|
|
|
As you can see by the discussion on Wiki, Jossi's backed off on one of my points but the other's a little trickier. We all know that Rawat only gets invited to speak here, there and everywhere when his followers arrange it. Still, the article simply states that he gets these invitations, suggesting, of course, that he's such a prominent speaker that a) all these places know who he is and b) they want him. So my question is how can we prove that the premies solicit these invitations? Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
There will probably be at least two diplomats among the public. But the pic is a propaganda pic, because it falsely suggests a (close) relationship between the UN and Rawat or at least that he was invited by the UN. Neither of which is the case. There was a very down to earth respected editor with a lot of common sense who tried to get the pic out of the Wikipedia article because he smelt a rat. Andries
Modified by Andries at Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 14:33:36
|
|
|
|
His teachings claim to promote inner peace through four techniques that he collectively calls "Knowledge" [but only about 10 or 11 people still feel that way, at least in North America]. He offers to help people prepare to learn these techniques [because it's a very tricky thing to know how to plug up your ears and focus on your breath at the same time] and provide ongoing inspiration and guidance to his students [if they're not falling asleep, which is a common sympton of listening to his "inspiration"]. Since 2001, he has become known for his discourses on peace as much as for the teaching of the techniques of Knowledge [as well as a few other controversial subjects, such as harboring paedophiles and running over cyclists. He does, however, have the keys to the kingdom, so all is forgiven. Besides, who's perfect?]. Invited to address various insititutions on the subject of peace, he puts forward his basic message, that it is only by individuals finding peace for themselves that the world can be in peace, and he is able to assist in this endeavor [not only that but he's declared some 30 odd years ago that he will, in fact, establish peace in this world. Many are still waiting. The prognosis doesn't look good.]
|
|
|
|
It has an appropriately sardonic tone, but is it maybe a bit *too* embittered and polemical? Maybe if you just snip the one claim that is factually untrue ('only 10 or 11 people feel that way') and leave the rest intact, it will be a contribution that Maharjists will not be able to easily refute. So go for it, and let's see what happens... Nice to see you here again Jerry. Nige
Modified by nigel at Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 14:06:06
|
|
|
|
Hi Nige, I didn't know you could actually go and edit the entry. I'm surprised that you can. Anyway, I don't plan to. If Maharaji wants to kid people that he's a bigshot who was invited to speak at the UN, let him. It only goes to show how pathetic he can be, or at least how pathetic whoever submitted the entry is. Did he do it by Maharaji's "agya", I wonder, or is poor little Big M once again being misrepresented by his silly premies, like he was when we thought he was, like, God or somethin'.
|
|
|
|
I've only recently discovered Wikipedia and don't really know the rules and regs, but the basic idea is that it has this (almost Marxist) 'of the people, for the people' principle where the readers are also the writers and the editors. Andries is the man to ask...
|
|
|
|
Nigel,
I haven't made any changes for some time, but I got into it for a while, and occasionally check the articles to ensure that the references to criticism of Rawat are still there, however much the criticism and the critics are themselves criticised!
Anyway, I seriously advise you not to get into this unless you have a lot of patience, and are prepared to enter a rather strange world. To get a feel for what happens go to the main Rawat article, click on 'discussion', and read the debates about changes and possible changes to the article. Basically, you can't just change the article to reflect what you think, even though 99% of the people who have an opinion agree with you. You have to back it up with references.
For instance, you can't say 'Rawat is a cult leader' but you can say 'According to xxxxxx Rawat is a cult leader' as long as 'xxxxxx' has some academic standing, or a presence on the internet. There was some allegation naming me which was false. Rather than say it was false, I tried to say something like '... but according to John Brauns, .....' with the correction, but because I hadn't actually refuted the allegation elsewhere on the internet, my edit wasn't allowed. I could have just added a page on EPO with the refutation and linked to it, but I couldn't be bothered.
Also, if you make any changes to the article, be prepared to have the change reverted. Premies police the articles religiously. I find it's better to announce my intention to make the change in the discussion page, with my justification, and see if anyone objects.
Good luck,
John.
Modified by JHB at Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 17:36:07
|
|
|
|
The rules as you describe them are the (back it up with evidence) rules I lived with in academia for years, so I understand what you're saying. I wasn't even planning to do anything on Wikipedia, but it's useful to know how it works. As for 'premies policing the articles religiously...' How else would they do it? 
Modified by nigel at Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 20:12:23
|
|
|
|
Hi NigelThe rules as you describe them are the (back it up with evidence) rules I lived with in academia for years You and everyone else must understand that Wikipedia is not what it seems. The senior editor of Wikipedia 'Dr Ed' is a Moonie (Unification Church member) and Zazzaz (another 'editor', or is is 'Zappaz'?) almost certainly is as well (Andries: can you confirm?). Whether the honcho of Wikipedia ('Jimbo') is as well I do not know. But it is clear that it is is run to a large extent by cult members, and while on many topics Wikipedia seems to produce a good standard of article - concise, fair and informative - when it comes to topics close to a cult-member's heart, their 'NPOV' (neutral point of view) stance vanishes. It is also an unfortunate fact that Maharaji looks very much like the Rev Moon, and Rev Moon is known as 'father' to his followers, so the look-alike Maharaji being known as 'Lord' or whatever is a normal and reasonable thing in a Wikipedia editor's eyes. One of the main tactics that cult-apologists use is to pretend to be neutral and academic, and there are unfortunately enough academic voices who are cult-apologist now (the New Religious Movement etc) that this tactic is self-reinforcing. So yes it is academic in the sense of playing the political academic's game; but no it is not academic in the sense of taking note of reasonable evidence, if that evidence does not support your thinking. It is all part of the much larger problem of dealing with overwhelming information in this so-called 'information age'. Caveat emptor (buyer beware) applies now more than ever, and it is up to each one of us clicking away on our computer (and having access to more information in a day than most people in past ages had access to in their whole life) to judge such information with a critical and suspicious eye. For example, respected science departments do neutral reseach claiming to show that sugar is not bad for your health, and mirabile dictu (I am in Latin tag mode this morning!) it later transpires that said science department gets a whacking grant from the sugar industry. Or another science dept finds that soya does not provide the right protein, and that science department is secretly funded by the meat industry (both these examples are real). It is the same with Wikipedia. Most people assume it is a worthy open-source attempt to gather a 'people's encyclopedia', a mass movement to put information at the disposal of the masses, provided by the masses. But again, buyer beware. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
which is not so sinister, but just as deadly. The strange editing process is weighted in favour of people with lots of time and/or vested interests. While this can have a detrimental effect on any article, when a topic is controversial, the problem becomes really noticeable. A "real" authority, who has better things to do than devote every waking hour to wiki editing, quickly gives up even trying.
What is left are those with unending stamina and tenacity. In the best case, these are people who have nothing else to do and perhaps find some substitute personal fulfillment in finally being able to be "someone" in the wiki world when the real world has passed them by. In the worst case they are fanatics. The editing process often becomes that of a compromise between vested and extremist views rather than a reasonable study and explication of a topic.
Of course that is just one scenario, but something I've witnessed. Other maybe more banal but equally unscrupulous motivations certainly also come into play. A really good example of this is the way Josie, when he isn't working on Rawat articles, has created articles about subjects he calls digital art and things like that. After giving some feeble explanation of what he thinks they are, he illustrates the articles with his own lame-ass art. Clearly his amateurish and deservedly unknown work is not exemplary of these fields. It is a case of shameless self-promotion, theoretically prohibited in Wikipedia but obviously not enforced. When he isn't using Wiki to promote Rawat, he uses it to promote himself.
This isn't just about the academic process or even the abuse of it. It actually has little to do with academia.
|
|
|
|
I don't think its thought of as a first rate source of factual information anyway.
|
|
|
|
Hi Susan, Yes, but there are successes too. For example, the sincere but misguided efforts of the followers of Lyndon Larouche have generally been thwarted by the many down-to earth reasonable editors. Another success, somewhat related to Rawat,is that the etymology of guru (heavy) is now correctly explained. This was the work of an editor called Dieter Bachmann who knew how to use sankrit dictionaries whom I asked for help. Rawat said that the word guru came from giver of light, but that is complete nonsense. SSB also gave such false unscholarly etymologies for Sanskrit words. Andries (expanded and amended)
Modified by Andries at Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 14:20:47
|
|
|
|
And I don't even get a footnote for starting this whole thing. But I know you guys wanted me to contact my old Sanskrit professor. I just couldn't see calling the guy up after 20 years to lose the last threads of respectability I've still got – not for Wiki anyway and definitely not for that evil abomination Zappaz.
I suppose my old professor would remember me, but it wouldn't be for my Sanskrit scholarship. But let's not go there, this is a family forum of sorts.
What I find amazing about the whole thing is the energy those premie apologists went through to lie about it. After all it wasn't that big a deal. Okay the mahatmas lied, Prem Rawat lied, premies believed some bullshit for 40 years. It doesn't prove that Rawat is a complete idiot though. He does a much better job of that himself.
After looking into it a little on various pseudo-spiritual websites, I pretty much came to the conclusion that the whole myth must have pre-dated Prem and his father anyway and they just picked up on it. Perhaps that is the really damaging message behind it all – that it puts Rawatism (Jr. and Sr.) in the context of a broader modern day guru tradition. The thing is it was always said with this incredible air of authority, which just makes you naturally want to question everything else that you were told.
But still I find it interesting how important this one small thing is to premies. I remember them even defending it on F8.
If anyone is wondering what the hell I'm talking about, and if I'm not mistaken, the etymology of guru was first talked about of F8. I brought it up one day because I had studied Sanskrit in college. The original meaning of guru is as an adjective meaning heavy, not "one who brings you from darkness to light". Some premies who were posting took issue with that. Then this controversy was taken to Wikipedia, where the darkness to light meaning was fiercely defended.
|
|
|
|
Yes, you deserve more than a footnote, but I did not know that you previously posted under the name DanT. Nice to meet you again. Andries
|
|
|
|
I don't think its thought of as a first rate source of factual information anyway.
The question is surprisingly complicated. The Wiki compares favourably with the Encyclopedia Britanica in science articles (source). I'd cheerfully use it for engineering (including computer engineering) info too.
There's something of an anti-Wiki campaign going on at the moment, and this is tending to obscure the fact that the Wiki really is a Good Thing, and something that can work well.
But when it tries to deal with those areas where hard-to-test facts are deliberately obfuscated in the interests of this or that party it is a lot less reliable. Certainly, intellectually dishonest cult victims see it as a way of giving some cachet to their distortions -- but that strategy would not work unless the Wiki had credibility for them to leach off.
So it's difficult. It may be unfair and difficult, but the success of the Wiki means we have little choice but to engage with it and put our own small corner right. Parenthetically, I suspect it is the Wiki's ability almost to force one's (unpaid!) participation that lies behind much of the resentment it is currently generating.
Jonti
--never a premie
Modified by jonti at Thu, Feb 16, 2006, 08:10:07
|
|
|
|
There is of course some truth in what you write. Only people who care about Rawat will edit the Rawat article. Most ordinary people will give up quickly because of the endless reverts and neverending discussions. Andries
|
|
|
|
You know I wasn't talking about you, nor than mysterious German guy. You two are like the lone heroes fighting a metropolis of ever-multiplying bad guys. Like Batman and Robin if you will. But which one is which?
But seriously, every now and then hanging out on these forums and what often seems like wasting my time, I learn something really valuable. One of those things was to learn what Wiki was all about. Before that, I was just one of the ignorant masses assuming that Wiki was a good thing without even reflecting on that assumption. So I'm just spreading the good word when I can. Rawat is small fries. Wiki is not.
Modified by aunt bea at Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 19:23:32
|
|
|
|
I don't have a black and white view about Wiki and think that it is all bad. There is certainly something extraordinary about it as a new medium of information. It just isn't an encyclopedia and shouldn't pretend to be.
I also use it on occasion, but after learning about it, I never take anything I read on it at face value.
|
|
|
|
It seems that Wikipedia, for all its faults, is indeed becoming some sort of universal database. Like you, I find I myself using it fairly often, intentionally or not (i.e. more and more now, links to Wiki articles pop up in other things I'm reading and sometimes the info I find there is just what I need, at least as a starting point). I also think that the pro-cult bias, if you can call it that, of some of the Wiki editors, is too subtle for anyone but people like us who've waded into the WikiWeeds to detect or be concerned about. As a result, I do think the article's worth caring about and it bothers me greatly that someone as dishonest as Jossi (did I say what an a******* he was yet?) stands there like a guard dog, preventing reality from seeping in. What he's just done with this saviour thing is amazing. Andries, can you see any way out of this? Is there anyone at Wiki who can take control of this properly? Or am I just missing the whole WikiPoint of it all?
Modified by Jim at Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 20:23:25
|
|
|
|
I really got involved with the Wiki thing when the hate group article got started. As you and Andries point out, the Prem Rawat article doesn't really interest outsiders. For this reason I wasn't all that concerned about it. But the subject of hate groups is obviously no joke. That the premies co-opted this article for their own propaganda purposes is morally bankrupt. That there was no way to remedy this situation, even if I had devoted my life to it, is pathetic and brought me to the conclusion that Wiki is a hopeless cause at least in some ways. At the time I wrote an email to the Southern Law Poverty Center. A friendly person wrote me back, telling me that he looked at the article and it was full of crap. He said he wouldn't try to correct it however, because he had already tried it with another article and ended up running away raving and screaming like all reasonable do. But why not let him speak for himself. Here is his letter to me:Daniell,
I know a little about the Wikipedia. They contacted me over some other article they were "developing" -- this one on the Southern Poverty Law Center -- and it was filled with falsehoods. Personally, I think there's no curing this. They wanted me to write letters countering all the bad info in that article and then somehow, they said, the democratic process would wind up producing an accurate article. What baloney! It's a ridiculous way to put an encyclopedia together -- whoever votes the most often gets to be right -- and a ridiculous piece of work, as your sending us the copy of the "Hate Crimes" article shows once again. I could spend my life trying to correct their sorry excuses for journalism/scholarhip, but I unfortunately have much more important things to do. Just as an example: In the hate crimes article, they refer people to a list of hate groups compiled by this Raymond Franklin character, and it is a complete mess. Also, the ADL doesn't "list" groups like we do, comprehensively; they just name a few of the better known ones.
I'm sorry. I just have no respect at all for this inane Wikipedia project and its bizarre research methodology. The Wikipedia is a terrible piece of work, and nothing I can reasonably do will make it any better.
Sorry if I haven't been much help. Best regards,
Modified by aunt bea at Wed, Feb 15, 2006, 04:16:16
|
|
|
|
All reasonable people run away ... with the exception of Andries and the masked German guy, who only through their superpowers can withstand the onslaught of evil to defend truth, justice, honor and the innocent.
|
|
|
|
"The strange editing process is weighted in favour of people with lots of time and/or vested interests." It's interesting that "Wiki" is a Hawaiian word meaning "quick". Kabir
|
|
|
|
Wikipedia is as good as its contributors. Both Ed Poor who writes under his real name and openly admits that he is a Moonie and Zappaz have stopped editing Wikipedia. I think Ed Poor was discouraged by certain legal-Wikipedia steps maded against him unrelated to the Unification Church. I had generally good relationships with Ed Poor, though I disagreed with his "cult apologist" stance. In contrast, I had endless disagreements and unpleasant disputes with Zappaz. Of course, after have a bad experience ourselves it is nearly impossible to understand how anyone who is not a follower of Rawat or SSB can defend them. But I think that Zappaz was sincerely convinced that the criticism against cults, gurus etc. was exaggerated. He is not alone in this conviction, but I think many who hold this conviction forget that - the cult wars of the 1970s and 1980s in the USA are over and
- apostates are not as unreliable as some scholars and scientists believe
- it is wrong to generalize too much from the past (the 1970s and 1980s)
- it is wrong to generalize too much one guru centered movement to many guru centered movements.
- in some countries, like the Netherlands, the general public is quite indifferent about charlatan gurus or otherwise unreliable gurus, so these gurus can do whatever they want without kept in check by public outrage
Other editors of Wikipedia have a contrasting background with regards to cults. Take for example, Ed Poor who is a long-time adherent of the Unification Church. The members of the UC suffered unfairly from exaggerated and untrue criticism and the disproportionate methods of its oponents (i.e. deprogramming) in the 1970 and 1980s. In contrast, I have hardly seen unfair or exaggerated criticism and disproportionate opposition, but I and some others did have a traumatic experience in a cult. I think that if I had not been a follower of an unreliable guru myself then I would probably have agreed with the cult apologist stance, but now I know unfortunately from personal experience that cult apologists are at least partially wrong. Andries (amended for grammar and structure)
Modified by Andries at Sat, Feb 18, 2006, 12:40:20
|
|
|
|
but the degree of controversy surrounding the article on Prem Rawat is unusually high even for Wikipedia's standards. I suggest that if you want to learn how to edit Wikipedia then start first with less controversial articles. But you have to reference your additions with reliable sources in any article. Attributed notable opinions are fine too. But of course, policies are not always followed so strictly on uncontroversial articles. Removals others than vandalism have to be explained on the talk page. Ask for references on the talk page in case of doubtful statements and remove the doubtful statements after one week if no references are forthcoming. The guidelines and policies are very extensive and it took quite a lot of time before I knew them and got used to them. I have more than 11,000 edits on the English Wikipedia (articles+ talk pages). Andries
|
|
|
|
Modified by Lexy at Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 18:05:59
|
|
|
|
How do you get icons to do that?
Modified by nigel at Mon, Feb 13, 2006, 19:42:55
|
|
|
|
...even for me (an erstwhile premie for over 30 years). Click on "Forum Guidelines" and scroll down.There is an "emoticons" section which reveals the tecniques. I'm going to try and import some even better ones from my "boarding school" (yes I went to one too) forum .
|
|
|
|
Sadly I can just see a little red cross in a box  I like this "pranam" emoticon  I suppose you did that in your cult too, Andries ?
|
|
|
|
Lexy, Yes I namaskared sometimes and I bowed on my knees in front of the pic of SSB and especially after arathi (that you call aarthi). When I was still a follower I had been looking for an English verion of Arathi that we sang in Sanskrit, but I would probably have been shocked to find it on the ex-premie website. Sometimes it is as if you did the same as I, but only ten to twenty years earlier. Andries
Modified by Andries at Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 18:07:51
|
|
|
|
Please do read and follow the policies and guidelines before editing the article Thanks. Andries
|
|
|
|
So I've wasted way too much time I specifically don't have right now wading into Wikiwater (Hey, wasn't that a sixties song? Ooo, ooo, Wikiwater, See how high they fly ... I was trying to move the article along in some reasonable incremental way when some other Wikite dropped in from the blue and called it for what it was, a hagiography. Then Jossi comes back and, to prove how marginal and nasty we are, he throws John MacGregor's affidavit at him. Grr...
|
|
|
|
It's a first effort, but I've titled it: 'Me and my shadow'
|
|
|
|
The fundamentalists will be burning copies of the forum flag outside my house, and worse. And of course they will be justified in being offended at this insult on their profit, Mohammed, ... oops, sorry, Maharaji.
John
|
|
|
|
Modified by nigel at Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 23:32:28
|
|
|
|
If you guys want to see something disgusting, please take another look at the Wiki talk page on Rawat. Jossi denied Rawat claimed to be saviour of mankind. So I posted a quote where he said that the Perfect Master was just that. So then he said that Rawat never claimed to be Perfect Master. So I posted a quote where he explains why people call him that. So then he said yeah, sure, but that doesn't mean Rawat himself ever said he was Perfect Master. So nowI posted a quote where he made it abundantly clear that he was talking about himself (like duh!). And Jossi hasn't answered yet. Now this is the guy who stands at the gates of the Wiki article. He's worse than Mel used to be. (well ...)
Related link: Grrrrrrrr............................ here it is.
|
|
|
|
- This discussion starts with Andries:
- It had indeed been reverted, by Momento, apparently on the basis that criticism from people who don't understand PR's "key points" is missing the point and should not be considered. Momento, if I may say so, you are missing the point of what an encyclopedia is and does. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC).
- I agree that the sources and points of criticsm should be specific too. With regards to "spiritual teacher" which seems quite good to me, the following is basic, factual, uncontroversial and was and is true, "Rawat is a teacher of meditation techniques and he asserts that keeping in contact with him is essential for success in this". Andries 21:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- If Prem Rawat says that what he teaches is independent of religion, culture, education and lifestyle then it it is irrelevent what religion, culture, education and lifestyle the teacher or student adheres to. People have criticised Prem Rawat for being (in chronological order) too young, miming his talks, uneducated, Indian, having a screechy voice, short, fat, rich, unemployed, eating meat, drinking alcohol, smoking dope, married, married to a westerner, knowing a pedophile, having an affair, a bad poet, a simplistic artist, holding events on public holidays etc etc. These are the criticisms you think should be included in the opening paragraph? Pavarotti, the opera singer, is big, fat, rich, Italian, sweats excessively, drinks alcohol, eats meat, had an affair, marrried his secretary, lost his talent etc. Is it relevant to his life as an opera singer?Momento 22:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Momento, - The major criticism against Rawat is that, for decades, he openly declared himself to be the Lord. He called himself the Saviour of Mankind and promised to bring peace to the world. To this day he had done nothing to disabuse his earlier followers of thinking that way. In short, the major criticism against him is that he is a deceitful cult leader. All these other criticisms are the second tier.--24.69.14.159 22:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would kindly requeet that you stop wielding the "cult" peyorative as a weapon and that you lower your rethoric, unless your intention is provocation, that is. As for your assertions above, Prem Rawat never called himself "Saviour of Mankind", and you know it. Yes, he made claims of bringing peace to the world, and indeed has brough peace to hundreds of thousands of individuals around the world. And as far as I know, he still relentelssly pursues that dream. I do not see him abating any soon in that effort. Thank God for that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- What do you call this then:
- The greatest problem all around the world today, whether in America, Japan,China, Russia, India or anywhere else in the world, is that people are not in peace. People want peace. Today, if two people fight, the government is supposed to settle them down. But when governments fight, who is going to settle them down? The only one who can settle the governments down is the Perfect Master, the incarnation of God Himself, who comes to Earth to save mankind. Tokyo, Japan, October 3, 1972 (And it is Divine, July 1973)::::--24.69.14.159 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- And where exactly he says that he is that "Perfect Master"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- "People say, people say... actually the most common thing they say about me is that I am a Perfect Master. And what they mean by Perfect Master is the one who can reveal perfectness. Like one who teaches you math, you call him a math master, one who teaches you science, you call him a science master, one who can teach you perfectness, you call him a Perfect Master. And I can teach them what is perfectness, so they call me Perfect Master." (And It Is Divine ~ Dec. 1973, Volume 2. Issue 2.)
--24.69.14.159 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Face it, Jossi, the proof is overwhelming. Rawat called himself "Perfect Master" all the time and, in the first quote I posted just above, he explained that that meant that he was the saviour of mankind (not to mention "incarnation of God Himself" . --24.69.14.159 01:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC) - What about you facing it. Can you read basic English? "people call me", "they call me". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- How about this:
"Our body is finite. Something within this body is infinite. And if we join those two things, if we make that one connection ... Because that we are trying to reach, what we are trying get to, is that most spectacular experience. And that experience is always there because it's infinite! And we can always achieve it. We can always be there, by going to Guru Maharaj Ji, by going to the Perfect Master. Because Perfect Master not only teaches us perfectness - and that is why he is Perfect Master- but he has the key. And not only does he have the key, but that answer, that solution, that experience, lies within him. Because he is that experience."(Malibu, May 8, 1978,Printed in 'Divine Times',Volume 7, Number 4, June/July,1978,"Guru Puja Special"} Jossi, unless you're going to now say that Rawat didn't call himself "Guru Maharaj Ji" you must admit that the case is overwhelming.--24.69.14.159 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC) - This is my last response. Do you really know how to read? I am starting to doubt that. Can you read the unequivocal he and him. Do you know the difference between 'me and I and he or him? As you seem to be so knowledgeable on Maharaji's satsang from the early days, you would remember by whom the 12 year old Maharaji swears that he will bring peace to the world? I will tell you: I swear by Guru Maharaj Ji, I swear by the one who has given me birth". Can you read that? Good, Now leave me alone. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Now, now, Jossi. I thought Wikipedia was not the place for, what do you call it? Ah yes, "invective"! Yes, Jossi, I can read. I'm a lawyer as a matter of fact. I read things all the time. I also know that what you're doing is simply denying the obvious truth. No matter how many quotes I posted, no matter how well-documented, you will always find some spurious excuse for not admitting what you don't want to admit, in this case that Rawat claimed to be the saviour of mankind. Bishonen (or anyone else who has an interest in Wikipedia but not necessarily Rawat, pro or con), would you please comment substantively on this point. What do you think of Jossi's argument about this issue, namely whether or not Rawat ever claimed to be the saviour of mankind? And, if you agree that it's not, what does that say for the prospects of this article ever being done properly with Jossi "guarding" it? --24.69.14.159 02:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC) - I know you are a lawyer, but it seems that your wits abandon you when it comes to this subject. How else would I explain your inability to read what it is written? For your information, I am "protecting" this article in the same manner I am protecting countless others. As an editor and administrator of Wikipedia I contribute not only to this article but to many other articles, as well a contributing to define policy, fight vandalism of Wikipedia, and overall make this project successful. My effort is to have articles that comply with Wikipedia content policies, articles that I can feel proud of, that are well written, and that are well referenced. If you consider this "protecting", so be it. I shall be proud. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Jossi, do you agree with me that Bishonen seems to be a fair and impartial person at this point? Do you join me in asking for her opinion on this issue? Do you actually think that she will have any hesitation in concluding that Rawat most certainly called himself Perfect Master (and hence, Saviour of Mankind and the incarnation of God himself) in the quotes I've posted? BTW, if he wasn't talking about himself, who WAS he talking about? --24.69.14.159 02:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Bishonen is a fellow editor and I have already thanked her personally for her involvement and solicited further feedback from her on how to improve this article. As for your question, I would refer you to the quote I posted above: "'I swear by Guru Maharaj Ji, I swear by the one who has given me birth". Now don't tell me that you cannot understand who the young Maharaji is talking about? Or maybe you nedd to read this quote: "When I was born, God existed. But I never new Him. I just never knew Him until Guru Maharaj Ji came into my life, till Guru Maharaj Ji came in my way, and showed me and revealed me that secret. And the day he did that, there it was, I knew God" )And It Is Divine, (January 1973) Volume 1, issue 3 (Referring to the day his father and teacher gave him the techniques of Knowledge). There you have your answer, and please don't tell me you don't understand a simple statement such as that one. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, I really can't believe you. First, in the quote you've just presented, of course Rawat was talking about his father and not himself. But then, according to legend, he became Guru Maharaj Ji after his father died. That's why we called him that, remember? Second, Rawat did for years, and probably still does, refer to Guru Maharaj Ji sometimes as a disembodied kind of thing. But that's only sometimes. When he's referring to "incarnation of God himself", there's nothing disembodied about it. And let's be clear, even when referring to the disembodied aspect of Guru Maharaj Ji, he still maintained that he was "one with" it. Third, Rawat did have, and probably still does, a habit of referring to himself in a guru form of "royal" sense. He often spoke of himself in the third person that way. Every premie knows that and I can show you tons of quotes that prove the point. Fourth, at times, Rawat has been inconsistent about all this stuff. In other words, although I can find you quotes where he claimed to be God, I can also find you quotes where he said he wasn't God, just a humble servant. But that was all part of the "wink / wink" that makes premies feel like they're part of some great secret, isn't it? You know exactly what I'm talking about. Fifth and finally, Rawat still allows people to worship him like God and does nothing to disabuse them of this notion. Again, quotes infinitum. But beyond all that, you didn't answer my question which was, do you join me in inviting Bishonen to read through this exchange and offer her opinion on whether or not Rawat, in the quotes above, was claiming to be all those things mentioned? --24.69.14.159 03:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC) - And I cannot believe you cannot understand what is written in plain English. The facts speak for themselves, and your interpretations speak from themselves as well: You must be seeing everything from a very distorted perspective, maybe due to your self-declared visceral hatred of the man in question and of people like me that chose to be his students (please don't make me dig out from the archives your pernicious and abusive comments you have made in these very pages in previous discussions to prove this point). We are not discussing what people thought or think of Prem Rawat, we are discussing your assertions of what Prem Rawat said about himself. As for your question about Bishonen, she will participate if she wants to, as any other editor on this encyclopedia can. This is a Wiki, after all. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Jossi, how does one go about getting a referee here? I think that this recent dispute shows that you are unfit to edit this article. Does Wikipedia ever make such findings? Say, for instance, an article existed for an infamous person, perhaps a mobster, and their son or wife refused to allow the article to form fairly. Is there any point where WikipediaGods, whoever they might be, would block that son or wife from editting? Let's get a referee in here and let them see just who's refusing to interpret plain English fairly. Shall we? How?
|
|
|
|
Well done Jim, good for you. Clearly it needs someone with Jossi's tenacity to confront him like this - brilliant.I have not got the stamina or long-distance qualities for this kind of thing, but I think it is extremely important that someone is doing what you are doing. It needs to be argued in black and white, just like you have done. Great. -- Mike [added later: Just read your 'Wiki is important' post above, Jim, and yes I agree with you. I find I am using them more and more, usually as a starting place as you say. So it certainly is important to not to let Jossi get away with his cult-apologist (actually cult-denial really) stuff. Keep at it! I am cheering you from the sidelines!]
www.MikeFinch.com
Modified by Mike Finch at Wed, Feb 15, 2006, 02:31:16
|
|
|
|
Exactly the word I had in mind, Mike, last night, but never bothered to post it in the end. I was going to say Jim either has the patience of a saint or the tenacity of a lawyer sniffing things out It's a bit rich Jossi quoting Jim's " hatred" as a bar to his being impartial yet presumably thinks his own " love and adoration" makes him the ideal canditate for the task in hand. Jim's request for a third party reviewer was spot on.
|
|
|
|
If there isn't such a thing ( Wiki Referee) then there should be.Maybe ask Andries? I applaud your tenacity Jim.
|
|
|
|
Mike and Lexy, First Jim or others should try more seriously to edit the article instead of complaining on the talk page. If the editing lead to conflict then there are options open for dispute resolution. Some of these, like request for comments, have been tried for the Rawat article several times and did not work. Few people are interested in the subject. Requesting third opinions and mediation are options too. (I am currently a participant in mediation about the SSB article.) If everything else fails you can submit your complaints to the overworked arbitration committee which implements binding solutions on contributors and articles. This can include banning users who are a participant to the dispute. Following this procedure is tedious for all parties involved and may take months. Do not forget that there are more than 900,000 articles in Wikipedia. Am I right if I say that you feel concerned at least and possibly upset and insulted by the revisionist of the past and sophist interpretation of Rawat's words? Andries
Modified by Andries at Wed, Feb 15, 2006, 13:31:24
|
|
|
|
Andries, There's no way I'm going to spend my time editting the article only to have Jossi and friends immediately revert it. Sorry, that's nuts. It could go on forever and all that work for nothing. At least on the talk page one has the satisfaction of knowing you're actually talking to someone and your words get archived not lost to the ethers.
|
|
|
|
In some ways, they're more telling for the semi-interested outsider than the hagiography that passes for fact in this joke-book of an encyclopaedia. What you are in effect doing is taking the principle of our own forum to territories where premies can't avoid getting into discussing the past claims of Rawat etc. Excellent. Bear in mind that Jossi used to post on forum 3 or 5 as 'red shoes' and then 'red heart' in a similarly absurd, equivocal manner but then there was only the exes watching. Taking the discussion into a more neutral arena seems a great idea for anyone who has the stamina. If you're up for the task, Jim, there's two words that appeared in pretty well every one of M's satsangs from the seventies: devotion and surrender (to Guru Maharaji). Come to think of it, I don't remember him talking about anything else - not peace, certainly not meditation. The veracity of the Mishler tape (as if it were ever in doubt!) strikes me like a red herring in the bigger scheme of things - the kind of area where the fog of detail makes outsiders quickly lose interest. See if you can't run 'the devotion imperative' past Mr Fresco, eh? Thanks, Jim. Nige
Modified by nigel at Wed, Feb 15, 2006, 15:35:29
|
|
|
|
Talk about nuts. I'm nuts. I'm supposed to be working on this impossible deadline (next Friday) and instead ambled into this briar patch. But what a contrast, I must say. Legal argument to sharp, rational appellate court vs. Kafkaesque snorkelling through the muddy waters of denial. (Hey, that was the first time I ever resorted to that New Age pun!)
|
|
|
|
I think I know what you're saying in that one Jim, but I'll have to go look up 'Kafkaesque' and 'denial'. Sounds a bit Freudian to me I've barely got the time to do the odd couple of forum posts in a given day to go over to Wikiland, learn the rules and inevitably get egg my face when I get too impulsive and argue for hours (as I am won't after a wee drink in the evening). Grrr - don't tempt me...
Modified by nigel at Wed, Feb 15, 2006, 15:54:23
|
|
|
|
that there is no good reason for a revert. And when they then still give a revert then you go and escalate the matter. Andries
|
|
|
|
Andries, Are you actually saying that the reason the premies and their friends, whoever they might be, keep the article looking like a Rawat puff piece is that no one critical of Rawat has editted it properly? That's absurd. Honestly, I wonder how you could even begin to think that way. And why would anyone want to spend any real time perfecting edits that will immediately reverted anyhow? Here's a question for you, Andries. What would it take for you to finally give up the good fight on the Rawat article? Will you keep editting and reverting twenty years from now? Sorry, the only rational answer is for someone from up high to take charge of this article. Seeing as that's apparently anethmatic to the whole "Who's in charge? No one! Ha ha ha!" Wikiphilosophy, it's doomed. Why did I ever go there again!???????
|
|
|
|
It is difficult for me to give it up, because I know what propaganda can do to people. Andries
|
|
|
|
I have read most of this thread. I also went and read Jim's edits and became so angry this morning at the Jossi guy that I was suprised I could still be that mad after all this time. I think what really enfuriated me was when Jossi said that Rawat was not talking about himself when he was talking about Guru Maharaj Ji. I wonder if when he needed to go potty in those days he would say "GMJ needs to take a dump now". Anyway, just made me see red to read Jossi's premie wriggling. And someone said he used to be Red Heart? Grrrr those posts had the same pompous tone and adolescent logic to them. I think all the ex cult sites should get together and make a site about Wiki and cults. Maybe they have already. Andries I really respect your efforts and am glad you took on the cause. I also can understand why Nigel and Jim would not want to spend a lot of time on this if no one from the outside will arbitrate it. If anyone remembers, what years did Red Heart post?
|
|
|
|
That a*******! First he uses MacGregor's spinal-fluid-stained affidavit as an ad hominem attack on ex-premies and to derail the discussion and make it about us, then he ridicules my ability to read or think just because I have the audacity, like you say, to think that Rawat was talking about himself when he talked about Guru Maharaj Ji (what was I thinking?!). And now he's reported me for being abusive. This can't be healthy.
Modified by Jim at Wed, Feb 15, 2006, 17:03:36
|
|
|
|
Exactly the conclusion that I came to. I lasted about as long as you did. First trying to just talk some sense on the talk page. It just makes you crazy. Like running on a hamster wheel.
But you were great while you lasted.
|
|
|
|
I've no documetary proof acceptable to wiki standards that Jossi was Red Heart, but here's a reply I wrote to him/her on Feb 18, 1999. (Thanks to Drek for archiving this). It spoils it a bit that I keep referring to 'the Hamster' as was the then forum nickname for our Lord and Saviour, but you can read Jossi's bits between mine, and search the forum archives for further treasures... >>> Red, Do you have no idea how familiar these 'expressions' sound to everybody here? - or that we have all used pretty well all of them in our time? - or their power to incite vomit-inducing nausea when we read them today? And that there is now a web-site in existence to collect them, edit them, polish them up, rewrite them where necessary and display them in perpetuity, in all their gushing glory? [I was referring to the now defunct enjoyinglife.org site here] The trouble is, Red, this an uncensored discussion forum for ex-premies. As Brian once put it, ex-premies post here by right, while premies are here by privilege. So by all means join in, but you know what to expect. Unlike enjoyinglife.org, not only will your words not be censored, they will inevitably be subject to critical scrutiny. Hey - call us a 'mirror' if you like... ...And the amazing thing is, if I am there, really there, he is there too. Whether it is 10,000 miles away, 50 yards away, or much closer. This is magical thinking, Red. Just nonsense. Do you mean 'Whenever I feel something nice inside, I imagine that the Hamster has something to do with it? In fact the Hamster really is right there with me!' ...Yes, I have spoken to him in person more than a couple of times, and I can say with all sincerity that it really depended on where I was at at the time, what I experienced. Which seems to suggest, that, er, what you were feeling at the time was no more than what you were feeling at the time. You can take the Hamster right out of this equation and get the same answer. ...It's when I really work on myself and my own faults, and when I really make sincere efforts to understand and apply what he has taught me, that I can even fathom understanding him. If I try to understand him when I am being aloof myself, only then can I see coldness; when I am feeling the real warmth and openness of real love and devotion, then that is what I see in him. Red. You are projecting. Learn the word. Think about its possible implications. ...He really is a mirror. And sometimes that's very confronting and very scary. But we can all relax, because the guy holding up the mirror really is loving and kind and magnificent. Yeah, yeah - the mirror. So many premies have spoken recently about the 'mirror', I can only imagine the Hamster must have mentioned it in satsang somewhere. Am I right? Smash the mirror, Red. The seven years bad luck is just superstition. ...The love he has unveiled for me to experience is not hindered by the fact that there may one day be millions of others wanting to see him too. This love has its own kind of transcendence. There will never be 'millions of others wanting to see him too', and you know it. ...Sometimes the hardest thing for me: forgiving myself. I used to imagine that he would be angry with me. But he's been teaching me, and I've been learning: I only need to forgive myself. Jeez, Red. He taught you that, did he? This is a pathetic state of affairs. Couple this last sentence with that phrase you used earlier: I couldn't stand this world without him and can't you see where he's got you? He's put one king-sized cookie in your brain that prevents you seeing the world without attributing some role for His Lardship in it. >>>
Modified by nigel at Wed, Feb 15, 2006, 20:55:32
|
|
|
|
I think all the ex cult sites should get together and make a site about Wiki and cults.
Yes. Folks here have no trouble understanding the structural problems with the Wiki. And those same problems cause much wider concern as well.
The Wiki models itself in the manner of open-source program code engineering. In those terms, we need to fork the wiki project (specifically on the issue of cults) to force corrections to the main development effort.
There will be a *lot* of support for this effort (tho' perhaps only in terms of cheering us on, rather than practical help) as the Wiki's failures in this general area are affecting it very badly indeed.
Jonti
--never a premie
Modified by jonti at Thu, Feb 16, 2006, 09:23:44
|
|
|
|
I have so much faith in the powers that be in Wiki ( did someone mention Moonies, Premies etc ?) that I'll spend months and months doing what you say.Pull the other one mate it has bells on.
|
|
|
|
Maybe you are being serious, not being Anglo and all, but I was referring to the common expression " You're pulling my leg" meaning, in John McEnroe terms: "You cannot be serious?". Then, deriving from that, there's the expression " Pull the other one ( leg) it has bells on". But, you're just pulling my leg, you knew what I meant....didn't you?
|
|
|
|
No, I do not know what it means. I know English quite well, but my knowledge of informal English expressions is not so big. I never lived in an English speaking country. Andries
|
|
|
|
hmmm... hold on ...how about Double Dutch ? Heard of that one? I speak it well.
|
|
|
|
Ich Hauf en yau! Believe it or not, that is the whole extent of my Dutch vocabulary. No seriously, that's it. Honest.
|
|
|
|
Ik gebruik babel sklechts visservertaler.....met anderre woorden bedreig ik.Like I say, it's all just double Dutch to me
|
|
|
|
Just in case anyone thinks I speak Dutch, I'll transalate:>>> I don't understand...I only use Babel translator....in other words, I'm cheating <<< There, that feels better ....or should I have winged it a little while longer?
|
|
|
|
thanks for the English translation because I had difficulty to understand your Dutch. And thanks for explaining the expression. Andries
|
|
|
|
It should be "Ik hou van jou." not "Ich Hauf en ya!", meaning "I love you."
|
|
|
|
haha...I missed your little comment first time round, for some reason
|
|
|
|
You write English better than probably 95% of the natives, & that my friend is no small achievment.
|
|
|
|
You write English better than probably 95% of the natives, & that my friend is no small achievment
You meant achievement, I think.
***ducks and runs for cover***
Modified by jonti at Thu, Feb 16, 2006, 09:36:19
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your efforts on this. All the best Bryn
|
|
|
|
I finally heard from the Wiki editor who first gave me some hope yesterday. She now says that the Rawat quotes are too ambiguous to make heads or tails of. God damned! What the hell did I ever do to deserve this in my life? This low-grade idiocy. I feel like I'm in a twilight zone episode. But they only lasted half and hour!: Hi, Jim. I find your quotes from Rawat too ambiguous and vague for me to be at all sure of how to read them, sorry. You wrote on Talk:Prem Rawat: "Rawat has been inconsistent about all this stuff. In other words, although I can find you quotes where he claimed to be God, I can also find you quotes where he said he wasn't God, just a humble servant. But that was all part of the "wink / wink" that makes premies feel like they're part of some great secret, isn't it? You know exactly what I'm talking about." Well, I'm a plain blunt editor, I don't know what you're talking about, I have no intuition for the nuances and inside wink-wink of premie-talk. (My only qualification on that score is a brief fling with the TM meditation technique when I was younger — I found it helpful, in a practical way, but could never get into the ideological side of Maharishi. So, I can't be of much help. I have a question for you: why exactly do you want Jossi to stop editing Prem Rawat? He's a respected and respectable admin, and I'm sure he edits in good faith. In an ideal world I suppose he might consider giving up editing about a subject he feels that passionately about. However, the way it looks to me in practice (note of course that that I've only seen the discussion/editing of the past few days, and have no heart for those 13 archives) is that Jossi is if anything keeping the premie POV editing of Momento and Errol Vieth in check. I expect they are in good faith also — they simply "know" that the Rawat POV is The Truth, I guess, and call it as they see it — but IMO their input has shown a weak grasp of WP:NPOV. (And so I've told them, just now on Talk:Prem Rawat, so I make no scruple of saying it here.) I mean, you saw this edit, right? Jossi reverted it. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC). Hi Bishonen, Actually, the "wink-wink, you know exactly what I'm talking about" was directed to Jossi, not you. My questions to you were about the other quotes of Rawats. I'm very discouraged to hear you say that you find them too ambiguous to know just who he was talking about. He was Guru Maharaj Ji. He was the Perfect Master. He Was God incarnated, Saviour of Mankind and so on. In fact, Jossi still thinks he's all of that. If you would please spend just a little time reading the section of EPO or the Gallery of quotes I linked you to earlier, you'd see this in spades. Anyway, Jossi is a liar through and through. He knows full well that Rawat was referring to himself. I mean, really, who else do you think he might have been talking about? I'm very, very frustrated as you can tell. I'm a lawyer. Words and logic are my stock in trade. Plus I was in this stupid cult for years. I know it inside out. This Wiki article is a joke and it's being guarded by dishonest cult members. Now how much more do I have to say before I can truly be banned from this place and wash my hands of it forever?
|
|
|
|
http://gurumaharaji.info/video/ I thought the Marlyn file made it abundantly clear who he wants premies to believe Goomradji is. "Goomradji is that supreme power, is and always has been" then crowned with Mala.
|
|
|
|
Good idea. Why don't you wade in there, Susan? Jossi's announced that he's taking a week off after all the abuse he's just had to endure.
|
|
|
|
Prem Rawat's claims to personal divinityThis isn't a response to Jim Heller's — 24.69.14.159's — call for me to act as "referee" above, under the heading "Another compromise Lead"; that would be most presumptuous of me, and I'm far from supposing anybody else would accept me in that capacity. I'll still answer Jim's question though: yes, from links that he has e-mailed to me, notably this one (though not indeed from the ambiguous and "wink-wink" quotes he posts above), I do agree that Prem Rawat has made claims to personal divinity. I have no personal experience or specialized knowledge of the subject, but IMO it's an easy call to make. I respectfully decline to get into any huge debate or any historical ramifications at this time; I don't mean to blow people off, I apologize if it looks like that, but I just don't have the time. Bishonen | talk 15:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC).
|
|
|
|
I think it'd be much better for all concerned if "editors" like Jossi applied Wiki's own criteria, namely:(From the Wikipedia guidelines):
QUOTE All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.
It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. … 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, thus encouraging intellectual independence. … we do not try to decide or claim that an opinion is "true" or "false". We state instead, neutrally and factually, which people hold what views, and allow the facts to speak for themselves. Remember, Facts are never subject to consensus. ENDQUOTE The fact is that, during an very important period of his "mission", Maharaji/Rawat did claim: that he, and his father before him, was the Perfect Master; that there can only ever be ONE such master alive at any one time; and that this Perfect Master is, in short, God incarnate.
For Jossi to deny that these were fundamental parts of his teaching - for at least 15 years of his "mission" - can only be because Rawat and Elan Vital have practised an overt form of revisionism for the last decade or more, and Jossi's world view is (to put it mildly) strongly coloured by that. Can that be called a neutral point of view? Jossi is censoring facts that his "master" would prefer to keep hushed up. And that's a fact.
Modified by cq at Thu, Feb 16, 2006, 06:38:03
|
|
|
|
The fact that he was seen as a "Perfect Master" is implicitly mentioned and should be mentioned explicitly and not just as the "Early Westerner's devotion" as the section title is called. What is not mentioned and should be mentioned is that Rawat said things that come very close to an explicit claim of being the "Perfect Master". Andries
|
|
|
|
Rawat said things that come very close to an explicit claim of being the "Perfect Master"Very close, you say, Andries? Gersplundengeblutz! Why the coyness? He said it! He claimed it! His whole spiel throughout the 1970s focused on it! I'm amazed that such a thing could be in doubt. But for proof, I've got to find the quotes where he said it. Over the weekend, OK? PS - is there anything else I should know about the wiki article on Rawat - is it still locked for editing? All info gratefully received. PPS - I shouldn't have used the abbreviation "Re" in the header (nor should you have used it, you naughty boy!) - it's short/abbreviation for "regarding", as in "re your post". English grammar lesson over. Just don't try and teach me too much Dutch, OK?
Modified by cq at Thu, Feb 16, 2006, 14:40:32
|
|
|
|
Andries, If I were wading back into Wackypedia, which I'm not anytime soon, I might use the following which is from the same interview I took a quote from yesterday: Maharaj Ii: No. It has to be revealed. By a Perfect Master. Wood: By a living Perfect Master? Maharaj Ji: By a living Perfect Master. I was going to give you an example of Kennedy and Johnson. When Kennedy left his body, they didn't say all right, Kennedy is still going to be President. They put Johnson in. Wood: I've never understood what you are in India. Your father was also Perfect Master - Maharaj Ji: Yes, he was Perfect Master, and then, when he left his body he commanded me to continue his job. Wood: But didn't your father have a following before there was a Divine Light Mission? Maharaj Ji: Before there was a Divine Light Mission, there was a Guru to my father also. Wood: Then there has been a steady succession of Perfect Masters - Maharaj Ji: There have always been Perfect Masters coming into this world. Wood: Will there be another one? Maharaj Ji: Yes. After me.
I'd say this last line in particular qualifies as an explicit claim that he's a Perfect Master.
Related link: http://gallery.forum8.org/interview_1973.htm
|
|
|
|
Andries. On the Wiki article for PR it says that "Prem Rawat succeeded to the leadership of the DLM upon his father's death ..." Well this is hotly disputed and the wiki article does not reflect this at all. For it to be a reflection of truth the wiki article should reflect the fact that Satpal (Prem's elder bother) claims the 'succession' The Wiki article later on talks briefly about the family split, but nowhere in the article does it adequetly reflect the fact that Satpal claims the succession and it should do to uphold the standards of wikipedia. Perhaps as a Wikipedia editor you could recitify this oversight? Satpal says the following on his website. ______________________________________ | Shri Satpal Ji Maharaj, the eldest son of Paramsant Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, was born on 21st September 1951 at Kankhal in the holy town of Hardwar. His father's life was one of selfless service to humanity and of tireless devotion to the ideal of awakening man's dormant spirituality. Birth in the family of an enlightened Yogi, combined with his own inherent tendencies, facilitated Satpal Ji Maharaj's spiritual development from a very early age. By the age of two and half he was already sitting for long periods of meditation and he encouraged others to do likewise. His father once remarked that his consciousness was naturally directed inwards but was to be drawn out for the benefit of others. Growing up in a spiritual environment, under the strict guidance of his parents and surrounded by mahatmas and devotees, he very soon became a master of the spiritual science. | Shri Satpal Ji Maharaj sitting in meditation at the age of two and a half |
When he was three years old, his father arranged a large procession through the main streets of Delhi in his honor. Thousands of devotees and interested people participated. At one point, a gigantic traffic jam halted the procession. At this age, he himself stood up and directed the traffic so that the way was cleared. So, even at a tender age, his innate leadership and organizational abilities were evident. Besides his spiritual education at home, he received a formal education at St. George's College, Mussourie. Right from the start he showed a keen interest in science. Practical by nature, he would not accept anything until he could verify it through objective analysis or practical experience. Totally devoted to his own Master, Shri Satpal Ji Maharaj demonstrated the path of service in his own life. He never expects his disciples to do anything he himself has not done, and he doesn't teach anything which he himself hasn't practised. | Jagat Janani Ma applying tilak (sandalwood paste) to Shri Satpal Ji Maharaj |
His father passed away in 19th July 1966, bequeathing his mission and unfinished work to his eldest son. When the time came, Satpal Ji Maharaj took command with his characteristic zeal and efficiency, dedicating himself to fulfilling his father's dreams. He has never deviated from the ideals and path taught by Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, no matter what the cost. His integrity and clarity of vision, his noble character, self-discipline and patient effort have earned him the respect of all sections of society. |
Modified by T at Thu, Feb 16, 2006, 15:03:54
|
|
|
|
That is absolutely brilliant! Now all you have to do is get yourself over there and start editting.
|
|
|
|
When he was three years old, his father arranged a large procession through the main streets of Delhi in his honor. Thousands of devotees and interested people participated. At one point, a gigantic traffic jam halted the procession. At this age, he himself stood up and directed the traffic so that the way was cleared. So, even at a tender age, his innate leadership and organizational abilities were evident.
|
|
|
|
Dear friend, I am writing to alert you to an opportunity which may warrant your attention. Perhaps you have heard of the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. It's a unique phenomenon, an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and contribute to. Wikipedia is fast becoming one of the most consulted and popular web sites in the world and, for all its faults (and there are many) it's resorted to by vast numbers of people daily as a reference guide. Perhaps you've already seen them but there are a whole number of articles about Satpal's brother, Prem Rawat on Wikipedia. The lead article is here: but there are several others as well. Here's how the article describes Prem's origins and the family rift: Prem RawatFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPrem Pal Singh Rawat (born December 10, 1957 in Dehradun in India),[1] known as Maharaji, reportedly started addressing audiences at the age of three and gave his first published address when he was only four. Upon his father death, when he was eight years old, he was accepted by his father's students as the satguru and started taking his message to people throughout the Indian subcontinent. At thirteen, he was invited to speak in London and Los Angeles. At that time he attracted substantial media attention as the young Guru Maharaj Ji, a title he dropped later on. According to the foundation that carries his name, since his childhood beginnings as a teacher, Prem Rawat has promoted a personal, individual experience of inner peace through his talks and by what he refers to as "Knowledge" or the techniques of Knowledge."[2] [3] His message is that it is only by individuals finding peace for themselves that the world can be at peace, and that he is able to assist in this endeavor. The foundation also maintains that dissemination of his message, which is made available in more than 88 countries and 70 languages[4], is supported by voluntary contributions made by his students, and the sale of related materials, and that he reportedly supports himself and his family through independent means. Starting in 2001, he has been invited to address various institutions on the subject of peace,[5][6][7] and has through The Prem Rawat Foundation spearheaded various humanitarian initiatives. Another organization related to his work as a teacher include Elan Vital (earlier known as Divine Light Mission. Although a source of inspiration for his students, he has attracted controversy and criticism since he started delivering his teachings in the 1960s.
Earliest years of Maharaji- For more details on this topic, see Hans Ji Maharaj.
ChildhoodPrem Rawat was born and spent his childhood in India and attended the Catholic-run St. Joseph's Academy elementary school in Dehra Dun. He is the fourth and youngest son of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj's second marriage to Jagat Janani Mata Shri Rajeshwari Devi [8]. Shri Hans was an Indian guru who founded an organization known as the Divine Light Mission in India. Prem Rawat took up speaking about human being's need for fulfillment and love, it has been said as early as age three [9][10]. His father taught him the techniques of Knowledge at age six, including him among his father's other students. He reported that controversy began to arise around him at about age six, when the quality of his discourse coming from such a small child prompted critics to assert that the speech was coming from a tape recorder and that he was just lip syncing. In the early 1970s his family and certain supporters told stories that even in his early years his older brothers deferred to him, that he was the son who made introductory remarks at his father's events, and that his father indirectly indicated to the family that of all the siblings he was worthy of special respect. In these early days Prem Rawat was known as Sant Ji and as Balyogeshwar (Sanskrit: बालयोगेश्वर = child master of yogis)';.
SuccessionPrem Rawat succeeded to the leadership of the DLM upon his father's death in 1966[11] [12], which, as he noted, was unusual since he was not the eldest child and not in accordance with Hindu tradition of primogeniture[13]. His family told American reporters during the early 1970s that Shri Hans was away from home at the time of his death and wrote a letter home to the family essentially naming Prem as his successor. A witness account by Shri Hans' personal driver confirmes that Shri Hans publicly requested that Prem would continue his work and that some disregarded this request and discussions were held during the customary 12 days of mourning about the succession. This culminated in Prem Rawat addressing the crowd and being accepted by them as their teacher.[14][15] The young Prem reportedly spoke in the same terms as his father had done, comforted grieving devotees and declared his intention to continue his father's work. [16][17][18][19] His family's support as the rightful successor to his father lasted for another eight years. After succeeding to the leadership, Rawat remained in India for several years and continued to teach the Knowledge his father had championed.
Establishment in the West
Maharaji’s first trip to the West Prem Rawat arriving for the first time to Los Angeles, United States, July 17, 1971. He was known then as Guru Maharaj Ji, a title he dropped in the 1980s. Nowadays called Maharaji by his students. Prem Rawat first came to the West, including the U.K., U.S. and Canada, in the summer of 1971, at age thirteen, at a time of attraction in the West for all things Indian. Previously, a small number of British hippie seekers of truth had come across Maharaji at his home in Dehra Dun, and had asked him to vist the West, where, they said, many young people were waiting for what he had to offer. In October 1969 he sent a mahatma to London to begin teaching Knowledge on his behalf. In doing this he was fulfilling the prediction of his father, who having heard his son speak a few months before his demise, had said that "one day this boy will take the teaching of Knowledge to all four corners of the world." In 1970 many of his new western followers traveled to India to see and hear him, and were present when he announced at a gathering at India Gate in Delhi that he was ready to begin the task of bringing peace to the world. This gathering of 1,000,000 people on 8th of November, was reported to be one of the largest ever in the history of New Delhi and was the culmination of a procession 18 mile long. [20] [21] [22] On June 17 the following year, he arrived in London for a short school vacation visit. He traveled without his family, and he reported that he arrived with only twenty-five pounds sterling in his pocket [23]. His reception was such that, in response to his mother's entreaties that he return to India to complete his education, he said that he was doing what he would be doing with his life, whether he completed his education or not. He was interviewed on the BBC, and spoke at the first Glastonbury Festival, where he again offered people peace. He made brief trips to Paris and Heidelberg, Germany, and on July 17 flew to Los Angeles and began a tour of Americian cities. In November 1971 he returned to India accompanied by several hundred of his new western students. At that time his teaching was enmeshed in Indian traditions and lifestyle, which he was later to renounce as unnecessary. The practice of Knowledge was called meditation, a term he later changed to distinguish it from other practices and teachings to which the term usually referred. He advised his new followers, who were to a large degree wedded to the drug and hippie culture of the time[1], that successful practice of Knowledge was incompatible with drug use, and he was widely acknowledged for taking many young people from dependency on drugs. [24] In the first years of his arrival, Prem Rawat received the keys to the cities of New York, New Orleans, Monterey, Oakland, Detroit, Miami and Macon in the United States, and Kyoto, in Japan. [25]
Establishment of organizations in the WestAt Prem Rawat's request, U.S. Divine Light Mission, or DLM, was formed in September 1971 in Denver, Colorado after Rawat's first U.S. tour. The DLM organization coordinated Rawat's subsequent U.S. tours and events. The DLM produced a monthly magazine, And It Is Divine, and a weekly newspaper, "Divine Times". It also operated a film and publishing company called Shri Hans Productions, a thrift shop, wholesale electronics firms, aviation and travel services, and a large vegetarian restaurant in New York City. In early 1973 it organized a fifty-six-piece rock band called Blue Aquarius, conducted by one of Prem's older brothers. Its headquarters was moved in 1979 to Miami Beach, Florida. DLM ashrams were established in the early 1970s in major cities in South America, North America, Europe, and Australia. By 1973 there were twenty DLM ashrams in New York City. Those who entered an ashram were required to take a vow of poverty and give over their possessions and any continuing income to the ashram. They also took a vow of chastity and obedience. They performed service, and drinking alcohol and consuming drugs were prohibited. Vegetarianism was encouraged.[26] During that time he became widely known as the young guru and attracted considerable media attention. Virologist Robert Gallo, now Director, Institute of Human Virology of the University of Maryland, approached the young Rawat to ask where he might find the origin of cancer, to which Rawat answered: "Look within the mysteries of life itself." [27]
Permanent residence in the WestPrem Rawat returned to the U.S in 1972, this time accompanied by his mother and eldest brother, Satpal, and an entourage of mahatmas and other supporters. That year the organization held a multi-day event at Montrose, Colorado at which two thousand people attended. During this time Rawat was the focus of much media attention and publicity generated by the organization. The DLM made two feature-length films about him during this period, and released a book of student testimonials and Rawat's lectures, or satsang, entitled Who Is Guru Maharaj ji? published by Bantam Books. The organization booked the Houston Astrodome for a three-day gathering and several thousand of his students in November 1973, coinciding with Shri Hans's birthday and called "Millennium '73". Reporters in attendance estimated various days' attendance at between seven and twenty thousand. Rennie Davis, a former member of the Chicago Seven, was a prominent spokesman for the group at that event. Jesus freaks, Hare Krishnas, Jews for Jesus, and the Family of God staged small protests outside. The event lost money for the organization, but Rawat expressed his satisfaction with it. The DLM was reporting that 60,000 individuals were practicing the techniques Knowledge in 1974 in the United Kingdom and "it was a successful movement because it stressed access to the inner world, the attainment of peace and certainty ('never leave room for doubt in your mind'), direct experience of God within and the use of guaranteed methods".[28]
Early Western students- For more details on this topic, see Past teachings of Prem Rawat.
The Western students who gathered around Prem Rawat in the early 1970s were generally young and were extremely loyal and passionate about his capacity to teach about inner peace and accepted him as the "Perfect Master" or satguru. Many devoted considerable amounts of their time to help Rawat spread his message, others joined ashrams and took the vows of chastity and poverty associated with the monastic life in Indian ashrams. In 1973 after a reporter at a public event in Detroit hit Rawat in the face with a shaving cream pie, the reporter was attacked with a hammer and injured by two angry students. In an article published in Penthouse magazine in July 1974, it was reported that the DLM issued a press release informing that the pair were in fact students, and that they were held in custody at the Chicago ashram. They also promised a full investigation. The Detroit police did not pursue the matter. Some of the Western students claimed that Rawat was personally an incarnation of God, and indeed the greatest of such incarnations. The source of this belief has been a subject of controversy. Most students attribute the belief to unintended confusion in Western minds over what was being said and done by Rawat and the movement, while critics charge this confusion was either deliberately fostered or negligently ignored for his personal gain. The seeds of this belief may have been planted even before Rawat came to the West. In 1970 at age twelve he gave a speech in New Delhi at an event celebrating his late father's birthday, in which he made statements such as the following, which have been interpreted by some as claims of personal divinity: - The time has come for restlessness to be destroyed and the Kingdom of Peace to be established. Whether you take it as my prophecy or anything else, the Kingdom of Peace will be established soon.[...] You must understand and have faith in my words. All I ask is your love, all I ask is your trust, and what I can give you is such a peace as will never die. I only need the opportunity[...] I declare that I will establish peace in the world. Just give me the reins and let me rule, and I will rule in such a way that even Rama, Harichandra, Krishna, and other kings could not have ruled like that! That day is fast approaching. So arise, awake, open the ears of each man, and tell him the time has come! Do not tell him that there was a festival. No! Make them understand he has come to reveal the Knowledge, that he has come to show us the true path. And if you truly give me the reins of your life, I swear by Guru Maharaj Ji, I swear by the one who has given me birth, that I will give you peace.[29]
In this speech he attributed great power and possibly divinity to "The Lord, Guru Maharaj Ji", apparently referring to his father and teacher. The fact that he himself also came to be called "Guru Maharaj Ji," may have led to confusion, whether intentional or unintentional, in the minds of Western students between Rawat personally and this called-upon figure of divine power. It may be that during the 1970s as praise and divine connotations were further heaped upon "Guru Maharaj Ji," those in charge maintained in their own minds a distinction between the young living man, his deceased father, and the lineage title itself, although that distinction appears to have been lost on some who believed Rawat was referring to himself when using that phrase. According to a January 1974 Penthouse magazine article, Rawat said to the multitude in 1971 that "guru is greater than God," an expression also voiced by Brahmanand and somewhat in correspondence with the elevated status that some traditional Indian saints gave their gurus. Further clouding the issue were the Indian Hindu forms and customs Rawat's family and entourage brought with them when they arrived in the West in 1972, such as addressing a guru with the terms "Master" and "Lord." His early 1970s events featured the singing to him of Hindu devotional songs such as the arti and the performance toward him of the Hindu devotional ritual of darshan. Whether those in charge at that time understood or intended the interpretations of personal divinity many Western students were giving to these devotional forms has never been definitely established. In an interview with in 1973 Tom Snyder host of "The Tomorrow show" TV series, Snyder asked Prem Rawat: "Now I'm not trying to be disrespectful but' Ive got to ask you this question: Many of your followers say that you are God. What do you have to say about this?" To which Rawat replied: "No, I am not God. I am only a humble servant of God." [30] Materials written by students during this period and included in DLM publications featured comparisons of Guru Maharaj ji with Rama and Krishna, and the 1973 book Who is Guru Maharaj ji? described him as the "Satguru Maharaj ji" and on its back cover asked the semi-rhetorical question, "Why do more than six million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet?" In the same book, Prem Rawat was asked: "Guru Maharaj Ji, are you God?" to which he replied "No. My Knowledge is God." At a press conference during the 1973 Millennium gathering, Rawat denied to the press that he believed himself to be the Messiah, characterizing himself instead "as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in this world." A reporter then asked him about "a great contradiction" between what he said about himself and what his students were saying about him, and he responded by suggesting that the reporter ask the students making those claims themselves about that. In a still-later speech, Rawat was to characterize as mistaken the early Western reaction to him upon his arrival, saying, "when people saw me at that time, they really didn't understand what it was all about." In a proclamation published in 1975, Rawat also said, "I do not claim to be God, but do claim I can establish peace on this Earth by our Lord's Grace, and everyone's joint effort". Despite these and other declarations, some scholars, for example, the Dutch religious scholar and reverend, who specialized in new religious movements Reender Kranenborg wrote in 1982 article about the now-defunct DLM, that "in Maharaj ji's satsangs one can notice a speaking style that resembles very much some Christian evangelization campaigns: a pressing request, an emphasis on the last possibility to choose before it is too late and a terminology in which one is requested to surrender to the Lord, in this case Maharaj ji himself. The contents of the message is not Christian, though." In an article named Journey that he published in his personal website on January 1999, Prem Rawat writes about this apparent contradiction: People through the years have tried to place me in a mold, and from the very early years I have not been able to oblige them. When I was very young, people were looking for the "old silver-haired Guru with flowing white robes." I was only eight. When people were flocking to India for their search, I was in the West. When people were looking for sophisticated discourses, I spoke of simple things. When people wanted nirvana, I said, "You need peace." When people said, "Tell us of the scriptures," I said, "Look within you." When people asked, "What is your qualification?" I said, "Judge me by what I offer." To this day, some people see me the way they want to. After all, I guess it is rather inconvenient to see things as they really are. I have evolved, but my message stays the same. Externally, I have changed but within me, something stays the same. In that same article Rawat states that people wanted to see him as a figurehead and as a leader but that he does not want to be one or the other, and that all he wanted to do is speak to those who wanted to hear him, and impart the Knowledge to those that sought it. He also said that if people like what is given, to practice it and if not, to leave it.[23]
Marriage and family riftIn May 1974 at age sixteen Prem Rawat married a twenty-five year old flight attendant named Marolyn Johnson [31]. The marriage to a Westerner apparently precipitated a rift between Prem and his mother. A period of intense conflict in 1974 between Rawat and his mother and brother ensued. At that time Rawat took control of the Western DLM away from them, and his mother disowned him and returned to India with two of his brothers. According to a report in the People magazine (June 16, 1975), she announced that his son was corrupted by Western ways, strayed from the holy Hindu path and claimed he drank alcohol, ate meat and visited night clubs. She managed through legal actions to appoint the eldest brother, Satpal, as leader of the DLM in India. The other two brothers split in allegiance, one siding with Prem and one siding with Satpal. Most of the mahatmas in the West either returned to India with his mother or were fired. However, this focus on rumours about Rawat was contested by Bob Mishler, the president of Divine Light Mission at the time. He pointed out that people who looked at individual actions of Rawat like riding motorcycles or marrying an air hostess should look instead at the effect he has on the world, by the mark he leaves on society. [32]
As you can see, Satpal is given very short shrift. In particular, the article says nothing at all about his own claim to their father's legacy. Nothing at all in that respect. Anyway, now that you know that Wikipedia exists I hope you recognize the opportunity you have to both edit the Prem Rawat article to give it proper balance and to also start one about Satpal himself. Obviously, a man of his stature deserves this level of recognition. Sincerely, Jim Heller
Modified by Jim at Thu, Feb 16, 2006, 20:04:42
|
|
|
|
Now that really did make my morning. Jim, you are a furking genious me boy. That is just so ... everything. Perfect and hilarious at the same time. Hopefully they will take up the call to arms that is their divine calling and duty. What better way to fight fanatics than with other fanatics?But credit to T as well. Why didn't anyone see that sooner?
|
|
|
|
Jim, whatever I have said about you on this forum that had any negative connotations, I take it all back, even those times when I was right.
I got as far as thinking we need the dedication of a bunch of devotees to fight this wiki thing, and then was grateful again that we all have better things to do. But then you took it a step further, and found just the devotees to see to it!
When you run out of water, fight fire with fire. Brilliant!
|
|
|
|
(Hmm, you could weave a movie plot out of this kind of scenario: 'Guru Wars, II - the return of the Yogi'. Or a musical: 'Satpal and the amazing technicolour dreamcoat..'?) God, please let something now happen in Wikiworld... please, please, please!!! I promise I'll never bother you again...
Modified by nigel at Fri, Feb 17, 2006, 20:03:34
|
|
|
|
I thought Canadians were above such low tactics, but hey, 'divide & rule' is sometimes the only way to go.
Well done, Jim & T, I'll enroll you both as honorary members of the Nikal Seyn appreciation society.
|
|
|
|
This is an explicit claim to me, but probably not explicit enough for the students of Rawat who edit Wikipedia. Andries
|
|
|
|
Andries, What do you think about editting the article to include Rawat's brother, Satpal (a/k/a Bal Bhagwan Ji), who also claims the mantle of the father, who had the blessings of mom and one of the other brothers and who also has a large organization who thinks he's the man? Can you imagine? LOL!
|
|
|
|
I am negotiating with a religious based group at the mo to go in and do some drama stuff with the staff. So far in the preamble I've been psychically done over by people who don't realise their one sided antics are visible. The religious mind is ruthless. I don't know whether to bother putting myself in the firing line. Part of me despairs if I can not bring myself to negotiate with people with whom I disagree. It seems so precious, but on the other hand.... Love and vanity! Bryn
|
|
|
