|
|
|
...who don't have much already, are going to have to cough up more! Of course Rawat's "reaching out to them"--with a long pole and a moneybag on the end of it! It's too bad--but the extent to which people can be duped is amazing! We should know! Even with all our education, communications media etc etc etc.... Was it Plato who said, "people get the gods they deserve"? Shelagh, waking and stretching and yawning, but very content. It was a big sleep with some nice dreams thrown in--but who was the author of those dreams? ah-ah!
|
|
|
|
These remote villages succeed in pulling in crowds of "up to 300,000," while New Delhi (one of the most populated cities on earth) only brought in around 30,000?I know that some of that could be explained by the simple fact that New Delhi residents are probably more cosmopolitan than those villagers....... but we are talking an order of magnitude difference AND the fact that the reported numbers are actually an order of magnitude different (both start with a 3, number of zeros is the only difference). That caught my eye, right away.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps there's a looophole in their conscience, along the lines of, adding zeros is only adding nothing, not exaggeration. Under challenge, it could be said to have been a typoo.
Modified by LP at Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 13:10:30
|
|
|
|
Better known as NAR's Notes (no relationship to Cliff's Notes):300,000 = 3 x 10^5
30,000 = 3 x 10^4 The difference between 5 and 4 is just one, so the effect can be discounted. Why, you ask? Because 10^1 is just 10. See? No difference between 10 and 10^1, therefore no difference between 10^4 and 10^5. They are the exact same number. Not only that, as you so astutely noticed, young LP, the "1" that they are talking about only refers to a zero anyway, so they can just throw one in or out without any concern. Very well done, Maharaji-Math student. I digress..... Therefore 300,000=30,000=3,000=300=3. Three (3) is probably about the right number in both cases, actually 
Modified by NAR at Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 14:21:24
|
|
|
|
Have you heard about the '840,000 yoga positions'? http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=840000+yoga+positions&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Or have you heard the other one about '84,000 yoga positions'? http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=84000+yoga+positions&btnG=Search&meta= In each case, the figure is parrotted as fact on numberous web-pages But even the lower of the two numbers seems implausible given the limited bending and stretching alternatives you'd expect to be possible with one torso and four limbs. Or are there thousands of microscopic variations in the angle of any given posture? More likely, as with Prem's attendance figures, its all a game of Chinese Whispers starting with an uninformed guess, then passed on and distorted by others with no particular concern for accuracy.
Modified by Nigel at Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 06:30:14
|
|
|
|
it doesn't matter, 840,000 = 840 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 840, which might be a rough number of how many named yoga positions there are, I'd say there's at least 84, I doubt there's much more than 840 if that. Slight variations in angles shouldn't count as different postures, either a certain name should stand for a range of variations of a certain posture (similar to 'red' standing for many different reds), or if there's a "proper" alignment, than variations are considered incorrect (sometimes they really are).
If slight differences in angles are counted, then yes, there's lots, but the 840,000 figure is over-the-top hyperbole, e.g. the statement "There are 840,000 poses mentioned in the Yoga Shastras." I'm not up on Shastras, but I don't THINK so. Why the hyperbole? I don't know.
I like yoga for the exercise and the calming down effect that sometimes happens. I'd rather not read about God-in-a-half-human-half-snake-bod (or half elephant).
In the case of the 200,000 attendance figure, my guess that it's meant as deception to try to keep the donations coming in, for a bandwagon effect, and to try to justify the expense of Rawat's expensive helicopter.
Modified by G at Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 21:52:00
|
|
|
|
You (collectively) keep reminding me of times when I saw signs that things weren't right...
Very early on, at a time when Gurucharand could do no wrong for me, he was telling me of a program in India. To impress me with how great it was, he went straight to attendance figures. Up until that moment his smile had seemed as clear as the Buddha's, in fact I thought he was way more impressive than m, (tho' of couse that was just mind).
As he got to the point of saying: "... and there were chrores and chrores of people...." his blissed out smile changed strangely, suddenly his smile looked a bit like Eli Wallach's;when playing the part of Calvera, (the mexican bandit leader in 'The Magnificent Seven'). I felt I peculiar pang of apprehension, shiver through me.
I swept it away, but that image, with its seed of doubt remained, somewhere. A few months ago, my ex wife's premie friend put him on the phone to me while he visited there for a day or so for a small program. Reluctantly I accepted, just to say hello; , (we had been very close once).
His first words to me after decades, were: "Ah ----------- , m's mission grows by leaps and bounds, so-oh many people are taking k".
Yeah.... right! (Some things never change).
Modified by LP at Sun, Apr 23, 2006, 03:21:29
|
|
|
|
I think I remember that Shri Hans propagated in certain areas (some of which ended up in Pakistan?) more than others. The Sant Tradition was centered in some areas and after all Shri Hans was walking most of the time. His sons have basically inherited the fathers' followers so their support would be regional as well.
|
|
|
|
Reender Kranenborg and Wim Haan have written about the early followers of Hans Maharaj. Haan used to post on forum 8 some time ago under the nickname Pompel. Unfortunately I archived the extensive article by Wim Haan somewhere in a file and now I can no longer find it. I found not a single mistake in his article which is something that I cannot exactly say about other scholarly articles about new religious movements. Some of them are riddled with inaccuracies or glaring omissions. Andries
|
|
|
|
Andries Is the original writing from Wm Haan amongst this list?
|
|
|
|
Yes, the title is Haan, Wim (Dutch language) ''De missie van het Goddelijk licht van goeroe Maharaj Ji'' from the series ''Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland: Feiten en Visies'' nr. 3, autumn 1981, edited by Drs. R. Bakker, Drs C. J. G. van der Burg, Dr. Reender Kranenborg, Dr. Jan van der Lans, and Drs. H. C. Stoffels (The study is mainly based on the Dutch branch of the Divine Light Mission) ISBN 90-242-2341-5
Please note that this is an article by a "cult apologist" by which I mean a non-pejorative classification for somebody who does not write very critical about cults and disagrees with the generalizations made by the "anti-cult movement" (whatever that term may mean: I have yet to see a clear, generally agreed upon definition of the anti-cult movement). I translated some excerpts http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/f8archive/posts/6258.html Here is an excerpt that I partially translated http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/f8archive/posts/8941.html Andries
Modified by Andries at Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 06:35:00
|
|
|
|
Completely different interpretations would be found depending upon the time any research into DLM or EV was done. The jargon, organisational focus and methodology can and has changed dramatically from one month to the next.
Any research would have to consider the underlying relationship between Rawat and those of his followers who have remained with him all the way to fully understand the group. Among other things it has appeared to be a millenial, apocalyptic movement, a social welfare, personal growth movement, a bhakti movement, etc. Rawat has always made the rules, Rawat has been the main recipient of the financial rewards, the only human recipient apart from his brother and other dependants but some money has actually gone into running the organisations and he's the only one who actually talks about the group's techniques. Is there another group of this size where that is true?
What makes it most difficult for a researcher is that any reasonably committed follower will lie about the group's raison d'etre and parrot the current official line and that Rawat has spoken so often that there's hardly anything he hasn't said and contradictory quotes can always be found.
Modified by Ocker at Sun, Apr 23, 2006, 18:35:27
|
|
|
|
"In one state where we went,
there were 8,000 who knew about his message before the event, and these
8,000 people came with 200,000 guests."
"one state"? Why not name the state, what's so hard about that? How about some evidence?
So how does one either verify or falsify this claim?
It seems like the sizes claimed are inversely proportional to verifiability.
Are we to believe that ALL 8,000 who knew about "his message" came? and they brought an average of 25 guests each?
What kind of guests?
How many languages was it said that Rawat knew?
Just what was it that was supposed to happen at the Astrodome?
I believe these claims as much as I believed the financial stats that used to be shown on Elan Vital's web site (the numbers were divied up in percentages like 33.33%), or as much as I believe the claims of the PR Foundation.
Modified by G at Fri, Apr 21, 2006, 22:38:01
|
|
|
|
I think that "there were 8,000 who knew about his message" means there were 8,000 premies and presumably these registered in some way so the org knew they were members. Then when 200,000 people turned up at the event (assuming this number is correct) that means there were an estimate of 200,000 people attending over the duration of the festiva, and EV counts them arriving in the morning, leaving for lunch, coming back in the afternoon, etc, etc.
Did these people know what they were attending? Is it unusual for crowds of this size to attend religious festivals in those areas? What else do they have to do in these poor villages after all? If I lived in a poor Indian village, I'd walk a day to see a 300-sqare-foot, state-of-the-art daylight projection screen no matter what was projected onto it.
Wait until he starts getting 200,000 people in the West.
|
|
|
|
Modified by LP at Sat, Apr 22, 2006, 16:24:54
|
|
|
|
"Prem Rawat, known worldwide as Maharaji, has addressed more than 1.7 million people at events throughout rural India."
That's nothing, I addressed the complete population of London recently, with my short lecture, "Beware of gurus. They want your money too."
I spoke to all 12 million (take note Captain Rawat-not a measly 1.7). I addressed them from a wooden box in my back garden, and used a rolled up magazine as a loud hailer, to increase the volume of my voice.
Of course, not all of them were concentrating or could make out all the words- but I'm sure it was the same for your audience too.
I would also like to point out that I count each member of my audience once, unlike yourself, who counts them each time they go through the turnstile. This is cheap statistics, to double the attendance include an hour for lunch. To quadruple it, add a couple of tea breaks. If you do it properly, you can turn a crowd of less than a hundred, into over a thousand at a three day event.
I remember in 1971, one of your leaflets claimed that there were 6,000,000 people waiting to see at India Gate when you came back to India. I think the statistic-wallah's abacus was on methedrine during that day.
Anth, oh, I remember, he was counting the invisible souls who had flocked to your eighteen holy lotus feet.
(I counted them each time they went through the turnstile)
|
|
|
