Talk:Current teachings of Prem Rawat

Archive 1

it should be clearly stated in big letters that only rawat is seen by his students and himself as competent to explain his teachings, no matter how long a student is practicing. i think this is important, because in comparison to other teachings like math, physics. etc, this is a pretty unique fact. and if this has been different in the history of the whole thing, why that change appeared. This matter seems to be so sacred to students/premies, that it comes close to religious feelings that get hurt. thomas

This is a good point, Thomas. We need to add a paragraph or two about the importance of the teacher and the role of "reminding" that the teacher undertakes. I will work on this, as well as adding something about the relationship between the teacher and the student, as Maharaji presents it. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

you are welcome.thomas

this is nuts

I'm beginning to see why the "obsessive hate group" label is sticking. I can see where the anti people should have a say in criticism-- that's their schtick.

But all I see here is obsessive ranting. Indeed, the apostates can't possibly write about what THEY understood the teachings to be today, based on what THEY thought and rejected five, or fifteen years ago. Utter gibberish.

Do these people think that the skinheads and American Nazis should have the ability to weigh in on the teaching of Judiasm? Perhaps they should also voice their criticism in any section on Moses, too.

These people rejected the teachings. They had all that in their "criticism" section. Now they want to go back and add more? Insane, totally insane.

And leave my girlfriend out of it, you creeps. She volunteered to help, did a good job and just like a hate group you lot are now trying to probe into her personal life and motives. I've seen the archives where you people do this over and over. Way out of line, sickos. Richard G. 13:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Richard, where is the hatred? I was a student of Maharaji's for over 25 years. I have listened to him speak for longer than most students listen to professors to gain their PHDs. I have practiced what he taught, sought regular reviews of what he taught, two of them being from Maharaji himself. I have suggested (only seeking a discussion so far) that maybe the meditation techniques and his earlier teachings should be included in this article. What is wrong, sick or hateful about that? I can understand your emotional attachment to your girlfriend's writing, but your reaction including references to skinheads and nazis seems a little 'out of line'. I hope contributors with less emotional involvement can give their views. --John Brauns 18:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

you are a teacher?.thomas

Richard, you are the one who brought your girlfriend into this project. I was simply asking for provenance. I object to this article because it is clearly based on the POV of a devotee of Prem Rawat,is a complete whitewash, and inaccurate without any background material. I don't know why you are referring to me in the plural (creeps) because I don't consult others when I place my opinions/comments here. Yet, now you have come to a point that you believe what Elan Vital has said about ex-premies being a hate group, and worse, you have called me a Nazi, a skinhead, and a sicko. I have to inform you Richard, that this is not about freedom of religion. It's about a cult leader who wants free advertisement.

You have stated that you are not a premie. I assert that neither you, nor anyone here who has not been involved with Prem Rawat, received knowledge, practiced it as prescribed by Rawat himself, and that includes GaryD and Zappaz, can never, ever know how destructive this man really is to the people who follow him. In short, he is a destructive cult leader. You can call me whatever names you want, but it does not matter that I left five years ago. Prem Rawat's "teachings" are not that complicated, but his revisionism is very complicated. That's why his teachings are so secretive. I also assert that he has devolved in a way that is only more destructive to those who have (especially) been long-time followers/true believers of his divinity, and continue to be the same.

As a teacher, you surely must know the difference between being a teacher of a subject, and someone who has "teachings." There is an enormous difference. This "NRM" is a destructive cult because the person who leads it is deceitful, self-destructive himself, and worse, he uses his own followers in the most cynical way and he is very abusive. There is ample proof of this.

For you to characterize me as a Nazi who wants to be involved in the writing about Judaism is a remark that is beyond the pale. If you didn't want your girlfriend involved, you should have kept her out of it. That was your decision, you made it, now you are obligated to stand up to the scrutiny. Your arrogance about this subject, which again, you known next to nothing about, is unacceptable, and I don't care if you have fifteen doctorate degrees -- you still don't understand what Rawat is about. I assert that this article has no purpose other than to advertise Prem Rawat's personality cult. It's beyond being an NRM. It's without question, a cult that has members who worship a living person. Maybe you, Richard, are in denial about it because someone is involved who is so close to home. That's your personal problem, not mine. Meanwhile, I have a right to say what I want without being called a Nazi! That's a moronic thing to say, college degrees or not.

Another Ex-Premie 17:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is that you Cynthia?: give it a break, would you? Funny,... same three, same three Cynthia, John, Jim. The three musketers! :) --64.81.88.140 18:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You really want me to be Cynthia, don't you? That would give you the EV/Rawat license to discredit anything I say because of the EV Australian FAQs that characterize Cynthia as mentally unstable. I now ask you this: Why, when the hate-group allegations were recently published on the U.S/NAM EV website, they did not include the smear campaign about Cynthia's mental health? Was that a legal manuever to avoid civil litigation?

Well, you won't get to do that with me. Btw, what the hell is YOUR name? Are you so ashamed or afraid of being a premie that you choose remain anonymous, hiding? When I was a true-believing premie I would have proudly defended Rawat as my LORD At least Jossi, misguided as he is, has the balls to put his name to his comments. Not so with you, "140." Are you too afraid to disclose your own identity because your guru is a totally disgusting creep of a cult leader? Believe me, Cynthia is not the only ex-premie who knows the facts about Rawat and she doesn't have all the facts, either (even though she likes to think that, bless her heart).

There are plenty of people who know what's behind this advertisement of Prem Rawat. Guess again, you coward. I'm now thinking that Zappaz has received knowledge because he certainly has chosen his alliance, even though he claims to be a NPOV neutral Wiki person. S/he seems to be completely biased in your court of "Luv." I'm planning to work on this article, but I have a life. I have to fit this learning curve of NPOV and the time to edit this article, with my life and career, which I can assure you that I will. But, I'm not going to sacrifice my career for this article. You premies are so predicable. Cynthia! LOL! Cynthia doesn't know everything, even though sometimes that how she comes across and sometimes that what she thinks. I like Cynthia, but she doesn't know everything.

Another Ex-Premie 23:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What a stupid comment! As if YOU aren't the same Team Rawat too: You, Jossi, Richard, Zappaz ... give me a break.

-- Jim

The more you say, Richard, the phonier you look. Your girlfriend, if she really exists, should be available to defend her article and her edits just like anyone else. Where is she?

In any event, whether your supposed girlfriend or anyone else does it, this article needs work. It needs context. Rawat's teachings had their genesis in India. How much do they differ with similar teachings of other India gurus? Rawat's always purported to be unique amongst teachers. Is he? Don't you think that's a fair issue for commentary in this article? Likewise, don't you think it's fair to compare Rawat's teachings with those of his brother, seeing as both claim to be the authentic heirs of Shri Hans?

And Rawat's teachings have most definitely changed over time. Isn't that worthy of comment? Like I said, he used to urge us to try to "realize Knowledge" which meant aspiring to a state where the mind was defeated once and for all. God-realization, in other words (HIS other words, by the way). He claimed that he, his immediate family and even his holy men, his mahatmas, had achieved that goal. If we "surrendered" ourselves completely, we, too, could get there. Then one day he stopped talking about that way. He stopped encouraging premies to try to meditate every moment of every day (yes, including sleep!). Now, not only does he no longer encourage premies to try to realize Knowledge, he doesn't even acknowledge that it's possible. You don't have to hate Rawat to notice this change and the article should mention it.

Another very big part of Rawat's teaching has concerned the mind. Like I said before, he used to tell premies on initiation that it was poison and Knowledge the antidote. In the late seventies, he used to tell horror stories about how the mind would replicate even our finest sentiments and purest thoughts just to trap us and eventually take us away from Rawat. Some might say this was astute advice. Others would say it was the hallmark of a cult leader. No article about Rawat's teachings would be complete without some mention of this issue.

Then there was "Grace", something else that was central to Rawat's teachings for decades. Not just any old grace either. HIS grace. The Grace of Guru Maharaj Ji. He didn't just suggest that we pray to him for it, he even told us exactly what to pray. We've got those satsangs safely archived as proof. How could any article about Rawat's teachings not go there?

See, it's not as if Rawat used to teach something completely different, geography, say, and how he's teaching math. I mean, even then, perhaps, a proper article about Rawat's teachings might explain that. But here it's all the same subject but with minor -- and major -- variations. And seeing as Rawat has done a piss poor job of ever properly withdrawing former teachings of his that he no longer actively espouses, there are many, many premies who still subscribe to some of his formerly espoused views. All you have to do is read the "Expressions" on ELK, for instance, to see how many people think that Rawat's Grace is guiding them daily. They still pray to him like never before. We can provide undeniable proof to that effect.

Even how Knowledge is transmitted must be discussed as that's changed too over time. It used to require the physical touch of an authorized conduit of the Master's Grace. That's who the mahatmas were. Thus when they squeezed your eyes gently doing the light technique they were supposedly opening your third eye. We can prove this too and boy has it ever changed!  :)

Then there's the whole issue about "Satsang, Service and Meditation" which used to be the path as Rawat described it for decades. Boy has that ever changed! It used to be essential that we all allow Rawat's Grace to talk through us incessantly. Now only he can do the talking!

Anyway, clearly, clearly, this is not going to be easy for you guys. Rawat has definitely instructed premies to not discuss him or his Knowledge other than to say it's great, he's great. But you wanted this article. This was all your idea. Now I think it's the best thing since sliced bread.

As for NPOV, sure, I think it's dumb but that's the name of the game here and I accept it. So let's all work together to make this the best NPOV article ever!

)

Jim

There are a huge number of misconceptions made by the ex-premies. That is why their input into an article about Maharaji's teahnings is just not possible. Jim's comments about his mis-understandings of the teachnings is just, well, too funny to read! I do not have time to comment now. But expect a line-by-line comment from me. ROFL! --64.81.88.140 18:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've asked Gary to intervene

Clearly we need a neutral editor here. While I have some misgivings about Gary, he's obviously the closest thing to one the other articles ever got. Zappaz and Richard have now completely tossed off any veneer of impartiality. So, once we get a reasonable editor here, we should start working on this article. Boy oh boy!

Jim

As you can see, Jim has requested that I intervene here as a neutral, or at least show up and make a comment. As you can tell, I have been lurking, doing some low-level maintenance and adding an explanatory note or two regarding my prior work here. I'm sorry if I disappoint you, Jim, but I don't think there's anything substantial for me to do yet. The way the process seems to work among this group, first there has to be a complete venting of spleens on all sides and an initial heated combat, unfortunately probably all on the talk page. Then there has to be a dump of "pro" and "anti" material in the article; so far, most of the heat has been on the talk page (grown to 36KB already), and I don't mediate talk-page disputes. It is only after that point that I or another editor accepted as a neutral by both sides can profitably come in and do copyedit work on all the conflicting raw material in the article, because just like all the other PR areas I've worked on, I don't know anything about his teachings, pro or con, and so cannot contribute on that basis. I've seen a bunch of references here to lots of other material, but I haven't yet seen any of the actual material. So I think I'll just sit with my popcorn and hot dog awhile and watch a few more rounds of the fight. --Gary D 19:15, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Jim and others ex-es, do some work yourself and do not leave it to Andries or Gary

Jim and other ex-es, why don't you make some edits in the article yourself? Why always leave the difficult work to me and Gary_D? Andries 19:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now that's a damn good question, Andries! Here's my excuses. First, I have some serious reserations about any Wiki article to begin with because, as I said from the start, I see Wiki as a refuge for indefensible ideas. But I'm obviously ambivalent enough to care to some extent at least. That's why I keep commenting.

Also, I have a real hard time with the idea that I'll post something only to have it deleted as happened when I first tried to add something to the earlier Rawat article. Gary says it's all part of the process. I disagree. I think that there's a better way to do this and that's to hash out some basic parameters for the article first. It might all amount to the same thing but, intellectually, that just rubs me the wrong way. First principles seem like the logical starting point.

But, yes, Andries, I'll contribute this time. I'm going to be in a trial over in Vancouver this next week but, depending on my circumstances, may or may not be able to spend some time with this there.

Jim

Is it okay to reference "The Keys" when they're not available for inspection?

The only reference offered for the current article is "The Keys, September 2004, presented by Maharaji". But unless these are openly available for inspection, this is hardly a legitimate attribution, is it? How do WE know what "The Keys" say or don't say?

--24.68.220.3 20:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

Principles

• This is an article about the teachings of Maharaji, as Maharaji presents them today. It is an absolutely valid proposition to include in an encyclopedia these teachings untainted by criticism.
• The Prem Rawat article and Criticism of Prem Rawat articles contain plenty of historical information already. There is no need to repeat it here.
• Ex-premies have had their chance to present their POV about all the issues thay raise in this talk page. If they feel that they "forgot" some points, they can go there and add it.
• If ex-premies want to write an article about their recollection of the teachings of Maharaji from 10, 15 or 20 years ago, they can do it, although I doubt the encyclopedic relevance of such an article. For example, If I was a practicing ortodox jew 20 years ago, what value would have an article in which I make comments on what I remebered today of what I was taught by my Rabbi then. Ridiculous isnt' it?.
• Adding to the ridiculossness of this debate is the unnatural notion that three ex-premies here consider themselves "experts" on the subject and want to "contribute" to explain to the public at large the teachings of Maharaji!. Well... that is just too sad to comment on. Too sad indeed (or funny if you wish).
• ≈ jossi ≈ 21:08, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, this article can and should say that the teaching have changed over the years. Its title is not Current teachings of Prem Rawat. Andries 21:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. The teachings have not changed one iota. That is the ex-premie party line. What has evolved is the presentation.
2. Satsang, Service, Meditation, Master was called in the 70's. Now it is called different: keep in touch, participate, practice, Teacher. This is already covered in the Techniques of Knowledge article
3. The reason for the change in nomenlature? Already explained in the main article Prem_Rawat#Turn_toward_Western_modes_of_teaching
4. We could add a summary of that here to give context.
5. We also need to add to the article two missing points: the importance of the teacher and the relationship teacher/student. (Although the latter is already covered somewhat in the Techniques of Knowledge article).

≈ jossi ≈ 21:31, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Gary D reconsiders: A procedural proposal

Perhaps I was too hasty in waving off Jim's invitation before. While I don't believe either side trusts the other side or me enough to agree in advance in principle to material before they've seen it, on the other hand we are all familiar with a procedure that worked for us before on the other article and that everybody seemed able to live with, and maybe I can contribute now by making a similar suggestion here: since the "anti" editors may be concerned about being prematurely reverted, why don't the "pro" editors agree to a "no-revert" truce period in which "anti" editors' material can be put in raw without being molested, and the "anti" editors agree to get their material in within a definite time, for final editing thereafter? Let's also for the truce period put at the top of the article the following "under construction" disclaimer I originally used on the /temp1 main article, so that no one needs be worried that readers coming upon the article for the first time will be misled either way:

Note: this article is currently undergoing substantial editing. During this construction period the article may temporarily display POV, factual inaccuracies, fragmentation, and poor readability. Please be patient, and discuss on [[Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat/temp1|its talk page]] before effecting reverts or substantial deletes.

For a truce time period for assembling "anti" material, I propose three weeks, which is until November 1. I see Jim has already begun putting material on the page today, which bodes well for the "anti" editors moving right along. If it is going to take longer than that, I would suggest the "anti"s take the raw material to a /temp page instead, as three weeks is about the longest we can ask the "pros" to live with this burr under their saddle prior to a neutral edit.

Is this proposed process something the "pros" and the "antis" might want to agree to? --Gary D 23:34, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary. Yes, I agree that this sounds reasonable. I'm going to invite other exes to contribute as well. See what happens. I wonder, though, would you mind opining briefly about what position you think you and other Wiki editors will take vis-a-vis the issues? This article's different than the others. I think exes will be able to easily prove the kinds of things I've mentioned as demonstrated in my initial addition. In that case, not only did Rawat say it (which is beyond reasonable dispute, the excerpt being part of an official DLM publication), but he even made a point of offering his explanation in classic teaching language ("Previously we were talking about hell and heaven, but now we are going to identify, to verify the states of heaven and hell.") The only complaints the supporters have is that the history and genesis of Rawat's teachings are somehow irrelevant. It'd be nice to know right now if this material is going to be protected here or not.

--24.68.220.3 23:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)Jim

Sorry, but I must disagree, Gary. This is not about pro and con sides. This is about the teachings of Maharaji as Maharaji teaches them in 2004 , not 30 years ago. So this is what I have done:

• Renamed this article Current teachings of Prem Rawat as suggested by Andries. This article is to stay as is more or less, with the addition of a section as committed before about the importance of the teacher and the relationship student/teacher.
• I have created a new article called Evolution of Teachings of Prem Rawat in which we can write an historical progression and document that evolution. I moved there thee last text entered. Some of the text from the main article can then be moved to that article, no point in keeping it in two places.

Let anyone with a liking for the past to write up a good article about the history of Maharaji's teachings. And let those more atuned to the present write an excellent one about the current teachings.

≈ jossi ≈ 02:17, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, one small point but one I think you would appreciate - the title of the article Current teachings of Prem Rawat strongly implies that Rawat's teachings have changed, which I know is a view you don't hold. I can't think of a better title as 'Current Presentation of the teachings of Prem Rawat' is clearly far too cumbersome. Also, the Knowledge session is still a fundamental part of his current teachings, so I cannot see how it could be excluded from this article, even if the argument that his earlier 'presentations' should be moved elsewhere is carried. To be honest, I cannot see how you could ever be happy with a scholarly article on Rawat's teachings, in the same way that I could never be happy with what I see as an advertisement for Rawat's guru business. If someone was to propose abandoning the article, I would not object! --John Brauns 08:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The ones keeping tabs on and documenting the past of Rawat are most definitively the 'anti' group, so it is a good idea that they get a stab at writing the historical article. They have the sources!. Don't see many 'pro' people interested in that ... by reading the extensive comments on this page (that btw, have been archived due to length). It makes sense, as we will need good articles on the teachings both from a current and an historical perspective. This adds to the interest of this subject, as there are not many spiritual teachers out there that afford themselves the luxury of evolution. Once we have these two articles written we could add a summary about this very interesting fact to the main article as well. --Senegal 02:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that this is a good compromise and will ensure things waters remain calm "round this parts". I am not in the mood, neither have the time or inclination for a new "battle". Two teams working on two different articles unencumbered by edit wars, 32K for each, Gary exercising final copyedits to everyone's delight, well ... a WP win! :-) Let the editing begin! --Zappaz 04:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So it turns out my initial intuition was correct, it was too early to intervene, only I didn't foresee the form the hitch would take. As the keystone of my proposal was mutual free agreement, in the absense of that, my proposal is "not carried," as they say, and I commend you instead to the good graces of the ex-premies. If they agree to this arrangement, you can move forward on that basis. Heck, if you and they can come to agreement, you don't need me. There are a few things to keep in mind, however:

• There is no such thing as a Wikipedia article with a limited group of editors. Two articles does not and cannot mean one is "your" article and one is "their" article; the ex-premies retain full rights to edit "PR's teachings-now," as you retain full rights to edit "PR's teachings-then."
• This arrangement transforms the original "Teachings of Prem Rawat" page, what I would call the "tactical high ground," into an open redirect anyone can edit. Unless the ex-premies have agreed to this arrangement, you run the risk the ex-premies will simply start building their article there and cut you out entirely, which if you have not secured their agreement they are well within their Wikipedia rights to do.
• The only reason Ed Poor, and me right behind him, and legions of Wikipedians right behind me, aren't clamoring for the combination of the main PR and criticism articles is that their combined total length exceeds 32KB. Considering that this arrangement involves a split between the far more closely related articles, "PR's teachings-then" and "PR's teachings-now," if you hope to keep these articles separated permanently, you would need to write nearly 32KB of really tight, excellent, non-redundant prose, and hope the ex-premies are equally verbose, or the "Wikipedia abhors a fractured article" principle will take over and the two articles will find themselves smacked together in a shotgun marriage anyway, and without the benefit of consensus building along the way.

Good luck. May you avoid the dogs of (edit) war. --Gary D 07:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Gary, I don't see a reason why this cannot be be worked out:

• There is no reason why we should not consider merging the 'teachings then' and 'teachings now' articles once these have been developed. Jossi was of the suggestion that core teachings have not changed, so this should not be a problem
• Anyone is welcome to edit any of the articles. Simply, there are people here that have more of an "handle" on the early days and others are more attuned to the current days. Let those gravitate to the article of they can contribute better.

--Zappaz 11:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)