Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 10

Misunderstanding?
Jossi & Andries, you are both right. I hope Gary remembers that we split of the criticism into a separate article only to stop the edit wars. Eventually, I want a single article.

I would prefer Gary to merge Prem Rawat with Criticism of Prem Rawat, because:
 * he is a better writer
 * he has attracted a following
 * I don't have the time

But I'm still planning to do the merge myself, after the dust settles, if no one else does it. Gary, you da man! --Uncle Ed 14:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Ed, I hope that you accept the fact that working on the main articles and the ancillary articles has been not an easy job. It was a long process of give and take, compromises and concensus. All editors have agreed to this current format, with additional articles being developed. Your recurrent idea of an eventual merge is in direct contradiction with the process worked out by many editors that invested in this article for many, many days. Gary's initial idea of an eventual merge was abandoned by him and others half-way thorugh the process.


 * I hope that this clears any misunderstandings on the "merge" subject . &asymp; jossi &asymp; 15:16, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, I wasn't planning to do anything till after Halloween in any case. Still too much dust around here, ahem! --Uncle Ed 16:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Ed, I do not often agree with Jossi but I think it would be a big mistake to merge the articles Prem Rawat with Criticism of Prem Rawat. All the exhausting time-consuming (and sometimes bitter) disputes would re-emerge. Andries 16:57, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed! Hey, if I have a following, I can be a guru! ;-)

Our enemy now is the WP article size limit. Both the main and criticism articles are 30 to 31 KB in length each. Conceptually, I actually still prefer a single omnibus article, too, but that would mean 60KB+. I had once suggested dividing the main article along lines other than viewpoint, but there is just no other divisible piece of the article that's anywhere near as large as the criticism material, and besides, restoration of the criticism to the main article would push out everything else in the article anyway, since the criticism material is already at the size limit. I think this all means that we're just stuck with it as is.

BTW, I don't think you're proposing editing all this down to a single article smaller than 32 KB, but let me knock down that straw man anyway:
 * The topic is just larger than that, so a single 32 KB article wouldn't get the job done of telling the full story
 * The editorial blood bath that would be unleashed in attempting to perform a 50% edit-down on these finely negotiated articles, I would not want to witness =yow!=

--Gary D 20:37, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Maharaji/ Guru Mahara ji
I corrected an invalid assertion on the opening paragraph:


 * Rawat is not known in India as Guru Maharaji
 * There are no materials from Iindia using this name any more
 * In India as in the West students call him Maharaji
 * The fact that he was known in the past as Guru Maharaj Ji is explained in the article

--Zappaz 15:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with removing the name Guru Maharaji Ji from the intro. At his most famous period he was called like that and many people still remember this name. Andries 16:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. The most famous period must be nowadays, if you take into account that he spoke to more than a million people this year, a definitive record attendance. The encyclopedic information about his previous name is already well described in the body of the article. I have modified your edit just a bit. --Zappaz 16:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Zappaz,
 * 1. In the seventies the most real newspapers articles written using the name Guru Maharaj ji.  More than in any other decade
 * 2. The 1981 reference by Haan also describes him as "Goeroe Maharaj ji"
 * 3. "There were several popular Eastern gurus in the late 1960s including the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and Guru Maharaj Ji. The first two, with their long beards their long flowing beards, fitted the Western conception of an Eastern guru; the third was, when he sprang into prominence in 1971, a 13-year-old boy." from David V. Barrett the New Believers page 325 "The British organization changed its name in 1991, 20 years after Maharaji took Britain by storm page 326
 * 4. Of course the names should be stated first. How do people otherwise know if they are reading the good article?
 * 5. Here is the beginning of an email from Ed Poor from the English mailing list
 * "''From: "Poor, Edmund W" 
 * Subject: [WikiEN-l] Criticism of Prem Rawat
 * To: 
 * Anybody remember Guru Maharaj Ji?''"
 * 6. "October 1983 Whatever Happened to Guru Maharaj Ji? Once Heralded as the Avatar of the Age, the Leader of the Divine Light Mission is Hard to Find These Days" from Hinduism today
 * Andries 17:17, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * What is the problem Andries? I have already added that ... Formerly he was called Guru Maharaj Ji, a title he dropped in the 1980s..  --Zappaz 17:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * No problem anymore. I had overlooked that sentence. Thanks. Andries 17:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Guys, guys, lighten up a little. It's just an article... --Uncle Ed 20:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletion
Andries: Just to remind you that this page is also a baseline reference concesus poage. If you want to make any substantial edits, like the one you just did, you will need to discuss it here. --Zappaz 18:02, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I did hereunder. Followers really believed him to be God and the DLM magazines must have given at least some the imprerssion that he personally claimed to be God hence some must have thought that he was sincere. Andries 18:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed incorrect sentence that is at least doubtful
I think the following sentence is untrue and at least doubtful and contradicts what comes further. See also http://gallery.forum8.org/god_claims.htm Some ex-premies do believe that Maharaji claimed to be God. Of course, what he really thought can not be verified.
 * "It has not been alleged that Rawat ever personally thought himself an incarnation of God."

Andries 17:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * No, Andries. The sentence is correct and I have re-added it. Maybe you have a misunderstanding due to language? --Zappaz 18:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that it is a bit complicated sentence. Fact is that some followers believed him to personally claim to be God based on ambiguous DLM publications. So so some of them must have believed him to be sincere, although this was implicit. So logically spoken the sentence is not true. Note that the sentence makes a very general statement about all the followers. Andries 18:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, here is what is written in the article further that contradicts the disputed sentence.
 * "Rawat in this speech attributed great power and possibly divinity to "The Lord, Guru Maharaj Ji", apparently referring to his father and teacher. [..] Critics assert that in their view there can be no doubt Rawat was both referring to himself and intending his followers to understand that."
 * Andries 18:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Andries, I agree with Zappaz. It's impossible for anyone to really know, during Rawat's various stages of life to the present, exactly what he believed (or now believes) about himself in terms of his divinity -- even though he denies ever claiming to be divine.


 * That doesn't mean he didn't deceive premies into believing what he said about himself as evidenced by the quotes -- being the Lord Incarnate with great powers -- whether or not he said it in the third person or using "I" statements. No one can get inside of his mind and know what Rawat thinks about himself, now or in the past. That's something only he knows.  These are two different issues.  There's no question that most premies worshipped him in the past (and some continue to do so) based upon his own words and behavior, however.  The quotes are ample proof of that, as well as testimony of ex-premies.  I certainly do not know what Rawat thinks of himself.


 * Another Ex-Premie 19:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can somebody please write down here the disputed sentence in other words? It may be due to a wrong understanding of English. Thanks Andries 19:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That sentence is consistent with Gary's copyedit as referred throughout in the article. In any case, given that the edit was approved by concensus after a long process, I see no point in discussing this again. If there is new substantial information please add it, otherwise let's keep this article as is. Thanks. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 19:47, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, I overlooked that sentence. It is just one sentence. Andries 19:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My intent in putting that sentence in the article was to distinguish this case from those NRM leaders we sometimes run across who clearly, sincerely, subjectively, most would say delusionally, believe that they personally are indeed God, and always speak and act (and occasionally rave) unambiguously in accordance with that belief. The sentence is meant to address PR's personal subjective belief, and not what he may have induced in others. Along the lines Ex-Premie notes, here the various positions are that he intentionally tricked his followers, or that he negligently failed to disabuse their mistake, or that he innocently did not realize what was going on. There does not appear to be a position out there that he wanted them to believe it because he believed it himself. This sentence was an attempt, perhaps inartful, to say or at least allude to all the above in a single quick aside. --Gary D 20:49, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Gary_D, Jossi and Zappaz, please believe me, I really do not want to make big edits in this article anymore but this one sentence mars in my opinion the whole article. May be we can re-phrase it into "There is no proof that he Rawat ever personally thought himself an incarnation of God." that would be fine for me. Andries 20:57, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I changed it into: "Rawat’s acts never proved that he ever personally thought himself an incarnation of God, and the source of the followers' belief has been a subject of controversy." Please take into account that he used to dress up as Krishna so I can not write "Rawat's acts never indicated that...." I hope everybody can live with that. Andries 22:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry Andries, but I would much prefer the original sentence as it expressed the situation more accurately. I wound kindly request that you refrain from changing it again. As I said before, this article went through quite an exhaustive editing process and concensus was reached. Let's not start the whole thing again, unless there is new material to be added --&asymp; jossi &asymp; 23:07, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Jossi, your implication that when Rawat said things like: "Surrender your life to Guru Maharaj Ji, be like a beggar..." that he was talking about Shri Maharaji is specious! It beggars belief that you think this way.  When you sang Arti anywhere, to Maharaji's photo in a satsang hall, the ashram, or to him directly on stage, did you really think premies were singing to Shri Maharaji, but somehow mistakenly thought Prem/Maharaji was the Lord?  That's absurd!  I ask you to consider this:  From 1976 and beyond, Prem Rawat/Guru Maharaji's favorite chair was the Herman Miller ergon or aeron chair.  Remember those?  He used them at live programs often, too.


 * http://designmatcher.com/nl/gallery_detail.php?galleryID=954


 * These chairs were in just about every ashram in the U.S. and community satsang halls, with large photos of Prem Rawat behind them and a pillow for his feet. I don't think they were meant for Shri Maharaji, do you?  They were expensive chairs, too.  During that period of time, 1976 through 1979 or so, those chairs were all over the place and not because they were for Shri Maharaji. We sang arti to those altars set up for Prem Rawat, and there is nothing controversial or doubt about who was being worshipped or Rawat's intent about the same.


 * I agree that the sentence in dispute is accurate from the standpoint that no one can know exactly what Maharaji thought or now thinks about himself in terms of his divinity, but to say he was always referring to his father when he spoke in the third person is beyond the pale! Don't forget, Jossi, ex-premies were there. LOL!


 * Another Ex-Premie 14:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then what does the disputed sentence mean? It may indeed be a a language problem. Does it mean?
 * "Nobody believed that Rawat ever personally thought himself an incarnation of God."

Note that the Wikipedia guidelines say that the passive form is to be avoided. Andries 16:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The original sentence was supposed to mean, "the ex-premies are not charging that PR did what he did because he actually, subjectively did think he was God." --Gary D 19:33, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your translation but some ex-premies really thought that he was sincere when he allegedly personally claimed to be God in DLM publications. I think the sentence is untrue. We are only one sentence away from concensus. Andries 19:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The sentence was attempting to capture the current scope of the controversy and the current allegations being made by the ex-premies, rather than their beliefs back when they were still premies, so the followup question would be: Do the ex-premies currently allege that PR actually thinks he is God? --Gary D 20:29, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jim Heller thinks that he must sincerely have believed that he was God. Personally, I tend to believe that he must have believed occasionally that he was God but generally not. Andries 20:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Now I understand one source of the confusion, yes, a subtle language problem. "has been alleged " refers to what is still going on so to ex-premies. Andries 20:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * What about changing the sentence into


 * "The majority of Rawat's critics do not believe that he ever personally thought himself an incarnation of God."


 * I believe that this is accurate and I assume Jim Heller's opinion to be an exception. This proposed compromise remains doubtful though because I did not ask all the ex-followers. Andries 16:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I imagine if a significant portion of them believe he actually believed it, then this view would be featured somewhere on EPO or other critical websites, probably along the lines of, "he actually believes this&mdash;he must be crazy!" --Gary D 17:40, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Gary, I read somwhere that Mike Finch does not know whether he believes himself to be a satguru. I think the view that Rawat really believed to be God would be prominently featured on ex-premie if there were evidence of it. But in such cases there is hardly ever evidence. I have not seen the view that a guru really believes to be God in the many anti-guru websites that I have read, probably because of the problem of evidence. Andries 19:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Gary_D Mike Finch believes that Prem Rawat is as deluded as his followers
 * "Detractors say that he has milked his followers through manipulation, though opinion differs on whether he is an actual con-artist, deliberately deceiving people, or whether he himself believes that he is indeed the satguru of this age and that he is as deluded as his followers (my own belief is the latter).'" ~
 * from http://www.mikefinch.com/mj/hl.htm Finch writes that he believed him to be the Lord. So now we have two prominent ex-premies (Heller and Finc) who believed Prem Rawat to be sincere when he allegedly claimed to be God. Andries 22:14, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, so what's the consensus/plan? --Gary D 22:42, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * What is this all about? Is this an article of what Jim Heller, Mike Finch or Andries think that Maharahi thinks? This is an utter absurdity!!!!!! --64.81.88.140 23:28, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I suggest removing the sentence. I want to change as little as possible in the article. Andries 23:56, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have removed the sentence in question. I think that it reads well and does not seed confusion about who tought what and when and about whom, a statememt that can only be speculative and not a fact. If anyone does not like it as it is now, pleas revent back to the baseline article. --Zappaz 03:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You know, you get points when you take the initiative to accede to the wishes of your adversary. According to my metaphysics, these points are redeemable for doughnuts in Heaven. :-) --Gary D 07:54, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

This is an extraordinary discussion, and I will for once, indulge in engaging in the debate.

Rawat, when asked point blank about what he believe he is, he clearly stated that he is a human being, not a prophet, not a messiah, not a god, etc. You have that on videos, interviews, etc. since 1971 and until today.

What the ex-premies believed then, or believe now that they believed then, what current followers believed then or believe now, what non-followers believe, (and all other combinations possible) about who/what is Prem Rawat ... is a purely subjective matter and based on the experience these people have of him.

The one point of contention is the speeches in which PR referes to "Guru Maharaj Ji". My interpretation based in my studies, is that he was referring to his "Guru Maharaj Ji", his teacher. If he wanted to refer to himself, he could have just said me or I.

This is consistent with the ancient tradition of teacher/student or guru/devotee relationship: A teacher only manifests in a student's recognition, and vice-versa. There is a saying: "There is no teacher without a student, and there is no student without a teacher". In this tradition, there is no sense in a person calling himself "guru" or "teacher", that is a laughable proposition. Only a person that identifies or recognizes another as his guru or teacher can call that person "guru maharaj ji", "master", or "teacher. Such recognition is called devotion (marg) and it is said to be achievable only by self-realization via Gyãn (Knowledge of the self).

There is a wonderful little story from Ramakrishna:


 * "Tapobana the Master, had a disciple who served him with diligence. The master kept him solely because of this diligence and the services he rendered, for he found the disciple rather stupid. One day, the rumour spread throughout the whole region that Tapobana's disciple had walked on water. He had crossed the river as if he crossed a street. Tapobana called his disciple and questioned him. 'Is it true what people say? Did you actually walk over the water?' 


 * 'What could be more natural?' answered the disciple, 'It is thanks to you, blessed one, that I walked over the water. At every step I repeated Your Holy Name, and that is what upheld me.' 


 * Tapobana then thought by himself: 'If my disciple can walk over water using my name, what would be impossible for me, his master? If in my name miracles take place, I must possess powers I did not suspect, and I must be more holy than I was aware of. After all, I never tried to walk on water.' 
 * Without delay he ran to the river bank. With unshakeable faith in himself, Tapobana repeated: 'I, I, I .....' And sank..."

This little story is wonderful in this context because it may help explain many of the issues at hand, if one makes the effort to understand its meaning.

When I made this point a few weeks ago, in the midst of the discussion about "claims of divinity" I got lambasted by the ex-premies and was attacked vigorously by them .... for one reason only IMO: If my thesis has any validity, it completely annuls their main criticism against PR, so they will fight it regardless. They will call me names, they will attack each and every point, etc. This is expected and consistent with the pathology that some of the ex-premies have demonstrated throughout the discussions in these very pages: they hang on to their POVs ferociously, because their identity as ex-premies gets challenged. Remove the source of their criticism, and given their very obvious attachment to it, their identity suffers.

I know that they will attempt tear my arguments to pieces: The have no choice, they have to. --Zappaz 03:44, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * funny assumption, you approach this matter of course more "academical", i mean you have no idea how it was, and you probably have no idea of how it is now and maybe you aren't even really interested.i have in deed proceeded, until i more accidently got a look on what ev/rawat is saying today about the past. of course i don't have my whole life recorded for a proof, but i know of what i have seen and what i have heard. you probably know the video excerpt with him dancing , and the premies singing "maharaji you are the lord", him definitely enjyoing that. and him definitely forgetting to explain ,that he is not the lord ,that just as a hint. i think the term obsession may be very interesting in the future, and maybe it is you who is obsessed, in attempting to prove that ex-premies are all wrong at least.but i must admit that i admire your style,trying to achieve your aims.maybe you forget that we were  seduced and deluded once. maybe that is the reason why i feel this despise for us in your lines. thomas

ps: uh i almost forgot, maybe if you are really interested in how this master/god/guru thing works today, you better read "the guru papers" from joel kramer and diana alstad, which shows that rawat is not such a unique thing, instead of ripping indian sciptures,to explain why this godlike adoration has "accidently" happened, just in the line of EV which is, you may excuse me, a bit conspicious. thomas

Teachings of Prem Rawat
Hello, everyone. My girlfriend Lexy has been tip-tapping away at the computer and will have the section on Teachings ready for upload in a few days. Thanks for the patience. One should never rush a young lady...not good for your health! :) Richard G. 01:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi all. I uploaded the section to "techniques of Knwoledge." If this is not correct, Jossi or Zappas, pls fee free to put in in the appropriate place. thanx Richard G. 02:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks Richard. That is a good start for the article. Thank your lady for the effort!. The new material was earmarked for the article Teachings of Prem Rawat. I have moved the new text there and kept the Techniques of Knowledge article as it was before. Also made some re-arrangement of the new text and a few formatting-only edits.
 * --Zappaz 03:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cool, but shouldn;t there be a link to Teachings of Prem Rawat at the very top of the Main article, in the first section? Richard G. 21:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks Richard. Wikilink to Teachings of Prem Rawat  added. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 21:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Undeniable proof that Rawat claimed to be God in Human Form -- you lose, Zappaz!
Here you go, Zappaz. This is from an early question and answer period:

Q:Is it not true that the Satguru is within us all, within our hearts?

'''A:God is within your heart. Guru is outside. God is within us all, but His highest manifestation takes place outside. Then He opens this medium to see, look, inside. He says that what you are seeing -- Krishna says that 'What you are seeing is nothing, is only the body like you have, and I. So if you want to see me, look inside, who I am.' Then he gave him that technique. Yes.'''

Unless you have some other explanation for who he's talking about as that "highest manifestation" of God who "opens this medium to see, look, inside", I'd say he was talking about himself. Do you?

Or how about this, a little further in that same session:

'''God has created this whole Earth. He made enjoyment and sufferings, so many sufferings that they can't be easily settled down. They were incredible. Man had to suffer without this Knowledge so much, so much, so much, that it was impossible for him to bear the sufferings of this world. But then ....'''

'''You call God a form of kindness. He is kind. He took a form to refine this whole world, to make sufferings easier for His people. He wanted to go and do that work more and more Himself to make it easy, and first make more and more sufferings on his head, instead of anybody else's.'''

'''God manifested Himself fully into a form. Not a part, but wholly into a form, to cure people from the disease of sufferings. He came into this world; nobody recognized Him. For He never came like a flash or something, so that people could recognize Him. He came as the law of nature was; He came very silently. But what He was doing side by side, it was rather impossible for people of any time to recognize Him.''' '''People of this time also can't recognize what He is doing. They can't recognize what His works are. They can't respect Him. But when He will finish up, and the whole result will be added up, people will pray.'''

'''Jesus came; they crucified Him. Nobody listened to Him. After that, the holy Bible was written. So many churches were made; so many things happened. When Jesus was there, nobody listened to Him. That's why He says -- what were the last words of Jesus when He left His body? 'Father, forgive this whole world.' Yes, forgive this whole world! He called, 'You forgive this whole world. They can't bear that.

'''Now He took a form to refine this whole world. He was trying to do all that in the Middle East. But now He has taken a form to refine this whole world, from one corner to the other corner of the whole world. He has come. And what does He do? He gives people such a technique, such a method, which is perfect, and gets them away from sufferings, the cause of sufferings of this world.'''

'''God made the mind but He never made a stoplight. And when He saw that 'There is no stop in this mind which I have made,' He was very sorry. He had to take a form. The form of Guru is nobody but Himself, the whole that you want to see. The whole power is now in the form of a body. That is the body which is the Supremest of all, and its duties, works are not like those of humanity.''' Unless you have someone else in mind who Rawat's talking about, who "gives people such a technique...." who is the "form of Guru", you must admit he's talking about himself. See, part of your problem, is that Rawat did indeed, at times, specifically deny that he was God. You're absolutely right. But then there were other times that he'd say just the opposite AND, to put it all together, he would at still other times show how he liked to be coy about it all. For example, read this question and answer session. It's all there:



You lose, pal.

--24.68.220.3 02:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim


 * Firstly, I am not your pal.--I shudder at the thought :). Secondly, my thesis still stands strong: I do not see anywhere that PR says he is God. PR is talking about what a satguru is and giving a pretty accurate description based on the ancient Indian tradition of satguru: He quotes very appropriately from Shankaracharya, Brahmanand, the Ramayana and from the Bhagavad Gita. Pretty amazing coming from a 13 year-old kid. Don't you think? and very much aligned with the cultural trappings from where he came. Read in detail my thesis above.


 * I understand why my thesis it is not palatable to you, and I have explained that quite clearly already... And, please in the future, use the bold feature more judiciously, and don't call me "pal" . Thanks. --Zappaz 03:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Jim and Zappaz, I have inserted some of the quotes from this question and answers session into Prem Rawat so the readers can draw their own conclusions. I mean, it does not make sense to argue about it here and try to convince the other party. Andries 09:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)