User talk:Andries/Teachings of Prem Rawat

I think the way forward might be to tell the story as we see it and then find the quotes that support the story.Momento 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Such an approach amounts to fitting evidence to support a POV, it is intellectually bankrupt. The only sustainable approach is to assemble all the evidence and present in a coherent fashion, hardly something that is difficult with a subject as thin as Rawat's teachings.


 * --Nik Wright2 11:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with NikWright2 that the proposed method to write an article by Momento is too much prone to positive or negative bias of the contributors. Andries 11:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think putting "one scholar says" is bound to cause problems.Momento 14:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point that you have stated before, but I think (possible) minority view points can be included, but not in the summary/intro. Andries 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The attribution "one scholar wrote" makes it clear to the reader that a possible minority view point follows in the text. Andries 14:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case it shouldn't be in the article.Momento 14:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Untrue, signficant minority views can be included. Andries 14:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And a criticism section suggests there should be a "Praise" section.Momento 14:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A praise section is highlly unusual in Wikipedia, but may be a short description of positive effects of e.g. Knowledge is appropriate. Andries 14:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I will focus on improving the references including long excerpts in the refernces with the goal of reducing (accusations of) out of context quoting and if there is out-of-context quoting making it less serious. After all, out of context quoting cannot be a serious offense if the interested reader can read the context with a mouse click on a foot note. Please note that different contributors consider different things important so please keep assuming good faith. Andries 18:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, Andries, requests to WP:AGF can only be taken cum grano salis. The proof is in the pudding. Hope that through your edits you can demonstrate that editors can assume the good faith of your edits. At best, Andries, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, which I do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly been accused for selective quoting and yes I omitted statements that I considered unimportant, because naturally I cannot quote everything. Andries 21:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good to avoid sentences like "Important aspects of Rawat's teachings were surrender to the guru, warnings against the "mind", and four meditation techniques called Knowledge. As of 2007, the latter continues to be an important aspect." Which are obviously OR with Undue Weight. Let' s stick to scholars consensus.Momento 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit that these sentences may have to be re-written. Andries 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed it into stating that surrender to the guru, warnings against the mind, and techniques of Knowledge were aspects of Rawat's teaching. Andries 21:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * there are three sources for warnings agains the mind, and more than three about surrender to the guru, and also at at least three for techniques of knowledge, so this is neither undue weight nor original research. Andries 21:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't just take three "aspects" out of dozens. You might as well include that "peace is within, God is energy, humans prefer joy". I don't think it would be helpful for me to edit this article as it is until you have had time to work out the content and balance things up.Momento 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can find at least three scholary sources for it then I have no problem if you add it to the summary. Andries 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I took great care to write down in the summary only statements that are sourced to multiple reputable scholarly sources. I have no problem if you add more. Andries 21:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article may be out of balance, but not in the way you think. Again, I see no need to remove statements from the summary when all statements there are sourced to at least three reputable sources. Andries 21:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to engage in quote mining with you Andries. You write the article as you see fit and then we can see if it needs further editing.Momento 21:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I have no problem if you add aspects of Rawat's teachings to the summary as long as they are supported by at least three reputable sources. Andries 22:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have repeated this many times and will do it once last time: Sourcing is only one aspect. You are writing this sandbox, to call a spade a spade, with the intention to paint a distorted picture of PRs teachings, by choosing to highlight specific viewpoints to the detriment of others, by quote mining, and by quoting out of context (such as time-related contexts and others). This is not a competition on number of sources, Andries, but about having a section or an article about PRs teachings that presents an accurate, balanced, and verifiable picture. If your intention is that, which I hope it is, you would make an effort to comb all the sources available on the subject and present an accurate summary of the viewpoints. As it stands now, it does not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have written warning agains the mind and surrender to the guru in the past tense, so I think that your accustation of time-related contexts is untrue. Andries 08:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

An example, is your lead to this sandbox. Read it and tell me if that is anything but what I say above: A distorted picture. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the summary gives a distorted picture. Each statement there is supported by at least three reputable souurces. Your arguments is like a version of I do not like/believe/agree with what reputable sources have stated. Andries 06:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think that a statement in the summary is undue wight then you should at least try to support your argument by saying that there are only few scholars who make this statement. Andries 07:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have roughly redone the lede as it should be done. That is, using scholarly summaries rather than an editor's opinion.Momento 23:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect the lead/summary, should summarize the whole article. Andries 07:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Using Hunt as the only source for the summary of the article is an extreme form of undue weight. I have changed that. Andries 07:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:Lead. Andries 07:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Some sources
A quick scan of a few sources:


 * Hunt:
 * one's "own nature." The Knowledge includes four secret meditation procedures: Light, Music, Nectar and Word. The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher:: The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion, but the adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full.
 * For Elan Vital, the emphasis is on individual, subjective experience, rather than on a body of dogma. The teachings provide a kind of practical mysticism. Maharaji speaks not of God, but of the god or divinity within, the power that gives existence.
 * Although such references apparently suggest an acceptance of a creative, loving power, he distances himself and his teachings from any concept of religion.


 * Geaves:
 * The teachings were essentially Hindu in origin, embracing a worldview that accepted transmigration of souls, karma, human avatars and imbedded in an interpretation of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. However, a discerning listener would have recognized the radical voice of the North Indian nirguna bhaktas, also defined as Sants, notably Nanak and Kabir, especially in the message of universalism, equality and the focus on inwardness rather than the outward forms of Hinduism.
 * Although occasionally drawing upon Indian anecdotes to use as examples for his teachings and referring to Kabir and Nanak, there is apparently little in his current idiom that could be linked to Hinduism, on the contrary, he openly challenges transmigration and the law of karma as only belief systems that cannot be verified as fact.
 * Although there are many who would assert that his authority lies in his charisma, Prem Rawat himself has stated that he does not consider himself to be a charismatic figure, preferring to refer to his teachings and the efficacy of the practice of the four techniques on the individual as the basis of his authority.


 * Barret:
 * ''"Elan Vital has now dropped all of its original Eastern religious practices. [...] Unusually, the fact that Maharaji came from a lineage of 'Perfect Masters' is no longer relevant to the rewformed movement. This is not where the authority comes from, nor the recognitin of Maharaji as the master by his student; this comes rather from the nature of the teaching and its benefit to the individual."
 * The experience is on individual, subjective experience rather than on a body ofd dogma, and in its Divine Light days the movement was sometime criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect. The teachings could perhaps best described as practical mysticism.


 * Stonner and Parke
 * Guru Maharaj Ji claims to understand the key to the essence and spirit of knowledge and truth. He says he is in touch with the force of life that lurks in the inner recesses of all living things. He promises the same to those who will follow him. "He who seeks truth, finds it," the young guru tells his disciples.
 * The Divine Light Mission gives equal billing to all well-known religions and their scriptures, the Torah and all the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, and the Bhagavadgita. Perhaps because the movement originated in India it emphasizes the teachings of the Hindu scriptures, the Bhagavadgita. The God of Divine Light resembles the impersonal concept of infinite power and energy of the Hindu omnipresence more than it does Western man's image of a rational and willful God who created the Universe and has a plan for it.
 * Maharaj Ji teaches that God is the source of all life. "God is an omniscient power that is hidden in the secret recesses of all living things. ..."


 * Messer
 * His teaching consists simply of what he calls "giving knowledge," not of any extensive set of moral precepts. Unlike most Eastern religious teachers, he generally refuses to give concrete instructions regarding what one should eat, how one should make a living, or what one's disciplehood should involve. All of truth is in "the knowledge."


 * Edwards:
 * In its earlier existence Divine Light teaching derived mainly from Hinduism. Maharaj Ji, as the guru, imparted wisdom upon his followers. The guru taught that humanity is inherently divine. For people to attain this divinity, which came from the teachings of Guru Maharaj Ji, who is of the line of Perfect Masters.
 * Maharaji now teaches a simple self-discovery process, involving the use of four simple techniques to turn the senses within and appreciate the joyful basis of existence beyond thoughts and ideas. He denies that his teachings represent instant gratification, but he sees it instead as an ongoing learning process that c an enrich an individual.


 * Prince & Riches: The New Age in Glastonbury: The Construction of Religious Movements
 * Maharaj-ji was considered to be deeply spiritually imbued, enabling him to teach secret techniques of meditation [that] where considered o heighten spiritual; experience and help people realise their full potential in day-to-day living in the material world.

This does not include what Miller, Partidge. Melton, Woodhead, Lippy, Williams, Chryssides, and many others that wrote on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I can provide source details, including page numbers, if any of this is useful. Just let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will try to integrate the sources that you have provided in the article and if there are sufficient sources saying more or less the same thing then I will also add them to the summary. Andries 07:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Absolutely not. See WP:LEAD, or is it that you are now creating new policy? If you want to change policy or guidelines, do so in the appropriate pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have stated my sincere intention though I will start with improving references for what is already there. I believe that the correct order is first try to write the article and then making the lead section by making a summary of the article. Andries 14:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that only majority (or clearly significant) minority view points should appear in the summary. And since there have been so many disputes about what is undue weight and minority viewpoints, I think this order and this method is important for this article. Andries 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 'This is not an article, Andries. It is a sandbox. In an real article, you don't get to define policy, or make decisions about what goes on the lead, what is important and what is undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your comments. I am preparing this article to add it to the main name space or to merge it to Prem Rawat. What do you want me to do? Andries 14:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is not an article. It is your sandbox. If you want to make it an article, move it to mainspace so that it can be edited by others, not only by you and Momento as agreed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I may move it to the mainspace but only after I have improved it significantly. Andries 14:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever suit you. I will not comment further, but may start my own sandbox about teachings. Momento, would you like to help, or would you prefer working with Andries on this one? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is clear from the inclusion of a "Warnings against the mind" section that Andries intends to push his particular POV in this "article". And we've already had the debate about using Dutch and Christian sources.Momento 22:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am only writing down what reputable sources have stated and if you do not like what reputable have stated then you have bad luck in Wikipedia. Andries 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are "only writing down" what you Christian sources say whilst ignoring the rest. Even so one source uses "conceptual thinking", another has no translation and the third refers to "DLM's concept of mind". Apart from failing your new "three sources policy", they are all clearly biased Christian scholars. I don't see this attempt getting of the ground.Momento 23:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add more from other reputable sources. The three sources policy (that by the way is only valid for the summary) grew out of the endless disagreements about minority view point, undue weight, and extraordinary claims. If we use the personal tastes of contributors as a way to assess undue weight etc then the disagreements will be endless and can never be solved. Andries 23:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from inventing policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * t was Vassyana who started this argument about the number of sources and yo agreed quite strongly with him then. Now that I follow the principle that he introduced you start protesting. What do you suggest as an alternative. Andries 05:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

First Principles
1. Adherence to established terminology

'''Teaching – definition: Teaching, Guru, http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/teaching  Main Entry: teach Pronunciation: 'tEch Function: verb Inflected Form(s): taught /'tot/; teach•ing Etymology: Middle English techen to show, instruct, from Old English t (AE)can; akin to Old English tAcn sign -- more at TOKEN transitive verb 1 a : to cause to know something b : to cause to know how  c : to accustom to some action or attitude  d : to cause to know the disagreeable consequences of some action  2 : to guide the studies of 3 : to impart the knowledge of -teach algebra- 4 a : to instruct by precept, example, or experience b : to make known and accepted  5 : to conduct instruction regularly in teach school'''

The notion of “a teaching” in the philosophical sense accords with MW definition 4a. and this is the only possible meaningful sense that could be applied to Rawat. An article on the Teachings of Prem Rawat must therefore provide evidence of Rawat’s presentation of a precept or set of precepts, and/or evidence of Rawat’s presentation of example, which results in learning, and/or evidence of Rawat’s provision of experience, which results in learning.

2. Establishment of Fact

That various scholars have used the term teaching, unfortunately does not of itself demonstrate that Rawat has a ‘Teaching’. For a Scholarly reference to be evidence of Rawat’s Teachings there must be some substantive element within the scholarly text that demonstrates what the teaching is, how it is delivered and how it is received. Mere commentary on the supposed existence of a teaching is not evidence that a teaching exists.

3. Historical Fact, Present Fact and the need to avoid anachronisms

What is claimed by Rawat and his followers, how Rawat and his followers have presented themselves and the terms that Rawat and his followers have used has changed over time. An excellent example is the usage of the term ‘student’, which adherents now use to describe themselves. Student implies something studied – and the role of a ‘teaching’ in the process of study is something that should be easy to identify, yet there seems no evidence of what (relative to Rawat) studenthood entails, nor what teaching is involved.

In contrast, in the early years of Rawat’s activities outside of India (at a time when scholars were actually writing about Rawat) there is very strong evidence, based on Rawat’s own words for a ‘teaching’ that, as various scholars identifies had links with or roots in Hinduism, Sihkism, Sant Matism etc. On the main Rawat article this aspect which was clearly a teaching of sorts, appears to be consigned to the “Indian Trappings” which were discarded – if it is the case that this earlier teaching has now gone – any article on Rawat’s teaching needs to clearly define this abondonment of precepts.

4. Distinction between “Teachings” and the “teaching of meditation”

With no scholarly description of the Rawat prescribed techniques any article on them is going to be inadequate, they are after all minor yoga pratices about which little can be said other than putting them in context – which can’t be done without a desription. However the techniques are not part of a teaching in any definable and can not therefore be invoked to describe Rawat as a ‘teacher’ in a general sense, although as peculiar to Elan Vital Rawat could be described as a “meditation teacher”. The fact that scholars writing about Rawat in the past have included reference to the Knowledge in their commentaries about Rawat’s “teaching” is not relevant to the current circumstance where the only taught element is the meditation. This is a good example of why there needs to be dilligence regarding anachronism.

Summary
(1) An article about Rawat’s ‘teaching’ has to distinguish between ‘then’ and ‘now’.

(2) Unless there is some scholarly evidence that Rawat currently has a ‘teaching’ then the article needs to be clear that it in respect of a defined “teaching” the article has historic scope only.

(3) As the scholarly references in large measure conflate Knowledge into their consideration of Rawat’s ‘teaching’, a separate Techniques of Knowledge article seems inapproptiate, a better sturcuture would be to simply include Techniques of Knowledge as a subsection of a Teachings article.

--Nik Wright2 11:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Warnings agains the mind
Please do not remove the section "warnings against the mind" whihc is supported by three reliable sourcec. What could be done is adding more explanation why there warnings agains the mind. Andries 00:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid this is the reason why this attempt will not succeed. "Warnings against the Mind' is not just your distorted view but you seek to enshrine it as a heading. It will never happen. Would you allow headings "Peace within", "We're all divine", "Unity of all Religions" etc whic h are all mentioned numerous times?Momento 02:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not my distorted view but I only wrote down what three reputable sources have stated. Your comments are not constructive. Andries 04:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What alternative section title do you propose? Andries 05:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What could be done is to make a section that describes the contents of his speeches. Warnings agains the mind coudl be part of that section. Andries 05:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This sandbox is nothing but a joke. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, for an admin who endlessly admonishes others for not following WP policies you are begining to look ever more a hypocrite with your inability to Assume Good Faith. --Nik Wright2 09:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a limit in that assumption. See WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.. So far, anyone will be hard-pressed to assume the good faith of Andries edits, sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I tried my best to deal with the two specific objections that you made on talk:Prem Rawat. I do not remember that you made other specific objectionts. Andries 19:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Jossi, Andries is doing the best he can.Momento 10:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, but in any case, I leave it to you to work with Andries on this sandbox, even if so far he has only revereted any of your attempts to collaborate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing that I reverted until now was Momento's deletion of the section warnings against the mind. And I explained on the talk page why I reverted this deletion. Andries 19:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going to work on this proposal until the heading "Warnings against the mind" is removed. It is biased, undue weight, extreme POV and unencyclopediac.Momento 23:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are too many problems with this sandbox besides that, Momento. I will not touch it with a 10-foot pole. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro
Andries, I think the Intro has to be rather more developed - this could be cut back if/when the Hans Rawat article is improved. Here's a suggestion:

Prem Rawat succeeded his father [Hans Rawat|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Ji_Maharaj] as the leader of the Divine Light Mission, an organisation that was created to formalise the activities Hans Rawat’s existing following.[*] Hans Rawat did not promote a systematically developed doctrine, however the teaching that he adopted was, acccording to several scholarly articles, derived from Sant Mat. [1] [2][3] Central to Hans Rawat’s teaching was the practice of four meditation techniques, collectively called Knowledge which were taught in a secret initiation. Precepts propounded by Hans Rawat included the essential need to surrender to a Satguru through only whom the true Knowledge could be obtained, and only through the practice of which could lasting inner peace be gained. Initially Prem Rawat adopted all aspects of his father's teaching, however successive changes in presentation have seen the younger Rawat abjure all the teaching inherited from his father with the single exception of the tenet that the practice of Knowledge is essential to obtaining inner peace. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

[*]additional reference Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj ublished by Divine Light Mission, B-19/3, Shakti Nagar, Delhi 7, India - 1970''Shri Maharaj Ji realised the necessity of following a modern technique for propagation, and wished to provide for his followers an organisation in which they could work for the betterment of mankind. Therefore, in 1960 the mission was named the Divine Light Mission and registered at Patna.''

--Nik Wright2 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lede edited as above suggestion.

--Nik Wright2 09:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Origins
I think there needs to be a greater distinction drawn between the contextual 'philosophy' on the one hand and the Knowledge meditation and its role on the other - apart from aiding clarity it also helps explain the process of how Rawat junior has been able to reduce his teaching to mere meditation. Much of the present text is valuable, but lots of what is currently in the Knowledge section belongs in the origin section. The Knowledge section - which I suggest should come after the Developments section because much of the Developments material explains the position of the Knowledge meditation - can be supplemented with the current Knowledge article which can then be merged with the Teachings article.

Here's a suggested text for the Orgins section - ref numbers are unamended.

A number of Scholars have expressed the opinion that Prem Rawat's early teachings sprang from the traditions of the Indian Sants, who dismissed religious ritual and praised the "Divine Name" for its power to save, emphasizing honour for the guru or Perfect Master. In correspondence with the Sant Mat movement, Rawat emphasized surrender and devotion to the guru and claimed, according to several scholars, to be an embodiment of God on Earth.[12] [13][14][15][16][17] Rawat also emphasized surrender to God "who dwells in the heart."[18][19][20][21][22][23][24] but did not propound a systematically developed set of teachings or doctrine.[25] [26][27] "[28][29][30]. Mark Jurgensmeyer, now a Professor of Sociology and Religious Studies wrote that the teachings of the Divine Light Mission are in essence Radhasoami.[32]

According to the Sociologist of Religion Ron Geaves,when Rawat first spoke outside of India, his teachings were essentially Hindu in origin, embracing a worldview that accepted transmigration of souls, karma, human avatars and imbedded in an interpretation of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. Geaves considered that, "a discerning listener would have recognized the radical voice of the North Indian nirguna bhaktas, also defined as Sants, notably Nanak and Kabir, especially in the message of universalism, equality and the focus on inwardness rather than the outward forms of Hinduism.The experience was an individual, subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma, and in its Divine Light days the movement was sometimes criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect"[31][33]. Rawat as Guru Maharaj Ji was considered to be deeply spiritually imbued, enabling him to teach secret techniques of meditation which were considered to heighten spiritual experience. Unlike most Eastern religious teachers, he generally refused to give concrete instructions regarding what one should eat, how one should make a living, or to prescribe any set of moral precepts, the basic proposition being that all truth is in "the Knowledge" and not in the "conceptual mind".[34][35][36][37][38] --Nik Wright2 10:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck
I can see that you are going very much on a direction with this sandbox that is designed to highlight certain aspects while diminishing others with the sole purpose to push a very specific viewpoint. Good luck with it, I am not interested in this direction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)