Misplaced Pages

User talk:Janice Rowe: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:02, 9 February 2008 editJanice Rowe (talk | contribs)187 edits Rawat← Previous edit Revision as of 01:32, 5 March 2008 edit undoJossi (talk | contribs)72,880 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 54: Line 54:


] (]) ] (])

== Prem Rawat 1RR probation ==

Per the discussion at ], the articles now in ] are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at ]. ] <small>]</small> 01:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:32, 5 March 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Janice Rowe, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Alf 16:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Aw... Thank you. Janice Rowe 16:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Janice, with regards to Prem Rawat please keep in mind that Mishler is not the only former inner circle member who makes allegations of heavy drinking. Other people are Michael Dettmers, Rawat's former finance managaer. Dettmers first posted on a chat room but his indentity was verified , and Michael Donner, former American coordinator of the Divine Light Mission, also verified. Here is Rawat's response Andries 10:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I read with interest the comments in the discussion page. To me it looks like a straight case of character assassination by three former employees. Nevertheless, these accounts belong were they are: a website in which critics make their points. Do you side with these critics? and if so, why? --Janice Rowe
yes, I side with the critics because I consider Rawat a transparantly unreliable guru/teacher. Reasons why I think he is unreliable and dishonest include
  1. making claims of divinity or at least suggesting it and now denying to any responsibility for it and blaming it all on others
  2. leaving a lavish lifestyle while his followers lived or live, due to living in the ashrams or visiting all festivals/satsangs became impoverished.
I know from experience that they can cause havoc to people who devote their lives to the guru and his teachings. See my story calumny confirmed
I am interested to hear from you why you think that these three stories are a clear case of character assination. I admit that they may be just that, though I do not believe it but I do certainly not considet it a clear case. I really try to be open for evidence of being wrong and not to excessively sceptical of opposing point of views. I think it is quite common (I know some other inside stories not published on the internet) that gurus pretend to be pure to attract and keep followers which of course they are not and create an inner circle and keep things hidden from rank and file followers. Besides the Dutch professor of psychology in religion who wrote in a quite positive book about followers of gurus called Rawat a charlatan, leading a live of pleasures and idleness hidden away from rank and file followers.
Thanks in advance. Andries 20:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Being an ex-follower of a guru, your misapprehension of gurus may be understandable. Nevertheless, I know several followers of Prem Rawat and they do not seem empoverished or having their lives in havoc for following him. Also, in my readings of some of the speeches of Rawat I did not encounter any claims of being pure. --Janice Rowe


Clean-up tag

Hi Janice, I just saw you put up the correct tag for the "Spiritual approaches" section of Consciousness. Thanks! You should teach me how not to miss the obvious some time.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  23:20:35, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

You are welcome, έγκέφαλος --Janice Rowe 00:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Rawat

Hi Janice,

You left this phrasing in the Criticism section of the Prem Rawat article: " India, where he considered an heretic, stating that any man who says that all scriptures are true, is a heretic everywhere."

The meaning of that is not very clear to me: did he say something about all scriptures being true, from which all Indians conclude he is an heretic everywhere? Or what precisely? Can I ask to rephrase so that it would become clearer? thanks! --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hullo Francis. I took that from Messer's article. Have you read it? Janice Rowe (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, and that is precisely the point. Could you give a literal quote? Or, if it is already a literal quote, some of the surrounding text, so that the Misplaced Pages article makes sense to an average reader that hasn't read the book? Tx.
Also I'd rather like to discuss these points on the Prem Rawat talk page. Maybe it's just my dumb not to understand that sentence, if noone else has a problem with it, I'd be happy to learn about it.
Here's another of your edits I have a problem with, and would rather discuss on the Prem Rawat talk page, but anyhow here it is: - I looked around, but couldn't find "yesterday's version" where it would have come from. As a rebuttal of the scholar's assertions it misses the point too, imho. Note that I was in favour of having a "reception" section instead of a "criticism" section (see Talk:Prem_Rawat#Re._.7B.7Bcriticism-section.7D.7D), balancing positive reception and criticism - but even then I'd think this kind of rebuttal too trivial to keep in the article. So if you don't mind I'd remove that again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if a cite speaks of "idleness and pleasure", should not a counterpoint be offered?

This is the literal quote from Messer:

"Although Maharaj Ji is himself from India, is a guru, and offers a meditation technique, he is not clearly Eastern and is a subject of great controversy in India, where he is also a major heretic. Any man who says that all scriptures are true, that Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Krishna, and a host of others were all Christ, is a heretic everywhere. To many Western devotees he is plainly a Christian, but there is no clear definition there either. As a consequence, it is difficult to place Divine Light Mission among the religious movements in the West, and it operates as a bit of an outcast, refusing to join associations of different groups, and simultaneously refusing to admit that they are not also "premies, though they don't know it." Devotees will listen to Sat Sang from anyone and will give it to anyone, treating none who are not also devotees as if they had the whole truth and none as if they had missed the boat entirely. It is disconcerting to a Jehovah's Witness, for instance, to hear a devotee agree with every word he says and then respond with, "Except that He's already here; I know what you say is true because I've seen it."

Janice Rowe (talk)

Prem Rawat 1RR probation

Per the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)