The prefix 'ex-' is used in the same way as in 'ex-president', 'ex-wife', 'ex-footballer', etc. It is normal use of the English language. The only weird thing is the word 'premie' but for many years I sat and listened to Prem Rawat begin his speeches with 'Dear premies,....'. It was certainly not used with a capital 'p'. --John Brauns 23:23, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * ex-premie, I think, but I do not know whether premie was normally with a capital. It is Wikipedia style not to use capitals often. Andries 17:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

edits/rationale
Mostly small copy edits in the section where the critics' credibility is questioned. Moved higher up the line about none of them being criminally charged for the generalized claims of harassment. That allows the readers to determine on their own whether this is petty squabbling or REAL trouble-making.

Like duplicating computer files without permission, or registering fraudulent domain names. All the spin in the world doesn't change that this is disgraceful behavior. I've already seen some vitriol here, and I see that the emotionalism of the anti- group seems to justify this sort of thing to them, but I just can't agree. Breaking the law is breaking the law. :(

I also noticed that the multiple links to the old pictures of Rawat dressed up like a god all went to a web page that had the same images accessible on a menu bar, so they've been collapsed.

I still haven't heard here or seen anywhere whether Macgregor is appealing his case. That seems like a very important fact someone is leaving out. If he has the contempt of court charge on appeal, the premies ought to admit that, no?

Richard G. 02:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

a question that keeps bugging me
I have a question that keeps bugging me: its seems that of the people have left the teachings, those that became the most vitriolic critics are those that spent an extraordinary amount of time as students 15, 20, 30 years being quite common amongst them. Not only that, but most of them were quite involved either as employees or volunteers, gave a lot of their time, effort and money to it.

So, my question is this: If these people were so gullible (in their own words), to believe in the teachings and the man for so long, even accepting that they were a bit stupid to have fallen for all that, how come that by just leaving they automatically become a trustworthy source of information? I don't get it. If they were so gullible then, what is stoping them for being gullible now? If they were so "confused" then, what is stopping them from being "confused" now?

The only way I can make sense of this is to make an analogy with a divorcee speaking about their ex. Similar length of time, (in fact the longer the marriage, the bitter the disputes during and after the divorce), similar venom spewed, similar accusations, similar claims of victimization.

I am sure that psychologists and sociologist have studied this phenomena. Does anybody know of any studies on the subject?

I'd try to explain it but I'm always called polemic when I post comments on this website: Here are some links. - Cynthia Sept 5 2004:

reFocus: http://www.refocus.org

Steven Hassan - Freedom of Mind http://www.freedomofmind.com/

Margaret T. Singer. Ph.D. http://www.rickross.com/groups/singer.html

Janja Lalich: http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general676.html

Working Psychology: http://www.workingpsychology.com/cult.html

Cults: Public Perceptions vs. Research: http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general431.html#Lifton

AFF - American Family Foundation: http://www.csj.org/

Apologetics Index (about CESNUR): http://apologeticsindex.org/c10.html

Cult faq - http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-newreligiousmovements.html#subject1


 * Thanks for these, but most people in this discussion are already familiar with Hassan, Ross, Singer, the AFF, and other "anti-cultists".
 * The question that is still bugging me is the "testimonies" of ex-followers and their validity. Has anybody studied these? 64.81.88.140


 * The "anti-cultists" are characterized as such by the sociologists of NRMs, which is the only source of references within this article. Don't you think that's biased?  I do.  David V. Barrett who is referenced in this article never interviewed any former followers of Rawat, but only used interviews and/or conversations/correspondence with Rawat's current followers when he wrote the section on EV/Rawat.  So, that's why I say that to include Barrett's book The New Believers is biased toward Rawat/EV. The book wasn't published until 2000 so he had ample opportunity to contact former followers of Rawat.  The CESNUR folks themselves are controversial.


 * What you have quoted below is yet another example of the POV of the sociologists of NRMs, namely, David Bromley. If all anyone is going to read for resources is the work of these NRM "scholars" then how can this article be written neutrally?


 * Cynthia Sept. 6, 2004


 * I found somtehing interesting that I think is applicable here (highlights are mine):
 * Third, since brainwashing theories are the object of considerable scholarly criticism, the model requires as a third step discrimination among sources and narratives. The French and Belgian reports make little or no use of scholarly sources. The Belgian report explicitly says that it is aware of scholarly objections against the mind control model, but it has made the ethical choice of preferring to these objections the accounts of "victims"[18]. By "victims" the Belgian Commission means those normally defined by social scientists as "apostates". These are the former members converted into active opponents of the group they have left. Although many such ex-members resent being called "apostates" the term is technical, not derogatory, and has been used for some decades, as documented in the recent excellent volume edited by David Bromley[19]. Although perhaps terms other than "apostates" may be used in the future, some sort of term is necessary in order to distinguish between "apostates" and other ex-members who do not turn against their former group. Empirical evidence on the prevalence of apostates among former members is available only for a limited number of new religious movements, but uniformly suggests that they are a minority[20], perhaps between 15 and 20 per cent. Most former members have mixed feelings about their former affiliations and, at any rate, are not interested in joining a crusade against the group they have left. "Apostates" are an interesting minority. The model, however, regards them as if they were the only representatives of the whole larger category of former members.


 * Objections that "apostates" are not necessarily representative are met by the fourth stage of the model. "Cults" or "sects" are not religions. They are not because they use brainwashing, while religions are by definition joined out of free will. We know that they use brainwashing because we rely on the testimony of "victims" (i.e. "apostates"). We know that "apostates" are representative of the groups' membership, or at least former membership, because they are screened and selected by private, reliable watchdog organizations. One easy objections to the Belgian report (where, unlike in the French case, proceeding of the hearings have been published) is that for most "cults" or "sects" the Commission has heard one, two or at any rate a very limited number of ex-members. Why they should be regarded as representative of the larger category of ex-members in general is not really explained. However, in light of comments in the report itself, it is at least likely that in most cases they have been hand-picked and introduced to the Commission by anti-cult organizations, whose role is both praised and supported by the report. Anti-cult organizations, we are told, are more reliable than academics because the former, unlike the latter, have a "practical" experience and work with "victims". 
 * http://www.cesnur.org/testi/panic.htm


 * Anybody has read these?:
 * David G. Bromley, The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements, Westport (Conn.): Praeger, 1998.
 * Bromley: Falling from the Faith: Causes and Consequences of Religious :Apostasy, Newbury Park and London: Sage Publications, 1988.


 * .140, No, I have not read them. I think that leaving such a group after intense, long-time involvement is comparable to a divorce or death of a family member. A popular description among ex-members, written by the late Jan Groenveld I personally do not believe that people with superficial involvement would feel hurt or harmed and they hence leave quietly and move on. I agree that is a good idea not to confine ourselves to the writings by anti-cult activist. They are activists, not scholars and I think that they have sometimes a simplistic view on the matter. Andries 17:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see that. The emotional issues are self evident. But to assume that all the ex-followers have the same emotional issues, is just speculation. It is no surprise that this keeps coming back to the discussion: In reading the article that .140 posted, I can see that it is an ongoing debate amongst scholars. In response to Cynthia's comments above, I would say that everything in the subject of NRMs seems to be controversial and that a well defined line exists between "anti-cultists" and "apologetics", "apostates" and "followers", etc. etc. As if as creating a taxonomy for these would resolve anything. I guess this is the way it is...
 * IMO, we are dealing with several issues here:
 * The representation of the ex-premies (small group/ representing or nor representing the silent group of ex-followers)
 * Their tactics (legal/ illegal, "hate group" vs. "public service" POVs)
 * The way that we are presenting evidence to support POVs for above points:
 * Third party/scholarly references/court papers
 * Self references/testimonials
 * In any case, I think Richard, Gary D and Andries are doing a great job of copy-editing this article. I will focus on the /temp1 article this week. Anyone that wants to help with copyedit there, be most welcome.
 * --Zappaz 19:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

edits/rationale
Hello all. Mostly some minor edits.

Went back and looked at all the tax fraud allegations made on the anti poeple's pages, and did some deep googling. We've got to be accurate and add that Rawat has never been tagged for fraud or tax monkey business. I added that disclaimer, and it really ought to stay unless someone's got a conviction out there. Given the level of hate the anti people have for him and his students, I doub't they'd be quiet about it!


 * Richard, there is little hatred amongst ex-premies, just a wish for truth and justice. You are right to say Rawat hasn't been charged with tax fraud. --John Brauns 23:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Still can't find if Macgregor has an appeal going on, or decided.


 * I believe an appeal is possible, but financial constraints may prevent it. But Macgregor is not central to these discussions. --John Brauns 23:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is no genuine primary source for serious allegations about Rawat that ought to be endorsed by a scholarly work. The most commonly cited web page, the Ex-Premie page, has some severe problems from an academic/journalistic standpoint. It contains many allegations, but no hard independent material. For example, they allege tax fraud, and point to copies of corporate documents, but then go BACK to their own discussions for the "proof." It's what Latinists call a "per quod" argument. The document I say "proves" wrongdoing does so ONLY by dint of my INTERPRETATION of the document. It requires the speaker to make reference to external information so make its meaning clear. For example, I say "Joe is a cheat, here's a list of his tax payments." Then there's a list of tax payments. Then I have to walk you through it, and say "if you take X and Y and Z, it must mean Joe is a chaeat." That is a far cry from a court conviction for tax cheating, or even an on-the-record quote from a law enforcer saying "I think Joe is a cheat." Either of those are acceptable as primary support. There's simply none of that on the issues raised by the critics.

More importantly, the names on the whois records do not match those who claim to be responsible for it. The webmaster, server node, and onwer are all in different places, even different nations. Also, the anti group insists that they are NOT an organized group, not a hate group, just some folks who got together. But the website is owned by a "Ex-Premie Association." Someone is not being truthful here. If there is no central organization, then how can one handful claim to be the "official" web site of their anti movement? Also, the name of the webmaster does not match the name of the administrator. This all sounds awfully fishy, as if they are trying to avoid detection or legal resonsibility. In all, very unreliable as a primary source. But not without value.

That does not denude the ex-premie page of being cited throughout the text (as it is) for individuals' personal recollections where appropriate (like the Mishler interview), and it should be cited throughought the text where it is. But in a bibliography section, you need primary sources, lest Wiki endorse this as a reliable source. Instead, I recommend http://www.geocities.com/maharajiwd/ which has links to what I surmise is their "main" page, and many other "anti" sites.

That way, people can still get to the "main" anti page, but they will do so without the endorsement of Wiki, one way or another. Nice and clean.

Also, "Other websites" section deleted. These weren't websites, they were yet more articles (pro and con) about issues already explained to death here, and available through any of the many webpages already cited.

Richard G. 21:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Richard, I am the webmaster of ex-premie.org, and I hope I can contribute to your understanding of the various anti-Maharaji sites, and whether ex-premies are a group or not.


 * Regarding which anti-Maharaji links should be in the article, I agree that ex-premie.org is not an official website for ex-premies. However, it is seen by many ex-premies as the primary ex-premie website. Other websites that are actively maintained are mikefinch.com, drek.us, and gurumaharaji.info. Also, forum8.org is the current active ex-premie discussion forum. I would recommend linking all five of these. Other sites have comparatively little content or are not actively maintained. for your information, the website http://www.geocities.com/maharajiwd/ was intended as a source for links to ALL Maharaji sites, not just anti-Maharaji sites. If you look down the list of links you can verify that. It is therefore not suitable for the purpose you have proposed, and I recommend that you remove the link. If you want to keep the link, it should neither be among the pro- nor the anti-Maharaji sites.


 * I would also like to explain the registration of the ex-premie.org domain name under Ex-premie Association. The domain name was acquired in 1997 by three ex-premies - Scott Perry, David Sterling and Jim Heller. They did not form any association but used the name instead of registering the domain under any individual name. Scott Perry was the first webmaster. He handed over to David Sterling, who handed over to Brian who was assisted by Katie. Even though the domain was (and still is) registered to Ex-premie Association, Brian felt, and certainly declared many times, that he was the sole owner of the website. When Brian wanted to retire, he asked myself and Jean-Michel Khan whether we wanted to take over. Jean-Michel declined although he is still active in adding content to EPO. After much thought I agreed. My position is that I am the owner of the website (and its mirror sites) and although Jean-Michel updates the site, I exercise full editorial control over the site. If you look at the whois records for the mirror sites (ex-preme2.org, ex-premie3.org, ex-premie4.org) you will see that I am the admin as well as the billing contact. The address given is my home address. To save such confusion in future, I intend to change the ex-premie.org domain registration to match these. There really is no official Ex-premie Association. Having said that, of course ex-premies do associate from time to time, although far less than Elan Vital would have you believe.


 * I would also like to comment on Macgregor and Gubler. Although they currently are the topic of much discussion here and on Forum 8, and are singled out for criticism on Elan Vital's websites, their importance in the campaign to provide the truth about Maharaji is being grossly exaggerated. John Macgregor only started contributing to the forums and EPO in late 2001, four years after EPO was founded. John's total contribution to the over 750 English language pages on EPO is about 6. A year ago, I had never heard of Tom Gubler, and Tom had never heard of me, and there is only one mention of him on EPO. Elan Vital make a big deal out of Macgregor and Gubler because they finally have something concrete against some former premies (there is no substance to any of the other allegations against nameless ex-premies on Elan Vital's FAQ). It would be a shame if the article on ex-premies made out that these two occupied some kind of central position in the opposition to Maharaji. If they do, it will only be as a result of Elan Vital demonising them. Ex-premies, and ex-premie.org, were doing fine before Macgregor and Gubler came along, and continue to be independent of them. Having said that, Macgregor's articles are an excellent contribution to the site. Regarding Gubler's affidavit, if you publish it, then you should also publish his retraction and his explanation of why he signed the first one. Justice Muir's position was that it wasn't important which was true, as the fact that Gubler admitted to copying the files was the only issue relevant to the case before him. Certainly Gubler was in no position to decide if there was a conspiracy of ex-premies (there isn't one) as he has had no previous contact with any of the ex-premies believed by Elan Vital to be members of this non-existent hate-group, and he strongly retracted this in his second affidavit.


 * Richard, as you are actively editing this article, can I trust you to make any changes to the article to reflect this information I have provided? --John Brauns 18:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Regarding Macgregor, in reading some of the postings in their discussion forum, it seems he is hiding somewhere in Australia to avoid further litigation or criminal investigation (not clear). So, I do not think that an appeal is forthcoming, most probably the opposite. --Zappaz 21:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Zappaz, where did you read that? Why should he go into hiding for such a minor crime? I read that ex-premies believe that the extensive and costly litigation was done as a revenge for an earlier negative article by John Macgregor. Andries 18:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Richard_G. I do not agree with the removal of the ex-premie website. Wikipedia guidelines say that an article dealing with the POV of a group must contain their website. Andries 18:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I understand entirely. But that's just the problem. Take a look at it and they explicitly say they are NOT a group! How do you know they speak for all the anti people? There are other anti websites. The website I substituted it with has all (or at least many) of the anti webistes in one place without endorsement, and it DOES meet WP standards because the anti view is clearly represented. See what I mean? Richard G. 20:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess not all ex-premies agree with all of the points of criticism in ex-premie.org. But the ex-premie.org website is the most comprehensive there is so I think it deserves a direct link. They are not a group, in the sense that they do not meet each other, except in their discussion forum on the internet. They do not agree about anything, except that there is something wrong with Prem Rawat. Andries 20:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Andries. --Gary D 23:13, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * understood. I'm convinced, per below. Richard G. 00:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As for who is the "real" webmaster or owner of the anti page, I see a convoluted story, but nothing evil about the funky ownership issues. So in light of John's explanation I guess I don't object to the reinstatement of that being the "main" page, but it still comes across as the "official" web page, something they seem to be at odds with internally. Their problem, not ours. Not so with the Gubler business. That's exactly the kind of minutia and quibbling back and forth that has got to stop. Its obstructionist, even if unintentionally so. If Gubler's affidavit were overturned by a judge that would be a whole different story. I'd probably have argued for the original never making an appearance. But the facts are what they are...and the court (not pro or con people) says so. Besides, that story is told over and over again on the anti- web sites. It's too tertiary to the matter at hand. And the article does add that he disputed it later. And further, I changed the headings to reflect that the issue isn;t this guy or that guy, but the legal histories. You can't have it all guys, just the high points. Richard G. 20:33, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Richard, there is no confusion 'internally' about who is the webmaster of ex-premie.org, and as I said, ex-premie.org isn't the 'main' website for anything, it's just a website that I took over from a guy called Brian. List the ex-premie links I suggested in any order you like - there really is no heirarchy. As I said before you are placing far too much importance on Gubler. So what that he signed an affidavit? He has explained why he did so, and when there was no pressure on him he signed and submitted another one to the court, at the risk of a charge of perjury. If an affidavit has more authority in your mind than other testimony, then what is to stop anyone from signing an affidavit that I am the ringleader of a terrorist group that has plans to take Prem Rawat hostage? Sure, I could take legal action, but I don't have the financial resources. Gubler's first affidavit is false. It contains many other inaccuracies in addition to the false claim of a conspiracy, and is written on the language used by Elan Vital elsewhere. Gubler's second affidavit is clearly written by him. No way can Gubler's first affidavit be described as a 'high point' in this article. -John Brauns 23:33, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No, John, that's wrong, go back and read the legal proceedings. It's NOT just an affidavit. It was central to an entire legal action against a critic who was and still is championed by one side in this story. I can understand why you would want to wish it away, or spin it down, but it just can't be re-litigated, which is what, respectfully, you are trying to do here. You sound like that other guy, only without the nasty attitude and name calling!
 * Seriously, though, if some creep signed an affidavit accusing you of terrorism, it would (I hope!) be incorrect and he would be nailed for perjury. It would, as you posit, mean nothing. But if the FBI took that afffidavit AND a Court examined it AND you were convicted on it...darn straight it matters. That's the story here. Personally (and this is a margin note aside) I can't imagine why you guys want to justify the whole nasty affair. Someone secretly copies computer data, according to a court, lies about it, and the anti group wants to debate whether it's "really" stealing or misappropriation or whatever. To this outside observer, that smells bad.
 * But I digress. I saw the reasoning about restoring the ex-premie web page as the central link, and agree with Andries and Gary, but you're wrong about this issue. Your website (and I am willing to see that it really is yours) goes into tons of detail about this, should a reader be curious about the sideshow of whether Gubbler recanted, why he says he recanted, etc etc etc. But that's all it is: a sideshow. And hanging on to those arguments rejected by a court about his recantation damages your side's credibility more than you can imagine. Respectfully, Richard G. 00:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Richard, to answer your last point first, the Macgregor/Gubler story is only briefly mentioned on EPO, although I do link to a couple of other sites related to it. So where do you get the 'tons of detail' idea from? The affidavit is just an affidavit. It was signed as an act of desperation by a husband who had deceived his wife and didn't want her to find out. Its initial use in court was to get the subpoena to search Macgregor's computer. At that hearing there was no one in attendance who could question the accuracy of the affidavit. Subsequent events led to Macgregor being found in contempt of court. When Gubler submitted the second affidavit, Justice Muir ruled that the parts of the affidavit Gubler recanted were not relevant to the case before him. At no time was the original affidavit examined for accuracy by the court, as all Justice Muir cared about was the agreed fact of the copying of the files, and sharing them with Macgregor. The strongly disputed part of the affidavit is Elan Vital's claim that there is a conspiracy of ex-premies, and I am part of that conspiracy. This is false. --John Brauns 22:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

add'l edits
The lead graf stated that Rawat or Divine Light Mission was listed by Margaret Singer in her list of cults. There is no citation or link directly to her list, and for that reason, you can't leave that there. It's one thing to quote people, even another to link to unfounded allegations qualified as such (god knows this article is doing that left, right and center) but you simply cannot say that a published scholary treatise "lists" something without a direct citation to that. I'm sure the highly-motivated anti people can dig that up and restore it. Richard G. 20:39, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I found this: http://www.factnet.org/Margaret_Thaler_Singer/Coming_out_of_the_cults.html --Gary D 23:04, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Nicely done. Richard G. 00:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Objectivity of current and former followers
It's not easy to get objective reports from current OR former followers of great leaders. In politics, supporters of Kerry and Bush. In religion, premies and ex-premies or (if I may) Moonies and ex-Moonies.

An "interested party" is often not considered reliable, at least in certain kinds of legal cases.

It's really rare to find an exception to this rule, a member or ex-member who is genuinely more interested in telling the truth about his experience, than in justifying his current/former ideas. --Uncle Ed 21:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ed, that is what making editing this article so challenging. Sometimes I ask myself if it is worth my time... In any case, I think that slowly things are falling in place, although I am concerned that the lack of participation by the ex-premies or premies in the actual editing of the articles is a signal of trouble ahead. Both camps can claim that they are not agreeing with the article, forcing an neverending edit war or a permanent stub. If that happens, it will be a real waste of time.
 * --Zappaz 22:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, when Andries first told me there was an article here on ex-premies, I was amazed, and asked why former followers of a little known Indian guru should merit a separate article in an online encyclopedia. The only reason I can find from reading the article is to discredit us. Trying to challenge each inaccuracy is so time-consuming, it requires people with a special kind of passion to do it. Unfortunately, in my experience ex-premies don't have that passion, in spite of some having a shared addiction to chatting on the ex-premie forum. Regards, --John Brauns 22:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * John, the article on the ex-premies came as direct response from the activity on the main article about Prem Rawat. There was an edit war going on and the only way to continue was to separate the articles, one of them dedicated to the criticism of Prem Rawat, and this is the resulting article so far. I kindly disagree with your opinion that this article is designed to discredit former followers. The issue is that former followers in the ex-premie website make quite explosive allegations against PR, his students and the organizations, as well as other comments (bordering on the obscene IMO) in other crtitics' websites. When these are presented in the article, they are most likely to be challenged by the other side. In any case, I would say that lack of passion is not the issue here, but the opposite :) If we could channel all that passion into good copyediting, we could be in a much better shape.--Zappaz 22:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, as I'm sure you're aware, your objectivity has been questioned by at least one other ex-premie. I have no reason to doubt your impartiality, but could you tell me if you agree that Elan Vital have made equally explosive allegations against ex-premies, mostly without any supportive evidence? I notice that the article links to those allegations quite extensively. It would be a shame if the views of a group of fanatics are held to be more authorative over the views of ex-premies. --John Brauns 23:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Anybody expressing a POV that is not the one of the ex-premies will be questioned about their objectivity... Ce la vie. :) My "objectivity" has nothing to do with the editing of the article. Each one of us, including Ed, Senegal, Gary, Richard, etc have their onw POVs about this and other subjects. Read about NPOV and you may be able to understand how this work.
 * Concerning the allegations against the ex-premies, these have already been toned down by Richard, I believe. In any case, the idea is to clearly mark these for what they are: the POV of EV as in stated in their FAQs.The article does not say that it is the truth, only that is it what Elan Vital says. Same treatment as saying that critics say that Rawat is charlatan and that they were gullible enough to believe in him.--Zappaz 23:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, an example of bias against ex-premies is the word 'vociferous' near the start of the article. Followers of Rawat have a greater presence on the internet than ex-premies, but no such emotive word is used to describe them. Also, check out www.premie.org to demonstrate that it isn't just ex-premies who use the word 'premie'. I would like to do a serious edit of the article in this vein, but it's nearly 3 am. and time will not allow. Goodnight! --John Brauns 23:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about the adjectives, "vocal" or "active" instead? We are trying in that passage to draw a distinction between the active Internet group and the rest of the former followers, as that introduces the dispute over whether the active Internet group does or does not speak for the bulk of the other ex-followers. --Gary D 23:50, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Both of those words are fine with me. --John Brauns 11:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks John, I have removed the 'vociferous' adjective. You are most welcome to chip-in and help with the edits. To avoid your contributions being mercilessly edited or reverted, please read the articles about NPOV writing, before attempting a serious copyedit job.  --Zappaz 23:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Zappaz. I'll be very careful with any changes, and to be safe I will probably discuss them here first. --John Brauns 11:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Unauthorised Personal Information
I have removed this line from the article - "Ex-premie John Braun estimated his donations to DLM, EV, and Maharaji as $30,000 over 25 years, but has not provided documentation to support this claim." This gives the misleading impression that I have been asked for documentation and have failed to provide it. It also implies that my donations are part of ex-premies' claims of financial irregularity. There is nothing in my article from which this information is taken to suggest this. This also illustrates the lack of goodwill in the person writing this article. The financial allegations against Maharaji are well documented on ex-premie.org, and do not include any mention of my donations. Why were they brought into this article without consulting me? Also, my name was misspelt. -John Brauns 22:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * John, sorry to hear that in their zeal, someone used your name. I suggest checking with the other anti people and seeing where that came from. The publication of personal information is highly offensive, don;t you think? Richard G. 01:01, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Richard, it wasn't the lifting of the quote that concerned me, but the fact that the quote had nothing to do with the allegations of financial irregularity against Rawat and his organisations. Of course, it would have been courteous to have asked me first:-) I seriously doubt it was an ex-premie who wrote that considering it was slanted to cast doubt on what I wrote. Publication of personal information is a sensitive issue. In general I do not support it, but, for instance, I have no qualms about publishing details of Prem Rawat's house in Malibu - it is probably more secure than the White House! --John Brauns 11:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * ehhh, John I have to confess that I first wrote that you had contributed money to Prem Rawat, which I had copied from your journey on ex-premie. I thought it was important to help the reader to assign probabilities about possible financial exploitation. Then somebody else added "no documentation has been provided." Andries 22:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Links to ex-premies'websites removed
Why were the links that I added to forum8.org and gurumaharaji.info removed? I thought removals to the article had to be justified here. These are two important critical websites. The main Rawat article has 18 links to pro-Rawat websites. --John Brauns 23:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * John, I have no idea. I concurred with putting your site back. You raise an interesting point, though, mentioning that there are at least 18 pro websites. Your angry associate earlier said that the anti people far outnumber premies, that you were in the majority. Personally, I find that hard to believe. The financial info they disclose shows a lot of work going on, including a VERY expensive airplane. That has got to involve a substantial number of people. I mentioned that I went to one event with at 350 people locally, later they had an event nearby where a reliable witness yold me there where at least 6,000 people, and that was just in New York. Are you really saying that many people are active anti people? I think the most that could be said is that the great majority of people who no longer follow Rawat are indifferent. That's not the same thing as critical, my friend.


 * You seem to be presenting yourself as more grassroots. That's certainly valid, but you said that Macgregor wasnt appealing his case because of funding. If you outnumber the pro people, surely you could pay for that appeal. And in Australia, doesn't the loser pay the legal fees? So if he is as in the right as you believe, wouldn't you be able to get his appeal going, win, and get the money back from Rawat?
 * This isn't a challenge, by the way, just trying to get a clearer picture here. Thanks. 03:15, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)Richard G. 03:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Richard, comparing numbers is difficult, and assessing the opinions of those who have left and have no interest in our internet discussions is probably impossible. You may be right that the majority are indifferent, but the fact that they have rejected Maharaji suggests than many, if not most, of those would express a negative view if asked. Several hundred have expressed a negative view of Maharaji while passing through the forums. Over 100 have felt strongly enough to write their Journey for EPO. Regarding current followers, the vast majority of these show up to see Maharaji and that's about it. If you want to compare active premies with active ex-premies, then I concede that there are more active premies. This stands to reason as they believe in something. Ex-premies no longer have that belief so why should they hang around? Another interesting comparison would be active ex-premies with active premies on the internet. I think those figures would be comparable. There is no question though that former followers of Maharaji outnumber current followers by a factor of at least 10, possible 100.


 * Regarding John Macgregor's appeal, I don't have firm information, just that I had heard that financial considerations may be a factor. I shouldn't even speculate on this as I haven't heard from him for quite some time. Even there is a good chance of winning, someone would still have to invest the money, and I don't know any ex-premies who have that sort of money. It's hard enough getting the funds to pay for EPO each year! But as I've said twice now here, Macgregor is not, and never was, central to ex-premies' grievances against Prem Rawat. --John Brauns 12:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * And if you asked Bill Gates, he'd probably say I should get a million bucks, too, because he's got that much!! Sure, go ahead and ask him! LOL! This is kind of circular, and I haven't seen any facts to establish the numbers of anti-people versus students, but again, no big deal. Thanks. Richard G. 19:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just on the subject of justifying edits on an article's discussion page, that is indeed generally an expectation, but it is more a matter of courtesy than policy. If one doesn't want one's edits summarily reverted one should try to poll the other editors or at least try to explain the edits here after the fact. On a controversial article such as this one, it is perhaps a more important courtesy than usual but is still by no means universally practiced. Fire Star 05:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

very close.
Starting to look very good, and I understand that parallel main articles are being prepared.

John, I really am sorry that one of the anti people put private financial info about you on the page. Call it passion, zeal or just bad judgment. It was there to support the allegation that Rawat is a financial scoundrel.

Thanks also for clearing up (for the most part) who "owns" and who runs the ex'er page. I see references to the forum eight page. Are you also the owner or webmaster of that page?If not, who is? Richard G. 01:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Richard, which parts of the ownership of ex-premie.org are still not clear to you? I'll be happy to further clarify! No, I do not own Forum 8 and I am not the webmaster. The owner/webmaster and moderators want to remain anonymous as experience has shown that contributing to the forum becomes difficult if others know that you have the power of moderation. --John Brauns 12:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't say I understand entirely...so you know who they are but won't say because they have requested anonymity? I don't understand why contributing to a forum is difficult if people know you are the moderator...are you saying the moderator contributes? Oh, never mind. :-) Very insignificant matter, all in all. I guess that'll do...Thanks for trying. Richard G. 19:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)