Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 3

Anybody who removes material from this article should explain here why s/he does that. Those are rules from the Wikipedia. Otherwise I will revert it. Andries 12:10, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please take a deep breath and read the NPOV guidelines before posting--Jossifresco 23:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Original formulation of NPOV
The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologies in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

[...]

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. -- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder

From NPOV page
We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of these views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents.

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But since Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we surely cannot expect our collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, and thus to encourage in them intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our nonbias policy: '''the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.''' (highlight is mine)--jossi 17:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC).

....

Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.(highlight is mine)--jossi 17:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC).

Please read the NPOV page and be civilized in your postings here.

Working Together
I read the NPOV in its entirety and I have to say I am impressed. You guys could probably help the Middle East sort out their problems!

Coming from 30 years in a cult where critical thinking was discouraged, and only being out 2 years, then a few months realizing what happened, I have to say I am new to critical thinking.

Sure, I used critical thinking all the time in my business career. But not when it came to areas where there was passionate feeling involved, anything to do with Maharaji.

I think this is the essence of why it is hard to get concensus from followers and ex-followers of a guru. The relationship that is formed between a guru and devotee is one of the most authoritarian that there is. And someone criticizing your guru is like someone insulting your spouse, only worse, because a devotee identifies with his guru even more than with his spouse. So, you insult the guru, you insult the devotee himself.

Once emotions get into the mix, it's very difficult to be rational. One just digs one's heels in deeper.

And ex-followers can be just as emotional about it as the followers. This because they did care deeply at one point and now feel betrayed. We are hurt most deeply by those that we care about, not perfect strangers.

That being said, I am happy that Jossi has decided to take a step back. It's frustrating to engage in these debates.

I would really like to see a neutral, scholarly article about this subject. I encourage Jim, Mike, and John to come up with something that has an even, factual tone to it that all can live with, followers and ex-followers.

Mary Moore 20:05, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)Mary

Let's follow the rules
As a senior admin, I'd like to weigh in with the request that we all follow the rules.
 * 1) Be courteous to the other contributors.
 * 2) Don't replace the entire article with your own biased point of view.

Jim here --

I added the DUO Proclamation to the page. This is Rawat's public announcement when he was 15 that he was indeed planning to bring peace on earth by turning the whole world into his followers:

Whereas, Knowledge of the aim of human life is being revealed to all people of the world by the living Perfect Master and spiritual head of Divine Light Mission, Paramhans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaji, thus eliminating the cause of ignornance and misery;

It was an important, public event in the history of Rawat and cannot rationally be disputed. It happened, Rawat read this same proclamation out himself verbatim in a movie he made and had distributed in order to confirm his intentions with as much public exposure as possible. Its inclusion might be emabarrassing to current followers but I submit that it is entirely relevant to Rawat's current portrayal of himself as a man with a "message about peace". Here's a link to the proclamation and more in the archival section of EPO:

http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/duo_satsang.htm

Jim here --

I also added a copy of the letter that all new followers were given upon initiation. It was written and signed by Rawat and it's important for two reasons: one, it confirms that Rawat taught that the mind was bad (hence the need for an "antidote") and two, it confirms that Rawat was indeed the head of Divine Light Mission.

Critics / Controversy
I can see that the controversy aspects have their own section. I like that. Good to differenciate between the two. The critics section is becoming hefty and I am sure that there is more to come given the claims and counter-claims. I also see that the Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat article has been neglected: there are a lot of dups between what is in the Critics section in this article and that article. I would suggest a good summary of the criticisms and move the rest to the Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat article. I will be calling the Prem rawat foundation today to see if they can provide some numbers and stats. That is an important omission from this article. --Zappaz 15:19, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Renamed Controversial Aspects to Controversial Beginnings as all the material there relates to the early days of Prem (then known as Sant Ji Maharaj according to recent contribution by anon). Agree with zappaz that we need to summarize critics section and consolidate criticism article. I will try to work on this later on, but if someone else wants to undertake this, pls go ahead--141.76.1.122 16:08, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Use of Quotes
User 24.64.223.203: Use of so many quotes does not help this article. There is a page for quotes in wikiquote. If you want to add a point, make it and give external references. Also note that you have to respect copyrights. Otherwise it will be deleted. See -Copyrights for details.--64.81.88.140 00:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You

Who removed Rawat's letter and why?
Earlier today I added an important document to the article, the letter that every new follower in the early and mid-70's received from Maharaji. His words over his signature, distributed by his mahatmas under the auspices of his organization. As I said earlier, the article's important for two reasons: it reflects Rawat's anti-mind orientation and proves that he was indeed the leader of DLM despite Jossi's earlier denial of this fact.

Now someone has deleted this addition and offered no explanation. Who did it and why?
 * I removed it,. Explanation is above.--64.81.88.140 00:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jim here --

Who the hell are you to decide what "helps" or doesn't help an article? Are things really that capricious here that you can make these decisions from the hip like that?I say that you're wrong, that Rawat's own greeting to all new followers is incredibly illustrative of his real teachings -- not the glossed-over description he spouts today, the one that current followers only learn implicitly now unlike yesterday. Plus it's interesting. And as for copyright, give me a break, please! This is all fair comment.

So what's your bias anyway? I'm Jim Heller, a Canadian lawyer and ex-devotee of this man who once called himself the Lord of the Universe. And you? Some faceless anonymous busybody? A member of some other cult for all I know? Hey, maybe you're even a member of THIS one.


 * Please keep the rhetoric down, and remain civil. As I said, the article is already becoming too big. You can make your point and link to an external page where the quote can be found. Otherwise supporters will add their own quotes and so on and on. Regarding copyright, I kindly ask you to read Copyrights We all understand fair use but there are some specifics in Wikipedia. --64.81.88.140 01:31, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jim here -- As a matter of fact, you did not say that the article was becoming too big. Is it? How about taking all the advertising out? That should shorten it immensely. As for supporters' quotes, why not worry about that if and when? It's not as if there were some other letters Rawat used to give new devotees that counter this one. And as for copyright, there is no concern here.

But, having said all that, would you agree with the following addition then:

In early days, new initiates were given a letter from Rawat in which he warned them about the mind, saying that it was bound to "freak out" but that Knowledge was its "antidote" and would eventually make it "go away".


 * If we can stay within the boundaries of a civilized discussion we can easily resolve this. By going through the references and biblio, the picture being painted is one of evolution. Undoubtedly Prem has evolved since he was 13 both in the ways in which he presents his teachings and the way the organizations are setup and run. We could have a new section called "Evolution of Teachings", in which we could write about these aspect, including the ones suggested above. There is excellent material about this evolution in the references provided. I agree with .140 that quotes should be relegated to external references. And Jim, please keep the tone down, it will really help. --Zappaz 02:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude, just clear. Current followers still think Rawat's divine. They still think he's awaiting them when they die, that at that final moment he will take them into the same divine breath he's been putting in their body since they were born and take them back into his holy perfection. They still think he's God.

And yes, I can prove that. I can show, for one thing, current speeches of Rawats where he talks about remembering him in the final moment so that one doesn't leave this world empty-handed etc.

But the whole thing is that, because this fiction was so clearly debunked decades ago, Rawat's gone underground with his real message. It's all code now. Winks and nudges. You might not see that.

Beyond that, though, there's another dimension to this picture. In 'real life', off stage, Rawat is a venal, duplicitous alcoholic. He exploits people in a way, on a level, that only a false God can get away with.

But why am I explaining this to you anyway? Who are you, what's your interest, background, all that? You seem to be very biased in favour of excusing Rawat -- my opinion, of course -- and I wonder why.


 * All what you say above is your POV. What we are trying to do here is to write an article in a neutral voice. FYI, my interest in this subject is academic. I have read a substantial portion of the materials posted on the ex-follower's website, as well as materials provided in the follower's websites, grassroots and official. I have researched both web indexed materials as well as off-line materials. I have also contacted the prem rawat foundation via email and received information from them that I am still trying to corroborate with other sources before posting. Note that the fact that you are an ex-follower does not give you a monopoly of knowledge in this subject, quite the contrary. So, feel free to collaborate in this article, but expect your contributions to be discussed, edited and NPOV'ed, and do not get upset when that happens.--Zappaz 04:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Page protected due to vandalism
user:RickK protected this page, most probably due to ongoing vandalism by anonymous users. -- jossi 06:13, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It didn't seem like vandalism to me, so I unlocked the page and restored the edits which .104 and .140 had made. --Uncle Ed 14:22, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please avoid personal remarks
Comments like the following add nothing to the discussion, and indeed can sidetrack it into petty squabbling and bickering. I'd prefer for us to remain on track.


 * You don't have a clue.

I'm going to use strike-out markup to indicate some remarks like this which border on -- or go beyond -- our no personal attacks policy statement. --Uncle Ed 14:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If there are no strong objections, I will go ahead and delete the marked passages. But if anyone objects to their comments being edited, I probably will leave them as they currently are. --Uncle Ed


 * Ed. Removed the edit about forums not being public. They are, see upcoming events in North America http://contactinfo.net/events.cfm. --jossi 15:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jossi, I hadn't noticed that. Maybe to accommodate anon's view, we should say that some critics claim that the forums are not public. Anonymous, do you have a source for that claim? --Uncle Ed 00:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that they are referring to the fact that the organizers (like in any other type of event) reserves the rights to deny access to people that make public their intentions to disrupt the event,--jossi 04:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'm done too
This is the last thing I'll ever post here. As far as I'm concerned, you guys are seriously misguided about how one finds facts, sorts through competing claims and presents the truth about controversial subjects like the Rawat cult. For one thing, I'm appalled that not only did you not confront Jossi, the main author of the current version of the piece, about his false accusation about my forging source material, you now choose to censor my efforts to do so. You have, in my opinion, a very superficial view of civility, good for appearances only.

The article as it now stands is simply a revisionistic infomercial for the cult interspersed with a few jarring criticisms. It reads terribly and reflects poorly on your entire online encyclopedia project. For example, it relies on Ron Geaves' amongst others as an expert but, were this a court of law, let's say, Geaves would be entirely discredited. Not because he's a current devotee of Rawat but because of various unsustainable things he's written or said about the man and the organization.

Anyway, that's it. You guys do what you want. It's just a waste of time for me to say anymore. I iwsh your entire project good riddance.


 * To say that I am the main author of this article is not accurate to say the least. Go back to the history of this page and compare. it is not my article. The article incorporates hundreds of edits and additions by at least a dozen contibutors including you and other ex-followers. And by the look of it, it will continute to evolve thanks to the effort of these and other contributors.--jossi 15:32, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Now that Jim has decided to go, I would want to clarify that I never said he forged materials. What I said was that he posted "heavily edited transcripts" and that he knew about that fact. I stand by that assessment. These transcripts were published in India 30 years ago and undoubtedly were heavily edited and "interpreted" by whoever transcribed it, given the heavy Hindu context in which Maharaji lived at that time. The reason I did not respond to Jim directly is because of his abrassive style, and the personal attacks he mounted against me.--jossi 23:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Teachings, evolution/current
Andries: Teachings have remained the same. Practice of Knowledge, keeping in touch and participation. In the 70's this was called meditation, satsang and service respectively. What has evolved is the way it is presented without any Hindu religion connotations when presenting it in western countries. It seems that In India, maharaji keeps using the original words 'satsang, seva, bhajan"--Zappaz 19:22, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Zappaz, may be you are right with regards to the four meditation techniques and Knowledge but I think that the claims about himself in an earlier period were an important part of his teachings too. Andries 19:43, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. But the interesting thing is that the core message remains the same: he claims that his teachings can bring about peace to people. So I am not so sure about "current teachings" as the section name, and would prefer just "Teachings", particularly as there is already a section about the evolution of these. Maybe you can write up something to add to the "evolution of teachings" section, if you see the need. The other interesting aspect is that the critics POV is that the evolution is bad and the supporters POV is that the evolution is commendable. I think that the article, in this respect, provides a good NPOV. Let reader's decide is this evolution is a good or a bad thing.--Zappaz 19:56, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article status
As it stands now, the most substancial sections of the article are "Controversial Beginings" and "Critics" taking approximately 50% of the whole article. I am not 100% happy with this, but I can see that at least the text is writtent in a neutral manner. Given that there were so many edits, some of the narrative is now a bit choppy. Hopefully there are editors out there that can work on the continuity of the text.--jossi 22:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Creation of DLMs, and other incorrectly reported items
While some of the founders of the DLMs in the West sought Maharaj Ji's blessings on their endeavors many, if not almost all of them, were created spontaneously, tho within a "cultural context" were this was felt an appropriate behavior. I state this as a fact because: 1) I am 1 of 2 co-founders of 1 of the Caribbean DLMs, 2) know the lady who was the coordinator for all of Latin America (a "title" that arose because it accurately described how she was operating - without prior instruction or request from Maharaj Ji, tho he did validate her after the fact, by showing his appreciation of her efforts), 3) got to know 4 of the 6 who invited him to America in the beginning, 4) know the 2 who founded DLM in Japan, 5) know several of the ones who created DLM in England.

Jim and I have had disputes about this before. But the fact is that his assertions about Maharaj Ji having some kind of centrist control are a fantasy that supports his shifting of responsibility away from Self to Other. The fact that his mother and elder brother felt free to deny him, and that many mahatmas/instructors went along with them, is indicative of this.

Incidentally, the "Guru is God and is greater than God" quote is from an ancient Hindu scripture, the Svestara Upanishad (if I'm spelling it correctly; its been over 30 years since I last read it! Every Guru is so regarded, at least metaphorically, as fulfilling this. The way it was usually interpreted, in the teachings I checked out before becoming a student of Maharaj Ji's, was that God could do everything except reveal himself. Therefore the Aspect of God who could reveal Him to you was more powerful than He. Since all who believed this believed in a Universe comprised of God, in omni-presence being 1 of God's qualities, perhaps a less confusing way of putting it would have been that everything, everybody, is God, and that the Aspect of God who can show you where God is within yourself, who can show you how to find God in a way that lets you merge with Him, is the most important Aspect of God for you.

Also, while Maharaj Ji certainly lets us know his thinking about his planning, I've actually been involved in the process of inviting him to come somewhere - something Jim never was. We weren't at a point where it would have benefited his work to come there yet - this was in early '74, and there were only about 300 of us in the Caribbean island where I was working to assist his work, where I'd founded a DLM (and where the 1st ashram was in my family condo).

I bring these points up not seeking for their inclusion in the article, but to correct some distortions of fact Jim brought forward. In the early days many things had his approval, because he'd give his blessing to anything you wanted to do to help his work that wasn't to outrageous, if he saw sincerity. And it was much easier to see him personally back then. But every single bureaucracy we ever created eventually got too good at building a box to restrain him as he did his work. Those who REALLY look at how things happened in the various major non-profits have been unanimous about 1 thing. That he'd ask us to change things when we started to get in his way, and let us do our thing up to that point. 12.72.25.80

Guru is greater than God according to Svestara Upanishad?

 * "If one has supreme devotion to God,
 * and for one's teacher as much as for God,
 * to this one these teachings which have been declared
 * may become manifest in a great soul,
 * yes, may become manifest in a great soul."

This is not the text I was referring to, but I believe it dfemonstrates that regarding Guru and God as equivilants is/was a common teaching in Hindhu "circles".

Zappaz and others: No, IMO you aren't missing anything. The problem Jim et al had with your aproach to NPOV is that they are used to an assertion by a single individual, without corroberation or documentation, being taken as fact. This is a pattern I've seen for the around 4 years I've been participating in the Maharaji-friendly, neutral and opposed BBs, and is further born out by the archives of their earlier BBs.

Three persons gave up editing because of the behavior here
Three knowledgeable, motivated persons tried to contribute to the article but gave up because of unconstructive behavior by other. Those people are ex-followers Dr. Mike Finch, Mary Moore , and Jim Heller. Something has to improve here otherwise editing this article doesn't make sense. Andries 13:43, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I totally disagree with you, Andries. The destructive behavior was mostly due to Jim. What you are saying is incorrect, and your intention to dismiss the work of many editors in tis article, is all too transparent. Your bias towards the ex-follower's campaign is too transparent as well. Why don't you also quote from the ex-follower's forum when the speak about the "stupidity of the Wikipedia concept"? Why don't you quote from the personal attacks against you, by other ex-followers? You are so biased that you only see what you want.--64.81.88.140 15:19, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Andries: What are you implying here? I do not understand your point. Wikipedia is an open source, collaborative encyclopaedia project, that enjoys the contributions of thousands of editors. If some people do not find the methods and ideals of Wikipedia to their liking, that is unfortunate. Form looking at the article's history I can see that many of the contributions of these three have remained, after being NPOVed by me and other editors. So I do not understand your complaint. Also, I disagree with your assessment of "unconstructive behavior by other". Who's behaviour? I do not see any one editor fitting that categorization.--Zappaz 15:53, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What about the criticism that the article is nothing more than "a revisionistic infomercial for the cult interspersed with a few jarring criticisms"? Those who know something about Prem Rawat (Maharaji), please write what you know; and provide sources for everything. Also, please try to find a phrasing which you can reasonably believe will be acceptable to people who hold opposite beliefs. That is, if you're an ex-premie, try to word your criticisms such that none of Rawat's followers would want to revert your criticism: like, some ex-followers believe their whole experience with DLM was a waste of time. --Uncle Ed 18:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well Ed, in reading the article I see that more than half of it is dedicated to critics and the controversy. There is also a full page Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat. Hence, I would argue that it is far from being a revisionistic infomercial. I fact, I have been NPOVing many of the contributions made by the ex-followers, and do not understand why they have chosen not to continue (unless they found the NPOVing unacceptable). If you look at, let say, the Scientology article, you would see that this article follows quite closely that format. That is: a short intro, origins, practices, critics, controversy, etc. My feeling is that the article as it stands now, contains probably too much of the controvery and criticism, not too little as claimed by the ex-followers. I have re-read the article and I can see that there are sources and references for every single statement. Also, each statement is clearly labelled as "critics say" or "these websites say", etc.  So, I do not see what is the problem. Am I missing something? --Zappaz 21:33, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. When I have a chance I'll re-read Prem Rawat and Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat carefully. If it's as you say, then perhaps the quitters are disgruntled because their POV didn't end up endorsed as objective fact. This is the commonest reason people give up on collaborative editing which I have seen in my nearly three years at Wikipedia. --Uncle Ed 12:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed, Is it the general practice of Wikipedia to give more weight to the opinions of someone from academia than to someone who has first-hand experience of a phenomenon but who does not have academic credentials in the field? Not a challenge, just trying to understand how this works... Thanks. Mary Moore 14:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That's rather a big question. We need a weight of opinions article to do it justice.


 * For now, I'll just say that the Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides on a question. IMHO, that means not endorsing any side in a controversy, whether it's academic vs. first-hand or "politically correct" vs. "skeptics". How this works out in practice is still not as easy as smoothing out the wrinkles in a bedsheet. Articles on Middle East conflicts and US politics are the most difficult. --Uncle Ed 14:31, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ed. I'll take a look at some of those articles. Regards, Mary Mary Moore 14:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Please re-read and let me know what you think. My feeling is that a little editing can really help the article. In regard to Mary's question, it is a rather difficult one. Let's revise the issue of "first-hand". A "first-hand" account of a Palestinian living in the territories brings one aspect. A "first hand" account of a Israeli living in Jerusalem, is another. But also you have historians, scholars, sociologists, politicians POVs as well. Is it one more important than the other. I don't think so. All are. But for Mary, her point of view is more valid and more relevant, of course (particularly in cases of apostasy, when a believer quits a practice after 25 years and losing faith requires a lot of emmotional ground to cover) That is to be expected. NPOVing in these cases in which feelings/beliefs run high, it is very difficult, although not impossible. --Zappaz 16:31, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)