Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:59, 16 April 2008

The Misplaced Pages Community has placed this article on 1RR probation Articles in category:Prem Rawat are subject to community-enforced article probation restrictions for a period of three months, ending June 4 2008. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per day), or that engage in disruptive editing may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins, or have other reasonable restrictions placed on them in relation to these topics. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. Violations, along with a link to this probation notice, should be posted to WP:AN/I, where uninvolved editors will make a determination.

New article

Hello all. I have set up this new article as a companion piece to the Prem Rawat article, to try to give a fair and neutral idea of the flavour of Prem Rawat's speeches in his long public life. The attempts I have observed elsewhere to deal with this topic, while apparently sincere, seem mostly to be based on the partially informed views of biased observers, and concentrate on the time when Prem Rawat was still a teenager. This is unfair, and I can think of no one else it would be applied to. I invite editors to improve this article in compliance with wp:blp. Rumiton 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just removed some more unsourced, opinionated and libellous ravings from Wowest, thinly disguised, as usual, as humour. This is exactly the sort of behaviour on Misplaced Pages that results in permanent banning. Take it as a warning or not, I don't care much. Rumiton 12:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wowest: these pages are not a discussion forum or a chat room. Talk pages are provided to discuss improvements to the articles in Misplaced Pages. You can engage in private conversations, to some extent, in your personal talk page User_talk:Wowest, or the personal talk pages of editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. And comparing a living person with no record of wrongdoing to a convicted murderer is libellous. And yes, talk pages are a public place, anyone can read what is written here. To avoid causing hurt to innocent persons, any controversial opinion needs to be backed up by references to multiple reputable sources. Rumiton 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, please have Wowest blocked.Momento 00:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. I get the feeling he has spent time on the kind of forum where you can say anything you like so long as it's nasty and the locals will flock to tell you how clever you are. That's the worst apprenticeship for Misplaced Pages work, and creates disruptive and time-wasting Wiki editors. No more of this. Rumiton 09:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User has been warned in his talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This page looks impressive in NPOV. Job is done nicely here. But sadly, the main page of Prem Rawat only seems to be a chronological submission of criticism. Can't something be done to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxed123 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Some sources

• Hummel

“Eine systematisch entwickelte Lehre hat die Divine Light Mission weder zur Zeit des Vaters Śhrī Hans noch des Sohnes besessen. Beide haben darin eher einen Vorzug als einen Mangel gesehen. Hatte der Vater sich vornehmlich als >>Guru der Armen<< verstanden und sich in einer bilderreichen Sprache mehr um praktische Anwendbarkeit als um theoretische Durchdringung bemüht, so blieb doch der Inhalt seiner Satsangs auf dem Hintergrund der Hinduistischen Tradition klar verständlich. Die Satsangs jedoch, die der Sohn im Westen gehalten hat und die mit einem Minimum hinduistischer Terminologie und Konzepte auskommen, müssen für den nichthinduistischen Hörer vage bleiben. Der junge Guru erklärt das konzeptionelle Denken, das auch in deutschen Übersetzungen mit dem englischen Wort >>mind<< bezeichnet wird, als Hauptfeind der unmittelbaren religösen Erfahrung. So ist es nicht verwunderlich, daβ von seinen Anhängern nur wenig Handfestes über die DLM-lehre zu erfahren ist. Andererseits eröffent ihnen der Mangel an vorgegebenen Konzepten einen Freiraum für Äuβerungen einer spontanen Subjektivität, die wohltuend vom unselbständigen Reproduzieren autoritativ verkündenter Lehren absticht, wie man es vor allem dei den Anhängern der ISKCON antrifft. Wie auch immer die Bewertung ausfallen mag - die geistige Konturlosigkeit der Bewegung fällt allen Beobachtern auf."

Neither in the time of the father, Shri Hans, nor in that of the son, did the Divine Light Mission possess a systematically developed set of teachings. Both saw as presenting more problems than advantages. Although the father saw himself primarily as the Guru of the Poor, and his discourses that were rich in metaphors were more concerned with practical applications than with penetrating theory, yet his satsangs could always be understood against a background of Hindu tradition. But the satsangs that his son held in the west, which he managed with a minimum of Hindu terms and concepts, still remain vague for the non-Hindu listener. The young Guru explains that conceptual thinking, translated with the English word “mind” in German translations also, is the main enemy of direct religious experience. It is therefore hardly surprising that little firm information about DLM teachings can be obtained from his followers. On the other hand, the lack of professed concepts allows them a freedom of expression which is spontaneous and personal, and which makes an agreeable contrast with the unexamined reproduction of received teachings which one especially finds in the devotees of Iskcon. Whatever judgment one may have about the movement, its intellectual lack of contours is clear to all observers."

• Hunt:

one's "own nature." The Knowledge includes four secret meditation procedures: Light, Music, Nectar and Word. The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher:: The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion, but the adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full.

For Elan Vital, the emphasis is on individual, subjective experience, rather than on a body of dogma. The teachings provide a kind of practical mysticism. Maharaji speaks not of God, but of the god or divinity within, the power that gives existence.

Although such references apparently suggest an acceptance of a creative, loving power, he distances himself and his teachings from any concept of religion.

• Geaves:

The teachings were essentially Hindu in origin, embracing a worldview that accepted transmigration of souls, karma, human avatars and imbedded in an interpretation of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. However, a discerning listener would have recognized the radical voice of the North Indian nirguna bhaktas, also defined as Sants, notably Nanak and Kabir, especially in the message of universalism, equality and the focus on inwardness rather than the outward forms of Hinduism.

Although occasionally drawing upon Indian anecdotes to use as examples for his teachings and referring to Kabir and Nanak, there is apparently little in his current idiom that could be linked to Hinduism, on the contrary, he openly challenges transmigration and the law of karma as only belief systems that cannot be verified as fact.

Although there are many who would assert that his authority lies in his charisma, Prem Rawat himself has stated that he does not consider himself to be a charismatic figure, preferring to refer to his teachings and the efficacy of the practice of the four techniques on the individual as the basis of his authority.

• Barret:

"Elan Vital has now dropped all of its original Eastern religious practices. Unusually, the fact that Maharaji came from a lineage of 'Perfect Masters' is no longer relevant to the reformed movement. This is not where the authority comes from, nor the recognitin of Maharaji as the master by his student; this comes rather from the nature of the teaching and its benefit to the individual."

The experience is on individual, subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma, and in its Divine Light days the movement was sometime criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect. The teachings could perhaps best described as practical mysticism.

• Stonner and Parke

Guru Maharaj Ji claims to understand the key to the essence and spirit of knowledge and truth. He says he is in touch with the force of life that lurks in the inner recesses of all living things. He promises the same to those who will follow him. "He who seeks truth, finds it," the young guru tells his disciples.

The Divine Light Mission gives equal billing to all well-known religions and their scriptures, the Torah and all the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, and the Bhagavadgita. Perhaps because the movement originated in India it emphasizes the teachings of the Hindu scriptures, the Bhagavadgita. The God of Divine Light resembles the impersonal concept of infinite power and energy of the Hindu omnipresence more than it does Western man's image of a rational and willful God who created the Universe and has a plan for it.

Maharaj Ji teaches that God is the source of all life. "God is an omniscient power that is hidden in the secret recesses of all living things..."

• Messer

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

• Edwards:

In its earlier existence Divine Light teaching derived mainly from Hinduism. Maharaj Ji, as the guru, imparted wisdom upon his followers. The guru taught that humanity is inherently divine. For people to attain this divinity, which came from the teachings of Guru Maharaj Ji, who is of the line of Perfect Masters.

Maharaji now teaches a simple self-discovery process, involving the use of four simple techniques to turn the senses within and appreciate the joyful basis of existence beyond thoughts and ideas. He denies that his teachings represent instant gratification, but he sees it instead as an ongoing learning process that c an enrich an individual.

• Prince & Riches: The New Age in Glastonbury: The Construction of Religious Movements

Maharaj-ji was considered to be deeply spiritually imbued, enabling him to teach secret techniques of meditation were considered to heighten spiritual experience and help people realise their full potential in day-to-day living in the material world.

Will add some more later today, that could also be used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

More text that could be incorporated

• Messer, on the aspects of "mind"

Westerners approaching Eastern teachers from any school are confronted with constant reiteration that the mind is the barrier to enlightenment, whether enlightenment is described as complete nothingness or as perfect bliss or as knowledge of God. Needless to say, that truth could not be accessible to the mind. Westerners are generally accustomed to identifying themselves with the boundaries of their bodies, the thoughts in their minds, and with their emotions, such as depression or ecstasy; to be told that their identity is essentially different is to be informed of nothing. Maharaj Ji's devotees claim, however, that it is possible to experience that fact, whether or not the mind is willing to acquiesce. There is no way-functionally at least-to bypass the premises of rationalism except to introduce experience where the mind says experience is not possible-that is, to provide incontrovertible evidence to which the mind has no alternative but to acquiesce. To assert that the mind cannot comprehend God is not to assert that the man cannot, if one is accustomed to that distinction; but many of us are not so accustomed, and have long asserted that God is an entity in whom one believes, an entity, that is, beyond experience.

Merge proposal

After reading this material, it seems that it would be best served if merged with Techniques of Knowledge, either under that title or under the title of this article. The reason is that I do not think that these are two different subjects. Also, I think we need information available on the basic practice of "Listening, Participation, and Practice" (formerly referred to as "Satsang, Service, Meditation in DLMs time) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes to the merge, but I suggest not until the basic article takes a more permanent shape. The only problem with S,S and M, as I see it, is that they were always means to an end, the end, again as I see it, being that individuals should be able to live in peace and dignity. TPRF is also so aligned. Rumiton 11:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. We can wait. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added proposals to merge. I reading both articles I can see how well these two can be merged. After the merge we will need a summary at Prem Rawat under a section named "Teachings"" as per WP:SUMMARY ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think "Teachings" is the better title.Momento 19:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's the time now to merge, if everyone agrees. WP:SUMMARY looks fascinating but I don't have any time at the moment to study it, so if we go ahead some help would be appreciated. Thanks. Rumiton 10:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is quite simple: merge Techniques of Knowledge to here, redirect that article to here (#REDIRECT ]), and write a summary of this article for the main article, under a section named "Teachings". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don not think we need Glen Whitaker's comment in an article that is based on scholarly sources, in particular as it does not add anything that has not already been said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does look out of place, as well as promotional. I'll take it out tonight. Rumiton 01:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary needed

A summary of this article needs to be added in a new section to the Prem Rawat article as per WP:SS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Name or Word Technique using a Mantra word

"Kranenborg additionally states that it employs mantras while exhaling." This Mantra idea is false and is not verifiable. The current techniques are not public but they have not changed from the old Knowledge days. These are widely available on the web . Misplaced Pages is meant to inform as accurately as possible and hence I am removing the Mantra reference because it is misinformation.

Protection needed

Andries latest edit in which he deliberately distorts a quote to push his POV is unacceptable.Momento (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I did no think that I distorted a quote and certainly did not do it deliberately. Andries (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I quoted Melton verbatim to avoid disputes about interpretation of the quote. How do you think that I distorted a quote? I do not see it. What is your proposed summary of the quote? Andries (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all there in black and white Andries. You deliberately changed Melton's source comment from "embodiment of God" to "God". It's deliberate, it's inaccurate and it's typical of your campaign of POV pushing.Momento (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did not notice that and I think the difference is very subtle if not non-existent. Andries (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not assume bad faith for such inaccuracies that I think are very minor. Andries (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that asking to assume good faith in your case, may be stretch: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary, which in your case there is plenty. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I may miss somethihg but when a person says "I am God" or "I am the embodiment of God" then the difference is not clear for me. This is not the first time that Momento has accused me of bad faith when I think I only made minor inaccuracies at worst such as confusion of "Lord of the Universe" with "God." Andries (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Minor" Andries? Your "minor" inaccuracy completely distorts a major aspect of Rawat's teachings. And you do it time and time again. And in this case, you lied on this talk page about it. You claimed above, in response to my challenge, that you "quoted Melton verbatim". You did not. If you do not stop your continual vandalism of Rawat articles I am going to push for you to be permanently banned.Momento (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I did quote Melton verbatim. Feel free to explain the difference on my talk page because I still do not see it. Andries (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you write this Andries, it has your signature after it - Okay, I did not notice that and I think the difference is very subtle if not non-existent . So here you are admitting that your quote was different, not verbatim. . Since you cannot tell the difference between a "verbatim" copy and "grossly distorted" one, I will revert any inaccurate or biased POV editing you do to Rawat articles without further discussion.Good bye Andries.Momento (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

May be you could take the effort explain me then I will learn something. I really do not understand your complaints and concerns. Andries (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are quoting Melton, we need to quote Downton, Chryssides, Hunt, and many others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to summarize Melton, but there was a dispute about the interpretation of the quote. So if we can agree how to summarize Melton then this is fine for me. Andries (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How about: "The religious scholar Melton wrote in 1986 that Rawat, in accordance with the Sant Mat tradition, claimed to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth."

Andries (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Encouragament to surrender to the guru

Can somebody please add that Rawat encouraged surrender to the guru? There are several scolarly sources for that and it was a notable aspect of Rawat's teachings. It is missing now. See User:Andries/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#Origins Andries (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sants digression

This article should not digress on the Sants, but on Rawat's teachings and may be on the relation that rawat had to the Sants. Momento keeps on altering what Melton wrote significantly. Andries (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Only Melton says "that Rawat, in accordance with the Sant Mat tradition, claimed to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth". It is an exceptional claim and needs further sources. However, other scholars suggests Sants consider Perfect Masters "an embodiment of God on earth" and it can therefore be included. Once again, your desire to push your POV sees you cross the line of Wiki policy. Reverted.Momento (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not an exceptional claim that Rawat made this claim. And kranenborg and Hummel wrote something similar. Andries (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar isn't enough.Momento (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you think that Melton made an exceptional claim when there are two other scholars who made similar statements. Andries (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Similar" isn't the same as "same". You need another scholar who says "Rawat claimed to be an embodiment of God on earth". And you won't find one because he never said it.Momento (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I will file a request for comments. Andries (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)\

Please take into account that most sources upon careful reading treat the beliefs and practices of the followers, Elan Vital or the Divine Light Mission: there are only few sources that treat what Rawat has said. To remove sourced statements that explicitly treat what Rawat said does not help this entry. Andries (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Following your way of reasoning, statements by scholars can only be included if two scholars say exactly the same thing, in other words if they committed plagiarism. That is absurd. Andries (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of published talks given by Rawat on his or his organizations websites and they are suitable. I'll start putting them in.Momento (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that is primary source material that belongs in Wikiquote, instead scholarly summaries of his teachings are fine. We do not have another quote war with many contradicting statements by Rawat in the article as we have seen in the past.Andries (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Generalizations made to only one scholarly source should be explicitly atributed to this scholarly source. They should not presented as facts. Andries (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Melton may have a definition about Perfect Master but here's Rawat's definition - "Some people may think that okay, when we say Perfect Master,we’re talking about God, or we’re talking about prophet, or we’re talking about something like that. But really, in laymen’s term, to explain it, is that if somebody is a flight instructor, you would call them a flight instructor, or a flight teacher, or one who teaches about airplanes. If one was a professor of maths, he had mastered it, then you would call him teacher in maths, or instructor in maths the definition of a Perfect Master is the one who can give us the perfectness, one who can teach us the perfectness". October 4, 1981 Interview by John Young . Momento (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC

that is no excuse to delete a statement that is sourced to FOUR SCHOLARLY SOURCES. HOW MANY SCHOLARS DO YOU NEED BEFORE A STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE CAN STAY IN? Andries (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you're shouting, I'm going to go through this issue one more time - ^ Melton, J. Gordon Maharaj Ji, says "Rawat claims to be a Perfect Master" which is correct. Melton's description of a Perfect Master is his not Rawat's. Kranenborg, Reender ridiculous ramble uses weasel word "seems" about the "statements by Maharaj Ji about himself and his vocation seem to go further without providing us with a statement and claims ONLY that Rawat becomes steadily more aware how great his divinity is." without saying Rawat claims it. Hummel is in Dutch so who knows what he says. Dr. Jan van der Lans and Dr. Frans Derks claim only what followers believe and "His (Rawat's) request for total surrender and complete trust is grounded in his claim of ultimate authority derived from his godliness" and "godliness "means "devoutness or piousness" not "divine". Perhaps you should refrain from editing until your english improves. I'm not going to waste anymore time.Momento (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If your personal opinions differ from what scholarly sources state then sorry, you have bad luck. I admit that the scholars do not exactly say the same, but my summary that rawat made claims of divinity is an accurate summary. Andries (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your summary!!!! None of the above quotes say Rawat made claims of divinity. Claimed to be a Perfect Master, yes; but that's it.Momento (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. Claiming to be an embodiment of God is a special case of making claims of divinity. Andries (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Melton, Rawat claimed to be a Perfect Master. Everything after that is Melton's erroneous description of a Perfect Master and not a part of what Rawat claimed. Your knowledge of english is very limited.Momento (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretations of what Melton wrote. We can quote Melton literlally to enable the reader to make up his own mind about what Melton wrote. Andries (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no way you can quote one scholar to suit your POV. That's why it's an exceptional claim.Momento (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To suit my POV? If you are right about Melton then it it does not suit my POV. I am only saying that if there a disagreement about interpretation of a quote then the obvious solution is to quote it in the article to enable the reader to decided what the quote means. In this way, Melton will suit your POV if the reader thinks that you are right. Andries (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again your poor English fails you. I didn't say that Melton's badly expressed claim suits your POV, I said you cannot quote one scholar to suit your POV. Of all things written about Rawat, including the scholarly quotes on this page, you want to insert one disputed sentence from a biased source because it suits your POV.Momento (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because the way to solve the dispute is to quote the sentence and let the reader decide what the disputed sentence means. 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries (talk • contribs)

How about I put in Hunt - "Maharaji speaks not of God, but of the god or divinity within, the power that gives existence. Although such references apparently suggest an acceptance of a creative, loving power, he distances himself and his teachings from any concept of religion". Or Edwards "The guru taught that humanity is inherently divine". Or Stonner and Park "The God of Divine Light resembles the impersonal concept of infinite power and energy of the Hindu omnipresence more than it does Western man's image of a rational and willful God who created the Universe and has a plan for it. Maharaj Ji teaches that God is the source of all life".etc. etc. Momento (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine but you should mention the year. Andries (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Work in progress

Tidying up and adding more material.Momento (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Great job! One small point, though -- Teaching the Techniques is looking a bit promotional to my eye. Might need some encyclopedification? Rumiton (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There's still a long way to go.Momento (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Put in some more scholars but am wondering whether putting in slabs of quotes is right? Should we synthesize in our own words.Momento (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Synthesizing/summarizing is always better, Momento. You can put the full quotation in the notes, if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee that was quick. Also thinking that we should change "Westernization" to "Teachings" and expand.Momento (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC dispute about inclusion of claims of divinity by Prem Rawat

Template:RFC error

Should claims of divinity by Prem Rawat if properly attributed and dated go into the article? See e.g. Andries (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC) For example, is it okay to write that the religious scholar Melton wrote in 1986 that Prem Rawat claimed to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth? Andries (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

An RfC without discussion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

did you read the talk page? Andries (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article? : That material is already in the article: See Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#History ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, to summarize my objections that I had made several times on various talk pages, I think Melton's words are so much toned down and changed that they can hardly be recognized. Andries (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I think your habit on various talk pages of making objections and asking questions without proper reading is wasting a lot of my time. See Talk:Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#Sants_digression Andries (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)-

As you can see from previous discussions Andries' incomplete grasp of English is a source of constant confusion for him. What Melton actually writes is "Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration." Melton is saying that Rawat "claims to be a Perfect Master", this is true. Melton is not claiming Rawat claims to be "an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration". Rather Melton is adding his (Melton's) description of a Sant Mat Perfect Master. In Indian culture, a person without a guru or a teacher (acharya) was once looked down on as an orphan or unfortunate one. A guru also gives diksha initiation which is the spiritual awakening of the disciple by the grace of the guru. Diksha is also considered to be the procedure of bestowing the divine powers of a guru upon the disciple, through which the disciple progresses continuously along the path to divinity. All gurus have "divine" powers, that's why they're gurus.Momento (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why not quote Melton and let the reader decide what Melton meant? Andries (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Melton is quoted - "Sants believe that the Guru or Perfect Master is an embodiment of God and a fitting object of worship."Momento (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Melton did not write that. Andries (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The following except is important to show that what Melton wrote was more or less in correspondenc with what other scholars (Jan van der Lans and Derks)wrote

"DLM and Rajneeshism are comparable in that in both, the Indian guru is the central object of devotion. While in the Christian tradition the spiritual master is only an intermediate between the individual and God, standing outside their personal relation, in both these new religious movements the devotee’s relation with the guru is considered identical to his relation with God. The guru is accepted as the manifestation and personification of God. His request for total surrender and complete trust is grounded in his claim of ultimate authority derived from his godliness."

Andries (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly obvious that the Guru presented himself as an incarnation of God. In fact, he claimed to be greater than Jesus or Buddha, coming with -- what was it? all 32 powers? Curiously, when he talked about himself as God, he always did it in the third person, as far as I can ascertain. Wowest (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

History

The lines "The website "Maharaji.org" (1999) included the traceable lineage of "Masters" who Prem Rawat claims taught the techniques of Knowledge since 1780, beginning with Totapuri, Anandpuri Ji, Dayal Ji, Swarupanand Ji and his father Hans Ji Maharaj." are not able to be verified. The website referred to does not have this information on it. It may have once, but it is unverifiable now. Thus, it is no longer appropriate to have the link, nor the information that the link supposedly verified. Armeisen (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it can we accessed by the internet way back machine. Nothing is ever lost. The link may need to be refreshed.Momento (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Balance

I just added some documented quotations from dissatisfied former consumers of Rawat's product. Wowest (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with your edit Janice. patrick needs to be summarized, not quoted at length.Momento (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought so. Long quotations from testimony obtained after deprogramming is a bit much to be in the lede. I just condensed them and moved them out of there. Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Source

This is a source published in 2001, that could be used in this article:

In the Divine Light Mission, the guru taught that humanity is inherently divine. For people to attain this divinity, they must gain knowledge, which came from the teachings of Guru Maharaj Ji, who is of the line of Perfect Masters.

The movement that originally started as the Divine Light Mission is now reformed in its beliefs and teachings. Elan Vital bears little or no similarity to traditional Indian religious concepts such as reincarnation or heaven. The emphasis is in present-tense experience of life in the here and now.

Maharaj ji teaches a simple self-discovery process, involving four simple techniques to turn the senses within and appreciate the joyful basis of existence beyond thoughts and ideas. He denies criticism that his teachings represent instant gratification, but sees it instead as an ongoing learning process that can enrich an individual's life.

— Edwards, Linda (2001). A brief guide to beliefs: ideas, theologies, mysteries, and movements. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. p.278-279. ISBN 0-664-22259-5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To which he alone holds the keys?

Please provide a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Soruce is in main texst of the article i.e. Price Maeve. Andries (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If we have only one source that says that, we need to attribute it to Price, and move it out of the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Haan says more or less the same i.e. that Knowledge has according to member of the DLM no value without the guru. I will add that as a sources. Andries (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Melton says more or less the same too

"At initiation, a mahatma, the personal representative of Maharaj.."

from Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America J. Gordon Melton (New York/London: Garland, 1986;

Andries (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

??? What is notable about this? All "initiations" are performed by a guru or a person endowed to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that initiation is necessary and that only Rawat or his direct representative is authorized is remarkable when the meditation techniques could as well be printed on a leaflet. Andries (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And the same applies to the wine and bread of Mass? Confession?Momento (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you now validating the obvious fact that Prem Rawat's "teachings" do constitute a religion? Belief #1: We have no beliefs. Belief #2 The mind is demonic. Belief #3 Guru Maharaj Ji is the highest manifestation of God on the planet. Belief #4 There is only one sat guru on the planet at a time. Belief #5 Give your all to Sat Guru.... Be united with the blissful truth? Wowest (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see what you're trying to accomplish here, Andries, but I am strongly challenging this point on the Prem Rawat page. Msalt (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm on your side Msalt. I have had these arguments with Andries and I think it's caused by a glitch in the translation of Dutch and English.Momento (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither Price nor Melton is in Dutch. Andries (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Andries, I'm referring to the differences in my understanding of English and Dutch and yours.Momento (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hans Ji Maharaj, Rawat's guru...

• Hans Ji Maharaj, Rawat's guru,...

Wouldn't it be more complete and accurate to say, "Hans Ji Maharaj, Rawat's father and guru,..."? It seems odd to omit that they are father and son. Likewise, later on we say,

• Prem Rawat became a guru and titular head of the Divine Light Mission at the age of 8 upon the death of his father and teacher in 1966...

It would seem clearer to identify the father and teacher by name, "Prem Rawat became a guru and titular head of the Divine Light Mission at the age of 8 upon the death of Hans Ji Maharaj in 1966..." Otherwise it gets a bit confusing that this is the same person as referenced above. Thirdly, it goes on to say,

• Like his teacher, he was called Guru Maharaj Ji,and he taught in India in much the same manner as his teacher whilst attending school in Dehra Dun.

Again, it would be clearer to say "like his father" if we've already established that his father was his teacher. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Geaves

According to his WP bio, Ron Geaves was one of the earliest western followers of Prem Rawat. This article identifies him simply as a scholar. It would be more appropriate to insert a parenthetical explanation, such as "...a longtime follower of Rawat..." followng his name in order to clarify the relationship. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article does not identify Geaves as a scholar. Actually no one some of the other sources is identified as per their title or expertise. We could describe them if necessary, and apply same standard to all sources if that would be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The heading is "Descriptions of Knowledge by scholars", so all of the commentators are described as "scholars". If some of the people aren't scholars we should drop the word, but regardless of that we should identify Geave's association with the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The section title should be changed IMO to "Descriptions of Knowledge". As for the titles and affiliations of the notable individuals used as sources, we can add these if it would be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the Ron Geaves article includes full disclosure of his affiliation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are some of the the commentators not scholars? If so I agree that we should remove the word. As for Geaves' affiliation, I think it's obviously useful knowledge in this context. If no one objects I'll add it with a source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We have Barret, who is an author, and we have Ted Patrick who is not a scholar or an author. As for Geaves, you can add Ron Geaves, a Professor of Religion at Liverpool Hope University in England and former Chair in religious studies at the University of Chester, who is one of the earliest Western students of Prem Rawat, wrote that.... Or something along these lines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

<< Also, it may be useful to use quotes: Descriptions of "Knowledge". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That description of Geaves seems a bit long - I don't think we need to describe his former positions in this article. Since some of the comments are on Rawat's teachings in general I think we should omit "Knowledge" from the heading, as that makes it appear that they only address the one aspect. Perhaps the best heading would be something like "Critical response" ("critical" in the broad sense of the word). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, we can do away with the former title. As for the section title, maybe best would be just conflate it with the previous section, or just call it "Techniques" or "Practices" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On reflection it may make more sense to change the heading to "Outside views" and move the Greaves and Whitaker comments to another section, like the "Teachings" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? I do not see the point. Care to explain?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As you point out - the people aren't all "scholars". With the exception of Geaves they are all "outsiders". So that seems like an accurate term that can be applied with minimal adjustment. I'm not sure why the Whitaker comment was deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... I would prefer just calling the section "Practices". I have not seen the use of "Outside views" in comparable articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Which comparable articles are you thinking of? The section appears to be composed of comments by various people covering the entire teachings. "Practices" would imply that it is a section discussing meditation techniques, rituals, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We can then either conflate that section into "Teachings", or create a section called "Practices" in which only the meditation techniques are covered. Either one will work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and think that renaming it "outside views" and moving out the insider is less disruptive. However thanks for the input. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we can agree to disagree, then. Maybe time to ask for an WP:RFC on this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

An RfC over a section heading? That hardly seems necessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Then let's find a compromise. I am sure we can do that, don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we've come a long way from the orignal title. What's your objection to "outside views"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What about this for a compromise:

1. Move the 3rd and the 6th paragraph to the "Teaching section"
2. Rename "Descriptions of Knowledge by scholars" to "Reception"

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What's your objeciton to "ouside views"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My objection is based on the fact that it is an unusual way to do it. I found it used in only one article: Melek Taus; What is your objection to "Reception"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear unusual to me. How many articles have "reception" sections? "Outside views" correctly describes the material in the section, once paragraphs 3 and 6 are moved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Outside view" is a completely loaded heading which suggests some sort of "closed community" to which outsiders don't have access. How did Ted Patrick get here - In 1980 he was convicted of kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap, and false imprisonment of Roberta McElfish in San Diego and sentenced to one year in prison. On 11 June 1984 Scientologist Paula Dain was awarded $7,000 in compensatory damages by a federal court jury in a $30 million civil-rights lawsuit against Patrick. The jury ruled that Patrick had violated Dain's civil rights and freedom of religion, but determined that Patrick did not act "with evil intent" or in "reckless and callous disregard for Miss Dain's safety."Momento (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a closed community. "People with knowledge" receive a special "smartcard" to designate them as insiders. As for Patrick, his notability as a commentator on new religious movements is not in question - anyway, that's a separate topic and let's stick to the heading for this section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Untrue. Smartcards are not necessary to receive Knowledge or required after Knowledge. They are a device to allow easy access to events that are for people who have received Knowledge. The same as a travel, student, business or security cards allow special access. The use of a card doesn't make non travelers or students "outsiders".Momento (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of all of that, the views of people who aren't followers (i.e. the outside world) are worth a section. This discussion is just about how to title that section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Will, what is going on? Is this an issue related to a section name, or is this a substantial content dispute of how to frame sources for best effect. If it is the former, let's find a suitable compromise (and if the one I have proposed does not work for you, propose an alternative one); and if it is the latter, let us ask others via WP:RFC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

SO far as I'm concerned this is a discussion about where to include Geaves, and how to label a section. You dismissed "Outside views" as a title becuase it's "unusual" and propsoed "Reception" instead. I asked how common "Reception" is for a section heading. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Reception" sections are quite common, Will. Have you never come across these? Some examples: Ancient Qumran: A Virtual Reality Tour, The Joy of Sect, the very main article, and hundreds of others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this article is comparable to "The Joy of Sect". If we use "reception" it should be broadened to cover reception in the mainstream media as well. If there are no objections to including the popular reception of the teachings then that heading may be appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Will, what is going on? I am getting an uneasy feeling in this discussion. I have emailed you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in this discussion that should make an editor feel uneasy. If the section is titled "reception" then it should include the overall reception of the teaching of the subject, as the name would imply. I don't think that's odd. What do you think should be in a section titled "reception"? What's in The Joy of Sect#Reception? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you Jossi. I think Will is trying to change this article from "Teachings of Rawat" to "Anyone's opinions of the Teachings of Rawat. and angling to give the ex-premies a section.Momento (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Reception" is another editor's suggestion. If you're opposed to that title then say so. However whatever the title it should include all significant viewpoints containedin reliable sources presented with the neutral point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a breakthrough proposal, why don't we remove Barret and Patrick and rely on "scholars".Momento (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Scholars are not the only ones who have significant viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It we don't set a standard for inclusion somewhere, this article will be overwhelmed with the opinions of Rawat's students.Momento (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The standards are determined by existing WP policies. We don't need to create special standards for this article. We already have at least one of Rawat's students quoted in the article: Geaves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If we were following Wiki standards Ted Patrick wouldn't be in. WP:VER says "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves". Sounds like TP's book to me.Momento (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave the discussion of the inclusion of Patrick to anothe discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well what would you like to talk about? It is only the addition of Patrick that necessitates any changing of the headline.Momento (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a solution that would cover all the suggestions, I believe. Leave Greave where he is, identify him as a follower. Move paragraph six up to "Teachings". Make a new over-heading of "Reception". Retitle the existing the "Descriptions of Knowledge by scholars" to "Scholars" as a subheading. Create a new subheading "Others" and move Patrick and Barrett there, along with any other non-scholars we find. How does that sound? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That could work. Give it a try to check how that would look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Does Momento object? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No objection. We can always go back if it doesn't work. By far the most significant reception was provided by the 10s of thousands of "others" that became devotees.Momento (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding devotees: like all viewpoints those that are available in reliable sources and are significant are welcome. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Conway, Flo and Siegelman, Jim as a Source

Just looked at "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change Second Edition pp 159 f (2005) Stillpoint Press, ISBN 0-38528928-6. Nothing supports the text in the article.Momento (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking it out as a source unless someone can show me what they say about the text in the article.Momento (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's on page 159, but Amazon preview shows that the teaching of Prem Rawat are discussed on page 176.

• As one ex-member explained the differences to us, the similarities also became apparent. "The meditation Maharaj Ji was teaching involved intensity, not depth."

Page 67 contains a discussion of deprogramming a follower. It may be a simple error in the page numbering, or perhaps a differnt edition of the book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It is actually on page 176, and it describes the opinion of an unnamed ex-follower about the "meditation", and his experience after "deprogramming" (the "deprogramming", whatever it was, was not described). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Page 67 describes a "deprogramming" by Ted Patrick. I think this book was published before Patrick convictions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change was first published in 1978, and Patrick was first convicted and sentenced to one year in prison in 1980 for kidnapping and false imprisonment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This perfectly illustrates "cherry picking" quotes. Page 67 of the 1995 version has nothing that supports the text. We might just as well put in - "most people we spoke with fought desperately to preserve their blissed-out states". Page 176 - says "diminishing the ability to think" but says nothing about "self hypnosis". But we might also insert from page 176 - "one practitioner reported meditation gave a certain absence of feeling...when I had doubts, guilt or other uncomfortable emotions, I would react by meditating".Momento (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've ordered the book and will be able to check the text in a few days. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You can get all the text via Amazon search . I missed page 176 because I searched for "guru" + "maharaj" + "ji" and "guru" doesn't appear on page 176.Momento (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Divine Light Mission apparently brings up some pages pages that may not mention the guru either. Regarding the citation, is there no footnote on page 159? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Page 159? There is nothing related there. If what you meant was page 176, there are no footnotes in that page. Neither there are in page 67, the two places in wich "Maharaj ji" is mentioned. There are mentions of "Divine Light Mission" on pages 131-2 and 192, and some other passing comments in pages 189 and 194. No footnotes in any of these pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't have the book in front of me. I will in a few days. Which edition do you have? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Second edition, 1995.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Google didn't show up when I checked before, but here it is now - the 1995 edition. It shows that the info from page 67 in the 2005 (Amazon) edition is on page 59 in the 1995 edition. It appears possible that the "pp 159" in the citation may be a typo for "pp 59". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento's comments, above, from April 5th, are a bit disingenuous. The "confusion" was caused by a SYNTH by Janice Rowe, which combines criticism from two different consumers of Rawat's meditation instruction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat&diff=194359968&oldid=194343912 .

This criticism, documented in two different books by two different sets of authors has been combined by Janice into one sentence, in an apparent effort to make criticism of Rawat less visible. However, this increases the generally agreed-upon problem that there is not nearly enough criticism of Rawat when compared to various public figures who are far less controversial. Momento's subsequent proposal to summarize the second testimony is, of course, too condensed as well. The issue of self-hypnosis is brought up by former premie/housemother Marcia Carroll in "Let our Children Go." Wowest (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That edit does appear to have removed sourced information, and with no explanation. Does anyone object to restoring the deleted info? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K. -- I have the book in front of me

Stillpoint press second edition, second printing, April,2005 . Page 159, about 2/3 of the way down the page... . Doing a search on the name "Barry Robertson" on Amazon, you find the exact same material on pages 176-177. Apparently, that was from the first printing. The second printing uses smaller type and is a few pages shorter, but claims to contain the same material. Whomever is being quoted seems to have experienced both some temporary or permanent impact on his/her ability to experience emotions and on his/her general cognitive ability as well. Wowest (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To which he alone holds the keys

This is not supported by the footnote, which states that "premies believe" this, among other things. It does not say Prem Rawat says this (and indeed he doesn't.) I shall remove tomorrow in the absence of objections. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that you are mistaken. Andries (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what the source says: "Price, Maeve in Sociological Review The Divine Light Mission as a Social Organization nr. 27, 1979 pp. 279–96

"Essentially, premies believe that the key to understanding themselves, the gateway to happiness, love and that peace of mind 'which surpasseth understanding' lies in meditating on the knowledge of Guru Maharaj Ji, and that this knowledge is there inside each human being. Only Maharaj Ji has the key to it and only his appointed mahatmas or initiators may give Maharaj Ji's knowledge. This crucial fact that knowledge may only be revealed by Maharaj Ji legitimates the leader's supremacy to the believers and ensures that seekers achieve these benefits from a single source."

Andries (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Living Perfect Master of our Time, Shri Guru Maharaj Ji," didn't say that he was the exclusive local authorized representative of the creator of the universe? Gee. Someone should have told Mahatma Parlokanand prior to 1973, when he was preaching that. Well, no, actually it was that Shri Guru Maharaj WAS the Lord of the Universe -- the boss of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. My fault. Wrong cult.

Apart from that, though, Rumiton, you usually come across as being more nearly sane than Jossi or, more particularly, Momento. This "I don't like it so I'm gonna delete it" stuff sounds more like his style. Or is this just a role he plays? Are you taking over his duties, now? Good premie/bad premie? The cops usually switch roles when they think the suspect is about to crack. Is one of us about to crack?

Wowest (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not funny, Wowest, and I would hope that you desist from making such comments in the future. Remember that remaining civil and not engaging in personal attacks are not optional. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there you are, Joseph. Hi! :-) Didn't you just promise the mediators that you wouldn't edit articles related to Prem Rawat, and then turn right around and add some hard-to-trace negatives to the article about the book Snapping while the meditation is still going on?

Wowest (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging with Divine Light Mission and Prem Rawat

In spite of the many sources that treat the Divine Light Mission only few exist, upon careful reading of the sources, that treat the teachings of Prem Rawat. I only found one source by Reender Kranenborg that treats the teachings of Rawat as distinguished from the Divine Light Mission with any length and depth. Hence I think that this is a dead-end article. I propose merging it back to Divine Light Mission and Prem Rawat. Andries (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a spin-off article from the main article Prem Rawat. See WP:SUMMARY. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I know that. Please state your point. Andries (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is that there is no need to merge. This article stands on its own. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Regarding DLM, I had planned to propose a merge between that article and Elan Vital, since they are the same organization. I think that would help the sourcing issue. Some of this material may be better placed there, but I'd prefer to wait until the merge is completed before thinking about re-organizng them further. There is currently a proposed merger of Criticism of Prem Rawat to Prem Rawat. Some of that material may be better placed in this article. For those reasons I think that the mergers proposed above are not suitable at this time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They are not really the same organisation. Though EV was created from DLM by entity name change, at the same time an entirely new approach was begun. DLM was a vast thing inherited from India, with hundreds of employees who organised instructors, placed advertising and ran ashrams. EV has had to do none of that. It is a minimal organisation with no members and few staff. Organisation is done by local communities and decisions are now made there. I cannot see that merging the two articles will lead to clarity on this subject. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you see that your opinion on what leads to "clarity" depends upon your opinion as to what is true? You do come across as the most level-headed current premie editor, by the way. Can you consider the possibility that someone else, with a different opinion regarding what is true or real, might view your selection of facts as hiding the truth, perhaps in ways that could be dangerous or harmful to some third party? Is it not your opinion that "the light" is God and that "the real name of God" is God? Is it not your belief that you have no beliefs, but that you merely describe your own experience? Why do you suppose that so many people disagree with such noble-sounding concepts? Wowest (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that if I believed there was some harmful secret purpose behind all these Prem Rawat related organisations, then watching their quite boring development get documented would frustrate the hell out of me. I would be saying "Look at the harmful secret purpose, not the outside appearances!" Is that what you mean? Maybe it all comes down to "What is Knowledge?" You clearly have found not much good and maybe some harm in it. That has not been my experience. I have found the meditation to be valuable and helpful, sometimes even a life-saver. I don't think about God much, it just isn't an idea I find helpful. In fact, it seems that getting religious ideas tangled up with Knowledge has been disastrous for everyone who did it. Knowledge is not for everyone, it can't be practised by grim determination or out of a sense of religious duty, but it is a great thing for people like me, who have a thirst for it. For me, Prem Rawat is a friend and an encourager. Those who don't have that specific thirst will probably not get as far as the Knowledge Session, but if they do will be able to recognise that it isn't for them and leave without anger or malice. I know it wasn't that clear in the 70s, but it is now. This won't make any sense to some people, it will seem like there has to be a hidden bear trap and will spend a lot of time and effort looking for it. To me, it isn't there. Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to merge Rawat with DLM an organization he did not control half its existence.Momento (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Randi

James Randi describes Prem Rawat's teaching in his Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural. He says:

• “Receiving the knowledge” turned out to be a process of seeing “heavenly lights” when pressing on the eyeballs, hearing “blissful music” when the ears were stopped up, tasting “divine nectar” when the head was thrown back with the tongue turned inward, and receiving a mantra nonsense word. The sensory illusions were quite natural and easily understood physiological phenomena, the “nectar” being simply nasal secretions dripping into the throat. Only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret. The big promise fizzled..

I think that he is a notable commentator, and that we should add that his view that "only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

nasal secretions dripping into the throat. Yuck! Given that we have three or four scholars' descriptions, do we really need this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Which existing sources express the view that "only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret"? I propose adding something like: Sceptic James Randi has written that "only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret." Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... I am not sure. A stage magician and skeptic's viewpoint is that significant? What do you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the text in the link provided, and it seem a pretty strange article, full of factual mistakes, reading more like an op-ed than anything else. I would be interested to know what other editors think about this source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since we're attributing it to his opinion being "op-ed"-like is not a problem. He is undoubtedly a notable commentator. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But it is full of factual inaccuracies, such as Glastonbury was in 1971 and not 1981, the lawsuit, and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Help me out here, Will. Don't you think that without providing context to the tone, style, and mistakes in that piece, that simply extracting a tidbit is a pretty bad way to add this to the article? Let's hear what others have to say. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What context would you like to add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Randi is completely unsuitable as a source. There are far more reliable sources that contradict him. I could add 20,000k of more accurate material.Momento (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Randi is a suitable source for his own opinion, which is noteworthy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No doubt Randi is a "suitable source for his own opinion", so presumably Rawat is a suitable source for his own opinion. I'll get some to add to this article. Would that also apply to Collier, Geaves, Downton, Messer and Galanter etc. because they haven't been quoted so far?Momento (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So far I haven't seen a good reason to exclude this material. Are there any? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would exclude Randi on the grounds of common sense. It seems a bit desperate to have to resort to use an entertainer as a source for this article. Am I right to presume you have no objection to adding material from the others sources I mentioned?Momento (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's address this issue before we go on to others. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it is needed to frame this as a tit for tat, Momento. Let's wait for other editors' comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you said the material needs context. What context would you like to see for this material? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well just for the record I strongly object to using Randi as a source. His material is so full of bias and errors, he cannot be considered a reliable source.Momento (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Will, as an admin I ask you to carefully check out WP:BLP and WP:RS to get clear on this important point. The word "notable" applies to people and things that are being considered as 'subjects' of Misplaced Pages articles. It does not apply to 'sources', which must be 'reputable', not 'notable'. As an illustration, Geoffrey Dahmer is notable, but not reputable. So is James Randi. Rumiton (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Techniques of Knowledge are covered by WP:BLP? I think that's quite a stretch. A form of meditation is not a living person. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The author has won a number of prestigious awards for his work. The book is published by a respected publishing house, qualifies as a "reliable source", and is used as a source in hundreds of WP articles. To address Momento's concern about using a long quote, I propose a compromise: Sceptic James Randi has written that only "the very naive" believe the meditation techniques are "some sort of cosmic secret". Better? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Put it in by all means, no one can stop you.Momento (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's no policy-based objection, I'll do so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Randi certainly appears to be a far more notable person commentator than Sophia Collier. What is her expertise? What awards has she won? Should we use a soda entrepreneur as a source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're just adding large quotes maybe it would be more helpful to readers if we quote the whole paragraph from Randi. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. This article is called "Teachings of Prem Rawat." Of course it is a biography! Randi is not a reputable source. Out it comes. Rumiton (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Randi is indeed a reputable and reliable source. You havebn't given any policy that says an award-winning researcher, writing in a book published by a major publisher, is unrelaible or unsuitable as a source. It was inappropriate of you to remove the quotation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#James Randi. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is and has been that Randi has no encyclopedic relevance in this context. He is not a religious scholar, and, unlike Collier, he is not, to my knowledge, quoted by reputable sources covering this topic. In addition, his piece is a slipshod affair that falls far short of the best standards of research. Randi is part of a wider societal conflict between the world views of religion and science, and may be of relevance to discourse in that field. Jayen466 16:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, re the nasal secretions, Rawat did not invent the method. It is a traditional yogic technique. See Khecarī mudrā. Jayen466 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this meditation technique pre-dates Prem Rawat, and Randi's comments about it are not comments about Prem Rawat. Therefore the BLP argument doesn't apply. However this material is proposed for the "reception" section. This is what a noteworthy person thinks about the technique. We don't have to quote the whole passge. Again I propose: Sceptic James Randi has written that "only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret." That's clearly his opinion, which is notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Watts

Will, please read this . We had decided that this cherry picked quote is inappropriate.Momento (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Most of that discussion appears to be over whether it's actually a criticism and whether it belongs in a biography of a living person. This article is not a biography and the quote is not described as criticism. The New York Times is a reliable source. While I can see that there may have been reasons to leave it out of that article, those reasons don't appear to apply here to this use. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No the discussion is whether someone who doesn't know Watts would understand what he means. Can you provide the article from which this is taken?.Momento (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That topic was also discussed. I don't see that as an issue. Readers can follow the link to learn more about Watts. We don't usually exclude information because we doubt readers' ability to understand. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Isolating a quote out of the context that gives the quote a different meaning is deceptive. At the least you need to say the NY Times reporter says that Watts said.....Momento (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was it deleted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Because its inclusion seemed to be under the mistaken impression that this was not part of a living biography. That clearly needs discussion. BLP articles need to be meticulously sourced, there must be no ambiguity. Rumiton (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The biogrpahy is at Prem Rawat. There's no policy which allows sourced material to be deleted an editor thinks the text may be ambiguous. Alan Watts is highly noteworthy commentator on Eastern-derived spiritual movements, and was even an early supporter of Rawat. If you don't like the quote then please replace it with a summary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't believe an article called Teachings of Prem Rawat is a part of the Misplaced Pages biography of Prem Rawat, then I cannot work further with you. The next step is to file a Request for Comment. Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from that, what "ambiguity" requires the deletion of the quotation? Shall we delete all quotations that are ambiguous? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In a BLP, yes. Rumiton (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So, again, what is the ambiguity? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There must or should be a Misplaced Pages policy for editors being wilfully obtuse. Watts was almost certainly paying a compliment. The bald statement here makes it look like a severe criticism. Since he died shortly after saying it, we can't ask him what he meant. Rumiton (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's a compliment then you shouldn't have deleted it. If it's a criticism you shouldn't have deleted it. Either way it's a relavent quotation by a noteworthy commentator. If you can't come up with a better reason I'll restore it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can come up with a terrific reason. The intention of the author, whether praiseful or insulting, is paramount. If we don't know exactly what his intention was, we should not be quoting him. Rumiton (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We do know what Watts' intention was. He meant it as praise, and it is consistent with his use of the word "ignorance" in his own writings, where he posited it as a positive virtue. Alan Watts contributed funds to Rawat's fare from India to the U.S. This is not compatible with the assumption that he thought of Rawat as an ignorant irrelevance. Jayen466 16:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? We don't know the intentions of any of the other writers and scholars either, and I'm not about to call them up to ask. There's no prohibtion on using dead people as sources even if we can't call them up. I don't think that Watts was being either critical or complimentary: he was being descriptive. Different belief systems work in different ways and he was describing this belief system as employing a "doctrine of sacred ignorance". Anyway, he's a noteworthy person reported in the nation's leading newspaper. The fact that some editors on Misplaced Pages can't figure out what he means is not sufficient reason to exclude it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My God, you are still talking about "noteworthy persons" as sources. They have to be 'reputable, reputable, reputable'! Rumiton (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely you're not saying that Alan Watts is a disreputable source. I'm sure he has his detractors but I've always thought he was widely respected in his field. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Watts is certainly reputable. What did he mean by that statement? We don't know. We leave it out. Rumiton (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, so he's reputable and he's reported in a reliable source. His opinion is noteworthy. He describes the doctrine as being one of sacred ignorance. What part of that don't you understand? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an oxymoron "used intentionally for rhetorical effect." He is using the contradictory terms "sacred" and "ignorance" poetically, in a novel and thought-provoking way, not intended to be taken literally or to be read in isolation from the context. Applying intelligence to the choice of quotes is not in acting in disobedience with any Misplaced Pages policy. It's late here. Good night. Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't undersand Watts. From what I know of Rawat's teachings, he says that the source of evil is the mind. Spritual progress comes from going to a place that is free from the harmful results of too much thinking.

• Question: Guru Maharaji Ji, what do you mean about the mind being evil? Answer: This mind is jiggling around trying to find out that perfectness. It is inquiring, trying to investigate the perfectness, which is impossible. To the mind, God is a perfect criminal. He has done such a perfect crime by creating this world that mind cannot trace how He did it. That is why the mind always freaks out about God.

A place free of thinking may be called "ignorance". Contrast it with spiritual movements that value thinking, such as Zen Buddhism or some strains of Hinduism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Will, I think you are simply mis-informed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

<<< What happened to good and sound editorial judgment? Policies and guidelines have to be respected, but not at the expense of sound editorial judgment. We still have WP:IAR, thank goodness. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be "sound editorial judgment". It appears to me to be skewing the results. Watts is more reputable than Collier. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Watts is reputable and his opinion is interesting but we're not quoting Watts, we're quoting what some reporter said Watts said. And we know that Watts comment taken in isolation is ambiguous and therefore may distort Watts' view. The solution is to go directly to Watts and see what he said, in what context.Momento (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's absurd to argue, with no proof whatsoever, that a quotation in the New York Times is inaccurate. Momento, that has got to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard. So ridiculous that it qualifies as tendentious editing. If that is the position you're taking on this matter I'm going to file a complaint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Will, have you read the previous discussion about Watts? It may be useful if you do. I do not think this qualifies as WP:TE, the argument is a solid one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Which argument? The argument you are making is that it's "good editorial judgment" to delete a comment on this doctrine by a famous student of Eastern religions reported in a highly reliable source. That doesn't appear solid to me. Momento's argument is just plain ridiculous. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Collier

Will, why have you said Collier is a "one time member"? This isn't about DLM it's about Rawat's teachings. We know she left DLM as per "So, with no regrets, I decided to leave the organization and strike out on my own beckoning frontier." but that doesn't mean she left Rawat's teachings. Unless you can find a source, it should go.Momento (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you prefer "former DLM member"? "Soda company founder"? We can't just give her name with giving readers some clue as to her relevance to this article. What is her relevance to this article? Just a random person with an opinion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Author is probably the most accurate. I'll mention her book.Momento (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Everybody who write a book is an author. She has no credentials, no notability, and I don't see why her opinion is any more relevant than other miscellaneous people who've said this or that about the teachings. Considering that you were just saying that Randi wasn't an appropriate source I'm dismayed you'd add this. I guess the bar has been lowered to the ground. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

She provides a valuable first hand perspective on the techniques of Knowledge, unlike Randi who makes a living by being skeptical about things about which he has no experience. He likes easy targets, he doesn't have a skeptical thing to say about Christianity, no Virgin Birth, Resurection etc.Momento (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And what does Collier say about Christianity, virgin birth, or resurrection? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the fundamental difference between Collier and Randi. Collier is writing about what she has experienced first hand, whereas Randi doesn't.Momento (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you propose we remove all materials from authors who don't have first-hand knowledge of Knowledge? That isn't a workable standard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I propose that reputable and published scholar's opinions are of the greatest value. But when considering non-scholars, then someone who has a first hand experience of practicing the techniques is far more credible than someone who hasn't. And last on the list are reporters taking an ambiguous quote out of its necessary context for their own purposes.Momento (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be your personal hierarchy but it doesn't square with Misplaced Pages policies and practices. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You asked my opinion and I gave it.Momento (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, just be sure to follow Misplaced Pages policies and practices when editing here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

<<< FYI, Collier's book is cited in several sources about the subject (Kent, Geaves, Fahlbusch, Hackett=, Barret, and others) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Scholars may cite all kinds of primary sources. It doesn't mean that this article should do so. You've argued elsewhere that the comments of Randi are inappropriate in a BLP. If you believe this is a BLP then the autobiography of someone who never met the biography subject would appear even more inappropriate. I don't see how Collier has a better reputation than Randi, or is a more relaible source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP? No, that is not the main argument. The main argument is the quality of the Randi source. If we know that the article is peppered with factual inaccuracies, why to use it? Also, show me who cites Randi? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Randi makes his money by being a professional sceptic. The more outlandish his statements, the higher his profile. His "encyclopedia" covers such serious topics as Big Foot, asiza and the Loch Ness monster. Using it as a source about the NRM is pathetic. Let's face it, if Randi had said "Rawat is a Sant guru" we wouldn't bother using it. It's only Randi's rudeness that makes it valuable.Momento (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Scholars and authors all make money based on how many books they sell. We're not using Randi as a source for an NRM - we're using it as a source for a meditation technique. And your statement shows a failure to assume good faith. Please retract it and deal with your fellow editors more respectfully. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento, arguments can be made without declaring our perceptions of others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the issue isn't how many books they sell, but what they do to achieve it. Most scholars aim for a NPOV, Randi aims for "skepticism". Secondly, Rawat's teachings are an NRM, just like Jesus's teachings are Christianity. Thirdly, your comment about me - "Ample evidence has been provided about this editor's problems." goes way beyond Good Faith.Momento (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Hummel, Reinhart Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen. Religiöse Bewegungen in westlichen Kulturen Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3-170-05609-3
2. tephen J. Hunt Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8
3. Geaves, Ron, Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji), 2006, Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies, 2 44-62
4. Barret, David V., The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions (2003),pp.65, Cassel, ISBN 1-84403-040-7
5. All Gods Children: The Cult Experience—Salvation Or Slavery?, pp.29 Chilton (1977), ISBN 0-801-96620-5
6. Messer, Jeanne. 1976 "Guru Maharaj Ji and the Divine Light Mission," in Charles Y. Glock and Robert N. Bellah, eds. The New Religious Consciousness. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress. pp.52-72.
7. Edwards, Linda. A Brief Guide to Beliefs: Ideas, Theologies, Mysteries, and Movements, pp.277-79, Westminster John Knox (2001), ISBN 0-664-22259-5
8. Prince, Ruth, Riches, David, The New Age in Glastonbury: The Construction of Religious Movements, pp.100, Berghahn Books (2001), ISBN -157-181792-1
9. "Maharaj.org: Masters". 1999. Retrieved 1999-01-01. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
   "Even though references to the technique of Knowledge are made earlier than 1700, this is the traceable story so far"
10. Cagan, Andrea, Peace Is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat, pp.109, Mighty River Press (2007), ISBN 978-0978869496