Revision as of 16:43, 13 February 2007 editJossi (talk | contribs)72,880 editsm →Techniques: indent← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:38, 10 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,436,976 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Yoga}}, {{WikiProject Prem Rawat}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
(300 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} | |||
*] | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| | |||
*] | |||
{{WikiProject Yoga|importance=low|auto=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Prem Rawat|importance=mid}} | |||
}} | |||
==Untitled== | |||
*] | |||
== |
==Restoration== | ||
On reviewing the edit histories I found that this article had been merged into ], and that much of the material had been lost. Following discussions at various related talk pages, it seems to me best to restore the deleted material on these specific techniques and improve upon it. I believe that there are some additional sources and material that we can add, and that we can greatly improve the quality. The "Teachings" article is facing splits and mergers, and this material is already briefly summarized there, so the two articles can proceed on parallel tracks. | |||
* There is no need to put quotation marks around the word followers. Most style guides do not recommend this practice. The sentence beginning with "Eileen Baker..." is almost impossible to understand, and the section about Haan contains repetition and a lack of clarity. I intend changing these. ] 12:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Even more than the loss of material, this article has a better defined topic than ], and it's easier to build on this foundation. The techniquies of Knowledge are only one aspect of Rawata's teachings, but they are not exclusive to him, so it make more sense to treat them separately. <b>] ] </b> 08:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
* I can't make any sense of the "Eileen ..." section and was tempted to delete it as incoherent, but I suspect that would be too controversial, could someone delete or re-write in English. ] 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
* I've tried to break up the text with sections as it's too long, and too incherent. I'm happy for the section headings to be changed, but some sectioning is necessary ] 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
* Deleted the word 'secret' as POV. They aren't secret, because anyone can find them in two clicks. ] 09:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I don't like the word secrest either, but you deleted the opinion of a scholar. In WIkipedia we report what reliable sources say about the subject, we do not connect the dots or engage om ]. ] <small>] • ]</small> 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Amending the Lede== | |||
==Proposal== | |||
The last few paragraphs have little or nothing to do with anything that precedes them.] 10:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
''“The most notable teacher is Prem Rawat, known as Maharaji to his students,” '' This is an unsupported statement and should be removed asap as it clearly fails any test under NPOV. | |||
I will remove the last two paragraphs in a few days.] 10:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Beyond that the lede should set the subject firmly within its earliest identifiable historical context, that is within the philosophy of Hans Rawat, followed by identification of its subsequent use by Satpal Maharaj and Prem Rawat. | |||
Why aren't the techniques outlined here? They are not covered by copyright and so it seems POV to leave them out. I won't add them now as it's controversial, but it deserves debate. ] 09:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:--] (]) 08:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Because there are no ] that describe them.] <small>] • ]</small> 14:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I disagree. I'm sure many Americans (at least) don't know that Maharaji is now known as Prem Rawat, and would like to know that there's a connection. Maharaji caused quite a stir in the USA at the height of his fame. "Maharaji" was explained to me as "Maharaj" ("great king") with a suffix of "-ji", meaning "dear". ] (]) 19:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::This leads as back to a discussion we had some years ago: If there are no reliable sources that describle the ToK, we should delete the article. --] 14:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I have no problem in exploring the deletion the article and merging whatever material is not duplicated into the ] article. But note, that as there are many reliable sources that speak about these techniques, it may be not a good idea to delete the article. ] <small>] • ]</small> 14:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Hmm, an explorative AfD? Strictly speaking, this should be handled by article content RfC first, but you know that this process is rather broken and only gets enough eyeballs if it's on a topic like Israel-Palestine, Bush, Creationism, Nintendo or other hot spots of enwiki. Most RfC on NRMs I've seem failed to get significant response. --] 15:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::: Let me do some research first to see if there is any scholar out there that wrote about the specifics of the techniques. WIll take me a couple fo days. ] <small>] • ]</small> 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: I think it needs to be one or the other - either it exists and should be described, or it doesn't and it should be deleted, however, it seems that this topic/individual/movement inspires some heated PoV so maybe an admin could kick off a formal debate? ] 14:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
===Proposal for new lede=== | |||
::: Hi StopItTidyUp (thx BTW for external link cleanup). Fine to see someone still with the mythical belief in the power of admins. If this question would in any way be solvable by unilateral admin intervention, it would have been solved by now. No shortage of admins here (Jossi and me, at least). --] 15:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::No reason why we should not be able to resolve this, Peter. ] <small>] • ]</small> 15:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
The Knowledge (also Spiritual Knowledge, Divine Knowledge and Self Knowledge) was a term used by ] to denote a formulation of four specific ] techniques that were imparted in a process of initiation. The term has continued to be used by two of Hans Ram Singh Rawat’s sons, Satpal Maharaj and ]. | |||
The section discussing the sound meditation by Kranenborg ends on the words "assumes the;". There are some missing words. ] 22:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
: |
:--] (]) 08:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
== |
===Sources supporting new lede=== | ||
Peter, found several sources: | |||
*Lewis, James R. ''The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions (1998) pp.227-7, Prometheus Books, ISBN 1-57392-226-6 | |||
::"Initiation into the yoga occurs through a process referred as "giving knowledge" during which an instructor introduces new members to four yogic techniques which reveal the means of experiencing the divine light, sound, word and nectar." | |||
(1) Hadden, Religions of the world, pp.428 ''"The meditation techniques the Maharaji teaches today are the same he learned from his father, Hansji Maharaj, who, in turn, learned them from his spiritual teacher …….'' | |||
* Lippy, Charles H., ''Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience : Studies of Traditions and Movements'' (1998) pp.1521 , Charles Scribner's Sons, ISBN 0-68418-062-6 | |||
::'' emphasizes a powerful experience of inner light, sound, sweet tastes and vibrations.'' | |||
(2) Hans Yog Prakash: Author Hans Ram Singh Rawat. (1936 ?) (copy available at http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/library/hyp/hyp.htm). | |||
As well as description of the techniques that someone already posted on your talk page from this source: | |||
* ], ''Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America'' (1992) pp. 143-4, Garland Publishing, ISBN 0-81531-140-0 | |||
] <small>] • ]</small> 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
''“Without the complete and perfect Knowledge, the heart cannot know any peace. Artificial devotion cannot hold the appearance of love for very long.” | |||
At least a couple seem to be described in the Process section of ] without citation. ] 12:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
“Whoever is truly impartial can have devotion. Whoever has no illusions can have Knowledge.” | |||
:I has been done. ] <small>] • ]</small> 14:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
“No one can reach God without devotion to Satguru. He alone can give Knowledge of the Supreme.” | |||
==Formatting== | |||
I have a problem with such a long unwieldy text from Kranenborg. I think the bullets or numbers that I had originaly used make it much easier to read. ] 16:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Disagree.It is an opinion of Kranenborg and as presented it gives a different impression and undue weight to his viewpoint. Better off in a text block as we are citing all other scholars. ] <small>] • ]</small> 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Disagree about undue weight. Kranenborg is well-respected. he is the only one who describes the techniques in such detail. ] 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
"Only by devotion to Satguru can you receive Knowledge of the Supreme. All scriptures sing the praises of devotion to the Perfect Master".'' | |||
==Facts first and only then opinions== | |||
I think that factual descriptions of the techniques should precede assesments and comments. In other words, I think it is wrong to place Hunt in front of Kranenborg or Melton. ] 16:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
(3) Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj Divine Light Mission (C.L.Tandon), B-19/3, Shakti Nagar, Delhi 7, India – 1970 (copy available at http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/Satgurudev.htm ) | |||
:These are not "factual", Andries, as these people did not say that they were taught the techniques. These are opinions, same as all the others. Hunt gives context, which Kranenborg or Melton do not.] <small>] • ]</small> 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Disagree, Melton's and Kranenborg's descriptions are far more factual than Hunt. The "context" that you assert Hunt gives is a very subjective interpretation and should not precede factual descriptions in an encyclopedia. ] 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I will give the article a neutrality warning for this. Facts should precede opinions in an encyclopedia. ] 16:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::A neutrality warning? You are not addressing my argument above. I find this disingenuous and not in good faith. ] <small>] • ]</small> 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::This article is not called ]. Hunt's emphasis is on the teachings of Prem Rawat, not on the techniques. ] 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
''Shri Hans Ji Maharaj was a beacon showing the path of light to lakhs of people in India and was worshipped by them as their Satguru. He was an ideal saint, but more than that he was the perfect karma yogi. The members of the Divine Light Mission are indebted to him for imparting the knowledge of Divine Light and Sabad Brahm. The message of Shri Maharaj Ji has a special significance in the modern context, for without this knowledge of the true self of man there cannot be any possibility of peace on this earth. It is not until man finds his divinity and shines in the glow of the inner light that love will reign and mankind be truly united. Guru Maharaj Ji showed us that the responsibility for a fundamental change in this hate striven world lies with the individual, for unless we kill the hatred and the war within us there shall never be an end of strife without. The knowledge of the Divine Light and Name of God shows man the practical path to the kingdom of heaven where man shall not lift sword against man, neither shall he know war anymore.'' | |||
The real "fact" is that neither Melton, nor Your favorite Dutch scholar know about these techniques as these were not taught to them. So, these are as good asn a opinion as any other scholar referenced in this article. ] <small>] • ]</small> 16:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:This is not the way Misplaced Pages works. ] 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Hunt provides invaluable information that both Melton and Your Dutch scholar omit: that the techniques require "the guidance of a teacher". He also provides context about what these techniques are for. Te reader will be better informed if they read Hunt and then the competing viewpoints of Melton and Kranenborg. Ah... and before you attempt to preach others about how Misplaced Pages works, you better take a good and serious look in the mirror.] <small>] • ]</small> 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Well Haan wrote this more or less too. Shall we start with Haan then? ] 16:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::A student before scholars? Not an option. ] <small>] • ]</small> 18:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::This student did during two years participant observation and published his results in a university press magazine about relgious movement. This make the source highly reputable and relevant. Is there anybody else who did this? I do not think so. ] amended 18:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::He was a student that reached certain mistaken conclusions based on is world-view. To call that "highly reputable" is not appropriate. Nevertheless, it is in the article so do no know what is the problem. ] <small>] • ]</small> 18:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::I disagree with your assessment of Haan. He reached his conclusions based on his observations. It seems that several others agree with his observations as can be seen from the comments on this talk page and the talk page of the DLM. His article is one of the best available sources. I did not find a single mistake in his article. I am not saying that Haan is completely without bias, but then who is? ] 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::You are entitled to disagree, of course. Just that ''I know'' that his conclusions are totally and utterly wrong. As I said, his reference is in the article, so there is nothing more to discuss. ] <small>] • ]</small> 18:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::But then why do other (ex-)premies write so adamantly that Haan was right? I am sincerely interested in solving this mystery. ] 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::::You can contact me via email, if you want to discuss. These pages are not for discussing the subject, but the article. ] <small>] • ]</small> 18:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::And also, the premies were invited and allowed to give comments on the article before it was published and as far as I know nobody disagreed. ] 18:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I do not have the full article, so my assessment is based on the specific comments that you chose to add to this article. For example that the "secrecy" had anything to do with a "life of devotion" and that another reason for such purported secrecy was to discourage people to pursue other paths, both assertions are totally off the mark. All what Maharaji asks is that people make a promise not to reveal the techniques to others, for the reasons that he stated as added to the article. That promise is made by the person in their own heart (no one asks you to sign a document or even declare verbally that you will not break that promise) and the techniques are taught in good faith and with the hope that the person will practice them and benefit from them. Maharaji also says that if you don't like it, to walk away, but not to give up looking for inner peace. You may be paying too much attention to what detractors say, Andries. The fact is that this is a very simple thing. It is often said that the techniques have a buit-in protection mechanism, and these do not work if the person has not discovered first his own thirst for inner peace, has a comittment to give it a fair chance, and approaches the practice of these techniques with simplicity and trust. I can only speak of ''my own'' experience. I have been practicing these techniques daily for more that 20 years, and my experience has been beautiful, sweet and simple. In good times and in bad times, I have felt inner peace through this practice. That is all I would say in this page. If you have further questions, you can email me. ] <small>] • ]</small> 22:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
''He gifted me with Knowledge Divine. On the day of Initiation, I was reborn spiritually and learnt the true nature of the 'Self'. How simple is the knowledge. How secret is the knowledge. Light shines in man, but how sad it is that he gropes in darkness without the grace of a Guru.'' | |||
==Off topic== | |||
I had already requested year ago reference for the assertion that the section ''Generic references to the kryias, Knowledge and the teacher'' | |||
talked about the techniques of knowledge as practised in the DLM/Elan Vital and taught by Maharaji and other. I am still waiting for it. Unless references are provided I consider the section off-topic. ] 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Moved to a separate article. ] <small>] • ]</small> 18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks are u sure that the spelling of the new article title is correct? Kryia or Kriya? ] | |||
::Corrected. ] <small>] • ]</small> 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
''If education means the development of the child, if it means to make all-round improvement in the child, then my humble submission is that the knowledge of the Holy Name and Divine Light, or spiritual knowledge, is the only panacea for all ills. Nations become great and strong by individuals, and individuals become great and strong by the knowledge of the spirit. Shri Maharaj Ji's greatest contribution in this distracted world was the dissemination of that knowledge which disciplines the mind and transforms the individual.'' | |||
==Removal of bullet points== | |||
Jossi, please explain your reversion of my edit adding bullet points to emphasize the four techniques. Now they are buried in the text and much less readable. Also, please say why you prefer not having the first section title, which obviates the explicit TOC entry. --] 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The opinion of the Dutch religious scholar and Christian minister Reender Kranenborg does not need to be featured so prominently, as it is only one viewpoint amongst many. There are other viewpoints such as the one presented by J. Gordon Melton. Both these viewpoints should be presented as such, using bullet points gives undue weight to ''one'' viewpoint, and that is not acceptable. As for the article's organization, you placed many viewpoints under the section "Description", when there are only two descriptions (Melton's and Kranenborg's). I will attempt to better organize the article. ] <small>] • ]</small> 01:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
(4) 'Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti' http://www.manavdharam.org/shjm/1_brief_into.html | |||
:I have reorganized the article, and added a couple of new sources. I think that the new organization works better than what we had before. ] <small>] • ]</small> 02:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
''Shri Satpal Ji Maharaj, the teacher of Manav Dharam, travels constantly to inspire and encourage others to experience this inner force which is our true essence. He reveals the same techniques of spiritual insight to all, irrespective of nationality, caste or creed. Manav Dharam encompasses the teachings of all religions and is the source of them all. It is the eternal wisdom flowing from the practical Knowledge of the Soul.'' | |||
::The reorganization of sections looks improved. Regarding the bulleting of the four techniques, they are described, if somewhat differently, by all the authors as the basis of the system, so they should be emphasized. Why not list them separately, along with the different descriptions of each one? --] 18:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
''Man is essentially spirit, or in other words, consciousness. To know consciousness, to experience it and to realize it is the path of spiritual knowledge. Knowledge has two aspects- material and spiritual. In the material domain it is called 'Apara Vidya' and pertains to all physical and social sciences. In the spiritual domain it is called 'Para Vidya' and pertains to self-realization, the experience of the soul. Science of soul itself implies the science of universal life. The science of the spirit is a sovereign science, a sovereign secret, imperishable, supremely holy, most excellent, directly enjoyable, full of virtues and very easy to practise. It is itself both the means and the end - the immediate and the ultimate. It is all comprehensive and all-inclusive, and knowing it means nothing remains to be known. It is the saturation of the self, the merging of the individual self with the Cosmic Self. It cannot be achieved through senses, mind or intellect. It is experienced by the self through the self by the grace of the realized Master. Knowledge is the means, and Knowledge also is the destination. In Divine Knowledge there must be no duality. It is just one point.'' | |||
:::Because you give undue weight to what is the opinion of these two scholars. Note that these two scholars, did not learn these techniques, they are just describing something based on what they have heard. As such, if we list these descriptions, we need to list them as opinions and not as facts, and attibute each viewpoint to each one of them. ] <small>] • ]</small> 19:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:--] (]) 08:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion=== | |||
Does anyone refer to "Hans Ram Singh Rawat " or "Prem Pal Singh Rawat"? In other ways that proposal seems accurate. (Those sources may serve for other parts of the particle.) <b>] ] </b> 10:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
: What I meant to do was give a formula that identified the three individuals by their family name - otherwise it's a bit odd for the reader to be given the information that they are father and sons/brothers but then only to have the three individuals identified by a mixture of titular, adoptive names and family name. | |||
== Haan opinions == | |||
:how about: | |||
RE: Your edit whose summary readeds "Haan never intended to voice his observations as criticism and they were voiced in a neutral tone". | |||
# You do not know what an author's motivations were or were not | |||
# He was a member of a critical group | |||
# The contents are obviously critical | |||
I see no reason why not to include this source under a "Critical views" section. ] <small>] • ]</small> 23:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::There is no indication that they were meant as criticsm and I do not see why the contents is critical. He did not belong to a group critical of DLM or critical of cults. He even had his article reviewed by premies. His observations completely correspond with what has been voiced in other Dutch scholarly articles. ] 22:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
*The Knowledge (also Spiritual Knowledge, Divine Knowledge and Self Knowledge) was a term used by ] (Hans Rawat) to denote a formulation of four specific ] techniques that were imparted in a process of initiation. The term has continued to be used by two of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj’s sons, Satpal Maharaj (Satyapal Rawat) and ] (Maharaji,Guru Maharaj Ji). --] (]) 09:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Moved from article == | |||
::Based on my research, there is a well-defined and described set of meditation practices that are known as the "techniques of Knowledge". Then, there is the much more nebulous "Knowledge", which appears to go beyond the meditation techniques and stretches into the "knowledge of God" and even less defined fields. I suggest that we should keep this article focused on the meditation techniques, with perhaps just a section on broader uses of the term "knowledge". I'm not usre that those other three terms (Spiritual Knowledge, Divine Knowledge and Self Knowledge) were ever used to refer to the mediation techniques themselves. If not, they could be discussed on that other section I proposed. <b>] ] </b> 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
''(moved from article. Posted by new user ]) | |||
::: I think the strict definition you propose should allow avoidance of references that use any of the epithets. Self Knowledge was used extensively as a synonym for Knowledge and appears in some of the original constitution documents of the DLM and Elan Vital organisations, although I don't think any of those primary sources would clearly define the phrase as applying to the techniques only. The semantic confusion comes from the term Knowledge (plus whatever epithet)applying to both the meditation and the claimed experience that comes from employing the techniques. Focusing strictly on the 'techniques' as the article subject in the way you suggest should allow resolution of what is otherwise an inherent confusion. With the consequent distance placed between the specific Prem Rawat 'teaching', and the 'techniques' as a general meditation practice, I wonder whether the following link could be used; although not academically 'verifiable', what is demonstrated in the video is precisely that which other sources describe: Also while I can see that there may be objections, I don't actually see what is wrong with using Mike Finch as a source. No one argues that he was not an intitiator for Prem Rawat and the description he gives accords with other sources: --] (]) 19:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
It should not be assumed that the descriptions below are accurate. The techniques can be learned free of charge from Prem Rawat, and those that appreciate what he offers will not divulge the exact nature of these techniques, because they understand the value of the process that Prem Rawat has set up to ensure the techniques are given a proper chance to be appreciated. There is no reason why any interested party should not learn them for themsleves, free of charge. Prem Rawat asks that the specifics of these techniques not be divulged for the simple reason that he is genuinely concerned that people fully understand the process and value of the practice he advocates. {{unsigned|Simon King LCPH}} | |||
::::Does that video comes from '']''? If so then it's probably a reliable source. Regarding the lead, how about we say: | |||
::::*''The '''''techniques of Knowledge''''' was a term used by ] (Hans Rawat) to denote a formulation of four specific ] techniques that were imparted in a process of initiation. The term has continued to be used by two of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj’s sons, Satpal Maharaj (Satyapal Rawat) and ] (Maharaji,Guru Maharaj Ji).'' | |||
::::(Though it'd be better to avoid the "term used to denote" language and insteed be more direct, like ''TOK are four specific meditation... The term was coined by Shri Hans and has continued to be used by...'') And then, add later in the text, something like: | |||
::::*''Practicing these techniques is believed to lead to Spiritual Knowledge, Divine Knowledge and Self Knowledge.'' | |||
::::Though I'm not sure which sources we'd have for that. <b>] ] </b> 20:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
(Outdent) I take the point about "term used to denote" but of course there are two disambiguation pages for ] and ] which shows it is a term with more than one usage. Also I’m fairly certain there are no sources which attest to Hans Rawat ‘coining’ the term, and following logically from the Hans Rawat bio that says he was initiated by a teacher, then the base position must be that in the absence of any contrary evidence, the terminology used by Hans Rawat was learnt from his teacher(s), and not invented. I also think that using ‘denote’ is correct because we have no evidence that the techniques (even as a specific quartet) were unique to Hans Rawat, therefore Knowledge is what Hans Rawat called the quartet collectively – not what they uniquely are/were. Indeed, although we have no source to support this, it is obvious from the various descriptions that three of the techniques are the Shambhavi, Kechari and Yoni Mudra from any modern Hatha Yoga text. I’m not suggesting the article can say this, simply that there’s enough evidence to show that Knowledge is a ‘denotion’ not a unique formulation. Neither the specific term ‘Techniques of Knowledge’ nor even the word technique(s) appear in either “Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj”, which uses the yoga specific term Kriya or in Hans Yog Prakash. ToK as term might be unique to the Prem Rawat DLM/Elan Vital era, though I doubt there are any sources that define that, in any event it would seem the article title needs to be changed either to The Knowledge (meditation techniques) or Knowledge (meditation techniques) or techniques of meditation: The Knowledge or some such. | |||
:I can't tell - is the writer saying that the knowledge ''is'' free or ''should be'' free? Is there any information available on the tuition cost classes, etc? It sounds like the writer is conflating two issues, cost and secrecy. We've already got info on the confidentiallity of the knowledge in the article, so that aspect seems redundant. -] 03:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::There is no charge for Knowledge. It is freely given. ] <small>] • ]</small> 06:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I will try to find some verifiable information that addresses the points made by ]. ] <small>] • ]</small> 06:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
I’m not sure about saying that practicing the techniques leads to Spiritual Knowledge (et seq); I think the way to approach it is to go first to the “Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj” which provides a source close to contemporary with Hans Rawat: (below) supported with the current references from Barret and Kranenborg. The terms kriya, prana, Raj Yoga, third eye, ajapa jap, and Mahamantra can all be wikilinked to existing articles. From there I’d suggest going to the more definitive sources that have written about Divine Light Mission and Prem Rawat so that the ‘experience’ is explicitly located in the context of the DLM/Elan Vital, as that is what the sources are all referenced to – Kranenborg, Melton, Hadden, Chyssides and Hunt.--] (]) 12:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== relevant text from Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj== | |||
:''Control of the mind'' | |||
==Techniques== | |||
:''The four Kriyas or the four-fold technique taught by Shri Hansji Maharaj furnishes the easiest method of mind control. Ordinarily, the control of the mind is a stupendous task. Many have given it up as well nigh impossible.'' | |||
I am disturbed that Melton's and Kranenborg's description of the techniques are quoted here, since they contradict each other, so who is right? I guess this is why Wiki has a policy of not being an instruction manual. When an editor starts saying how things are done, Wiki runs the risk of misinforming. The policy states ''' While Misplaced Pages has descriptions of people, places, and things, Misplaced Pages articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials.''' Describing how to do the techniques are clearly instructions and made all the worse by being contradictory. I will remove them unless someone comes up with a really good argument I haven't though of.] 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:The human mind, Shri Hansji Maharaj admitted, was indeed powerful and not easy to be brought under control, but when it is harnessed to the equally powerful "Prana", it becomes easier to subjugate it. | |||
'':Lakhs of people, who were initiated into the mysteries of the "Raj Yoga" testify how an extrovert mind can be changed to an introvert mind, bringing into view the wonderful panorama of the inner working of nature, to the aspirant. Shri Hansji Maharaj claimed, and rightly too, that the knowledge, he was thus imparting was the same, which some five thousand years back Lord Krishna imparted to Arjuna, which enabled him to comprehend the universe as an integral whole. The Vishwa-Rup (Universal consciousness) which Arjuna was shown with the help of the "Third Eye" can be seen and comprehended by any other person, provided he is told where the "Third Eye" (Gyan Chakhshu) is located and how to open it.'' | |||
:Describing a procedure is not the same as telling how to do it. The descriptions now in the text do not appear intended as instructions, any more than saying that a description of a Catholic ] is the same as instructions in conducting a Mass. Please don't remove neutral, sourced material. The article would be much poorer without some descriptions of the techniques. -] · ] · 04:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
'':The "Third Eye"'' | |||
::::I don't understand the difference between "describing a procedure" and "telling someone how to do it". If the description of the procedure is accurate then someone should know how to do it (the procedure). And they are definitely instructions. A description of the techniques might be - there are a four of them and they are used to direct your senses inward. These are not descriptions but instructions on how to do them. And worse, they contradict each other, so they can't both be accurate descriptions of the techniques.] 05:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:''The "Third Eye", which is situated between the two eye-brows, at the tip of the nose is a nervous plexus, where the three principal nerves of the body, namely, the Spinal Chord (Sushumna), the Ida (left sympathetic nerve) and the Pingla (right sympathetic nerve) converge, as distributory canals for the flow of the "Prana" or the life breath. This spot is directly connected with the gravitational field of the universe, and exhibits two characteristic motions - the "Prana" (Attraction) and "Apan" (Repulsion), in the shape of inhalation and exhalation. The sages of the Upanishadic period termed this vital spot the Agya Chakra, where the mind is focussed, as it provides a window to see the wonderful working of Nature in all its subtlety. That is why Agya Chakra is known as Gyan Netra or Shiva Netra''.'':: | |||
and | |||
:::::How can we change them to make them less instructive? The fact that they contradict one another isn't a problem, we can simply say that descriptions differ. It doesn't mean that both are wrong, or even that either is wrong. Again, I direct you to the example of "]". How should this article be different from that one? -] · ] · 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:''Ajapa Gayatri'' | |||
:I don't think we can change these quotes to make them less instructive. They are instructions and therefore the shouldb't be here. I have removed them.] 10:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I will find more "descriptions" of the techniques and of people's experiences.] 11:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:''Like all his predecessors, in the long line of saints, seers, Mahatmas and prophets, who appeared on the Indian scene during its long history, Shri Hansji Maharaj discovered the mystery, behind Ajapa Gyatri, which is the essence of the Vedas, the "Ulta Jap", by whose practice Balmiki, the author of the Ramayana turned from a dacoit to a saint, "Tarak Mantra" or "Shiva Mahamantra", which Lord Shiva himself used to distribute, in Varanasi, his abode in the plains.'' | |||
:::You appear to have deleted more than just the quotes. You even deleted material from Maharaji. Was tha inaccurate too? I'm disturbed that you deleted sourced, neutral material even when another editor disputed the removal, with no attempt to improve or fix it. -] · ] · 18:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:''Japa, or to apply the mind uninterruptedly and without a break, to a particular object, according to the great Yogi Raj provides the only panacea for all the evils of the mind. Japa practice purifies the mind and brings it under subjugation of the aspirant.'' | |||
::Momento, this article has been repeatedly criticized in the past because of missing description. I strongly object to remove the descriptions. ] 21:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:''But, Japa, which the Yogi Raj recommended, was unlike the one, ordinarily resorted to by a spiritua1 aspirant by means of moving beads of a glossary with the aid of fingers, or mechanically repeating a particular mantra or name of the Almighty, either loudly, or ruminating over it in mind.'' | |||
:Sorry WillBeback, I took out more than intended. Andries, these are clearly instructions to meditate and therefore have no place in Wiki. I don't care if this article is criticised for following Wiki policy.] 03:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I suggest you request mediation, because I continue to disagree. Request for comments on Prem Rawat related articles only rarely if ever yield results. ] 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:What's there to mediate? The sections I removed contain instructions on how to meditate and that is against Wiki policy. Wiki policy is clear "While Misplaced Pages has descriptions of people, places, and things, Misplaced Pages articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials.''] 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
::There is no tutorial in this article. I will revert. Please request mediation or I will do it. ] 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Go right ahead Andries. Wiki policy says''' Wiki articles should not include instructions''' and '''Misplaced Pages articles should not contain "how-to"s'''. How you are unable to see Kranenborg and Melton instructions on how to meditate is beyond me, perhaps another editor can point it out to you?] 23:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:''Unlike other modes of Japa, as embodied in the scriptures, the aspirant in the practice of Ajapa Jap is simply told to confine the attention of the mind on the "Flight Of Hans" within the nasal apertures (at the top of the nose), merely as a conscious subject. "Hans" is a mysterious sound movement which is the subject matter of Para-Vani; the source of all spoken and written language and can be understood by the grace of a Satguru.'' | |||
::Momento, as I pointed out earlier this artilce is far less detailed than ]. Do you have any response? And are you contending that the deleted material was so compreheisve and accurate that it would be sufficient for a reader to know exactly how to mediate following the Techniques of Knowledge? -] · ] · 23:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
: Since these two sets of instructions on how to (supposedly) meditate the Rawat way contradict each other, you can't say they would be sufficient for a reader to know exactly how to mediate following the Techniques of Knowledge? BUt that is beside the point. The point is they are "instructions", "a how to do", a "tutorial" on meditation, as such they shouldn't be in the article according to Wiki policy.] 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::I am fed up by Momento's repeated Mass deletions of well-sourced neutral material. ] 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
: Being "well sourced" and "neutral" isn't the point Andries. They are "instructions", "a how to do", a "tutorial" on meditation, as such they shouldn't be in the article according to Wiki policy.] 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
I think it might look liek a tutoreal if u didnt no what a tutoreel was or maybe u if u were trying to be dense and pretend it was a good reason to delete something u didnt like so which is it are you ignorant or just pretending? ] 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:''As author of Hans Yog Prakash, Shri Hansji Maharaj demonstrated how the practice of Ajapa Jap could kindle the Divine Light within, which dispels the ignorance of man as to the reality of his own self. For a spiritual aspirant, anxious to know the nature of the spirit that animates matter, the practice of Ajapa Jap, or Ulta Jap, Mahamantra, which are all synonymous terms, is a "must". It is beneficial not only during this life, but also in the life-beyond.'' --] (]) 12:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
A way can be found to use these sources ''without'' making this article into a "how-to" as in violation of ]. Ay proposals on how we can achieve that? ] <small>]</small> 01:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, keep the descriptions the way they were. This article never was an instruction manual or how-to guide. ] 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
==New Lede Created== | |||
::I don't see how text that says "The third technique involves concentration upon the sound of one's own breathing" is an instruction. It simply indicates the focus of the technique. I assume there's much more to it than that. It's equivalent to saying "the priest then consecrates the wafer", which doesn't tell how to do it either. -] · ] · 01:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Simple lede created, plus removal of first paragraph of the origins section: | |||
''The techniques of Knowledge were taught to Prem Rawat by his father, ], who learned them from ], his teacher. The website "Maharaji.org" (1999) included the traceable story of "Masters" that according to Prem Rawat, referred to the techniques of Knowledge since 1780, including ], ], ], ], and his father ].<ref name=Maharaj/> Hans Ji founded the ] to further his teachings.'' The reference for this is the internet archive as it does not appear on the current Maharaji website and is presumably not attributable as a current opinion - there's no other provenance for this 'lineage' other than Geaves. This speculative lineage would be best included in a section specific to Prem Rawat. --] (]) 10:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I've got no idea how to consecrate the wafer and that description doesn't tell me how but I, and most other readers, will be able to concentrate upon the sound of one's own breathing. It is a clear instruction.] 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)wrong i dont no how 2 consecentraet on breathing according 2 teh style of Techniques of Knowledge and that description doesnt tell how me how 2 do it so i cant learn how so its not an instruction unless it tells me to close my eyes or maybe to use a stethescope or stair at a candel or sumthing so its just a description so stop complaining ] 02:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:This looks good to me. Thanks for doing that work. <b>] ] </b> 10:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: Cite needs http://www.manavdharam.org/shjm/1_brief_into.html added but the code has defeated me for the moment.--] (]) 11:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
::: I added a cite - I hope it's what you wanted - feel free to change it. <b>] ] </b> 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Thanks. On looking at it I wonder whether that Shri Hans quote should go with the firtst two (or is three overkill ?) and http://www.manavdharam.org/ssjm/2_padyatras.html ''"He has a vast network of ashrams and centers where sincere aspirants can receive initiation into the Knowledge of the highest Truth."'' go in as a direct quote from Satpal as demonstration of his personal usage of the term "Knowledge" relative to an 'initiation' ? --] (]) 09:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::I think two sources is enough for an unextraordinary assertion. That cite may be useful elsewhere in the article. <b>] ] </b> 19:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Change of gender== | |||
Will beback is ovbiously right and he says his point better than i can n i think its pretty funny how jossi and mentos are always on the same side and saying every1 else is wrong and teaming up to remove and delete anything any1 else says that they dont liek 01:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
"the techniques are universally applicable and their practice has no impact on ... a student's gender...." Is this worth saying? I doubt anybody would expect his or her gender to be changed by meditation. ] (]) 19:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I would disagree with Andries and Will here. ] is very clear about this: ''Misplaced Pages articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise)''. People can hurt themselves by following these mistaken instructions. What can be done is to say in the article that two scholars wrote competing explanations of these techniques, give the names of the techniques as reported by these sources, and give the sources so people that want to read about them can do so ''outside'' of Misplaced Pages. ] <small>]</small> 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::There was never a violation of ]. ] 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::I am arguing that there ''is'' such violation, Andries. These are specific instructions purportedly to access an inner experience. Readers may decide to try them, and these techniques as wrongly explained can be dangerous to people. They are mistaken, they are misleading and they don't belong here. ] <small>]</small> 13:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::We are not coming a millimeter closer. Further discussion does not make any sense. ] 13:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::Jossi, as usual I find your objections completely unconvincing. The description in this entry were written by the religious scholars Kranenborg and Melton. Kranenborg and Melton are not meditation teachers and they clearly never had the intention to write a how-to manual. ] 13:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Lede== | |||
:::::::If you always find my arguments completely unconvincing, Andries, maybe you need to take a hard look at yourself, and ask yourself where are you coming from, and why is that. Kranenborg and Melton's intentions is not what is questioned. What has been asked, and that your refuse to address is the fact that these erroneous instructions, if followed as described in the article can be harmful. This is exactly the reason why we do not have how-to's in WP, and that includes such things as legal or medical advise. Read the policy, Andries. ] <small>]</small> 15:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
What is "lede", and why isn't it in any dictionaries? ] (]) 19:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::::What's our source for the descriptions being erroneous? Certainly if some claim them to be erroneous we should include those viewpoints too. But we can't judge, as Misplaced Pages editors, which viewpoint is "right". -] · ] · 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Lead misspelled, I would guess ;) --] (]) 13:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::My argument, Will, is not that these are erroneous (although these descriptions are such). My argument is that one of the reasons behind ] is that as we do not offer advice in WP such as legal, or medical, this include instructions about how to do these techniques, in particular when the instructions given can result in harm. I argue that these instructions, if followed as presented, can be harmful to a person. ] <small>]</small> 03:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
::The phonetic spelling "lede" was introduced by typesetters working with lead type to differentiate the word for the introductory paragraph from the word signifying the metal, and it has remained current, even though lead type is now rarely used. For more background, see . --''']]''' 15:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Citations section == | |||
::::::::::On the one hand we certainly don't want to cause harm, nor even to do good (give advice) ither. OTOH we do describe many topics that can cause harm if done incorrectly. ], ], and ]; to name a few. We describe the heart surgery in some detail but I don't the article contains instructions, nor should we expect that readers will use the article as their guide to performing the procedure. | |||
The floating ref tags in the "Citations" section strike me as a bit confusing. Isn't there a better way to implement this? It seems like a bit of a kludge to me... --] (]) 15:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::I think the best solution for this material is to summarize it briefly rather than quote it at length, and leave the quotations for the references at the end. We can certainly leave the details that might cause bodily harm out of the summary. One reason I think a summary approach is more appropriate is that some of the writers use the second person, which does give it the appearance of instruction. For example, if the heart surgery surgery contained quotes saying, "Next you clamp the aorta" or "One should remember to keep the sutures tight" then that'd be inappropriate too. It wouldn't be inappropriate to say that, "The surgeon next clamps the aorta" or "Tight sutures are important in heart surgery to prevent the wound from re-opening". So let's just do the best job we can of verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view. -] · ] · 08:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::That would work, Will. Thanks for the sensible proposal. Would you be interested in attempting that summarization? ] <small>]</small> 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Revert edits made by 89.242.92.216 == | |||
:::I removed the instructions because they were instructions not because they were wrong. The source for them being wrong is that they contradict each other, therefore at least one is wrong, maybe both. ] 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Two edits were made by this person that were not discussed on the talk page. The Rawat articles are subject to discussion before editing. ] (]) 16:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:At one stage Rawat had people called '''"instructors"'''. What was their job? Their job was to pass on the '''instructions''' Rawat gave them about how to practice the techniques. These two "scholars" are making their own attempt at passing on the '''"instructions'''". Regretably they've heard the '''instructions''' second hand from conflicting sources. But, never the less, they are''' instructions.''' And they shouldn't be included in this article because of it.] 07:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Descriptions section == | |||
I am from France and I work on the French Misplaced Pages, especially on Prem Rawat’s page. | |||
Looking for some information I end up on this page. I’m really surprised to find a rough description of the technics of Knowledge. So, I read some of the discussions around this article and the main one, and understood there was a fight between pro and anti PR. | |||
Anyway, I wonder what is the encyclopedic interest to reveal those technics as it is mention that it can make people confused without preparation? Does this not violate Misplaced Pages rules about biography of a living person? Even Melton himself said they are secret. I didn’t red his book, so I can’t make a clear statement about his intention, but it is his responsibility to pass over this rule. I don’t think Misplaced Pages has to take this bias, only mention that some writers did. | |||
So, I will suggest sticking in the Descriptions chapter to something like that: | |||
''According to the Dutch religious scholar and Christian minister Reender Kranenborg and the American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton, these techniques are secret and were originally called "Light", "Sound", "Name" or "Word" and "Nectar" but Prem Rawat now refers to them as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th techniques. Prem Rawat asks practitioners to promise "not to reveal these techniques to anyone", but says to "let other people go through their own journey... they, too, can have the techniques when they are ready."'' | |||
''Kranenborg and Melton provide differing details of them in their writings but agree on a general description of the practices, referring for some of those, to tantric practices or sabda-brahman meditation. Another description including the details of the four techniques of knowledge is provided by Dr. Daniel Kriegman who describes the recruitment process utilized by the Divine Light Mission in the early 1970s.” Michael Drury, describes these techniques as helping the practitioner to develop "a deep and spiritual self-knowledge."'' | |||
It is important to notice that Knowledge has always be free of charge, but it requires a specific preparation to properly understand and take benefit of the technics. ] (]) 11:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not going to restore the deleted content for now, but I will note that the justification for removal of sourced content given here is completely and utterly at odds with fundamental policies of the English-language Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 00:38, 10 February 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Techniques of Knowledge article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
Restoration
On reviewing the edit histories I found that this article had been merged into Teachings of Prem Rawat, and that much of the material had been lost. Following discussions at various related talk pages, it seems to me best to restore the deleted material on these specific techniques and improve upon it. I believe that there are some additional sources and material that we can add, and that we can greatly improve the quality. The "Teachings" article is facing splits and mergers, and this material is already briefly summarized there, so the two articles can proceed on parallel tracks. Even more than the loss of material, this article has a better defined topic than Teachings of Prem Rawat, and it's easier to build on this foundation. The techniquies of Knowledge are only one aspect of Rawata's teachings, but they are not exclusive to him, so it make more sense to treat them separately. Will Beback talk 08:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Amending the Lede
“The most notable teacher is Prem Rawat, known as Maharaji to his students,” This is an unsupported statement and should be removed asap as it clearly fails any test under NPOV.
Beyond that the lede should set the subject firmly within its earliest identifiable historical context, that is within the philosophy of Hans Rawat, followed by identification of its subsequent use by Satpal Maharaj and Prem Rawat.
- I disagree. I'm sure many Americans (at least) don't know that Maharaji is now known as Prem Rawat, and would like to know that there's a connection. Maharaji caused quite a stir in the USA at the height of his fame. "Maharaji" was explained to me as "Maharaj" ("great king") with a suffix of "-ji", meaning "dear". Unfree (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Proposal for new lede
The Knowledge (also Spiritual Knowledge, Divine Knowledge and Self Knowledge) was a term used by Hans Ram Singh Rawat to denote a formulation of four specific meditation techniques that were imparted in a process of initiation. The term has continued to be used by two of Hans Ram Singh Rawat’s sons, Satpal Maharaj and Prem Pal Singh Rawat.
Sources supporting new lede
(1) Hadden, Religions of the world, pp.428 "The meditation techniques the Maharaji teaches today are the same he learned from his father, Hansji Maharaj, who, in turn, learned them from his spiritual teacher …….
(2) Hans Yog Prakash: Author Hans Ram Singh Rawat. (1936 ?) (copy available at http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/library/hyp/hyp.htm).
“Without the complete and perfect Knowledge, the heart cannot know any peace. Artificial devotion cannot hold the appearance of love for very long.”
“Whoever is truly impartial can have devotion. Whoever has no illusions can have Knowledge.”
“No one can reach God without devotion to Satguru. He alone can give Knowledge of the Supreme.”
"Only by devotion to Satguru can you receive Knowledge of the Supreme. All scriptures sing the praises of devotion to the Perfect Master".
(3) Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj Divine Light Mission (C.L.Tandon), B-19/3, Shakti Nagar, Delhi 7, India – 1970 (copy available at http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/Satgurudev.htm )
Shri Hans Ji Maharaj was a beacon showing the path of light to lakhs of people in India and was worshipped by them as their Satguru. He was an ideal saint, but more than that he was the perfect karma yogi. The members of the Divine Light Mission are indebted to him for imparting the knowledge of Divine Light and Sabad Brahm. The message of Shri Maharaj Ji has a special significance in the modern context, for without this knowledge of the true self of man there cannot be any possibility of peace on this earth. It is not until man finds his divinity and shines in the glow of the inner light that love will reign and mankind be truly united. Guru Maharaj Ji showed us that the responsibility for a fundamental change in this hate striven world lies with the individual, for unless we kill the hatred and the war within us there shall never be an end of strife without. The knowledge of the Divine Light and Name of God shows man the practical path to the kingdom of heaven where man shall not lift sword against man, neither shall he know war anymore.
He gifted me with Knowledge Divine. On the day of Initiation, I was reborn spiritually and learnt the true nature of the 'Self'. How simple is the knowledge. How secret is the knowledge. Light shines in man, but how sad it is that he gropes in darkness without the grace of a Guru.
If education means the development of the child, if it means to make all-round improvement in the child, then my humble submission is that the knowledge of the Holy Name and Divine Light, or spiritual knowledge, is the only panacea for all ills. Nations become great and strong by individuals, and individuals become great and strong by the knowledge of the spirit. Shri Maharaj Ji's greatest contribution in this distracted world was the dissemination of that knowledge which disciplines the mind and transforms the individual.
(4) 'Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti' http://www.manavdharam.org/shjm/1_brief_into.html
Shri Satpal Ji Maharaj, the teacher of Manav Dharam, travels constantly to inspire and encourage others to experience this inner force which is our true essence. He reveals the same techniques of spiritual insight to all, irrespective of nationality, caste or creed. Manav Dharam encompasses the teachings of all religions and is the source of them all. It is the eternal wisdom flowing from the practical Knowledge of the Soul.
Man is essentially spirit, or in other words, consciousness. To know consciousness, to experience it and to realize it is the path of spiritual knowledge. Knowledge has two aspects- material and spiritual. In the material domain it is called 'Apara Vidya' and pertains to all physical and social sciences. In the spiritual domain it is called 'Para Vidya' and pertains to self-realization, the experience of the soul. Science of soul itself implies the science of universal life. The science of the spirit is a sovereign science, a sovereign secret, imperishable, supremely holy, most excellent, directly enjoyable, full of virtues and very easy to practise. It is itself both the means and the end - the immediate and the ultimate. It is all comprehensive and all-inclusive, and knowing it means nothing remains to be known. It is the saturation of the self, the merging of the individual self with the Cosmic Self. It cannot be achieved through senses, mind or intellect. It is experienced by the self through the self by the grace of the realized Master. Knowledge is the means, and Knowledge also is the destination. In Divine Knowledge there must be no duality. It is just one point.
Discussion
Does anyone refer to "Hans Ram Singh Rawat " or "Prem Pal Singh Rawat"? In other ways that proposal seems accurate. (Those sources may serve for other parts of the particle.) Will Beback talk 10:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- What I meant to do was give a formula that identified the three individuals by their family name - otherwise it's a bit odd for the reader to be given the information that they are father and sons/brothers but then only to have the three individuals identified by a mixture of titular, adoptive names and family name.
- how about:
- The Knowledge (also Spiritual Knowledge, Divine Knowledge and Self Knowledge) was a term used by Shri Hans Ji Maharaj (Hans Rawat) to denote a formulation of four specific meditation techniques that were imparted in a process of initiation. The term has continued to be used by two of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj’s sons, Satpal Maharaj (Satyapal Rawat) and Prem Rawat (Maharaji,Guru Maharaj Ji). --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Based on my research, there is a well-defined and described set of meditation practices that are known as the "techniques of Knowledge". Then, there is the much more nebulous "Knowledge", which appears to go beyond the meditation techniques and stretches into the "knowledge of God" and even less defined fields. I suggest that we should keep this article focused on the meditation techniques, with perhaps just a section on broader uses of the term "knowledge". I'm not usre that those other three terms (Spiritual Knowledge, Divine Knowledge and Self Knowledge) were ever used to refer to the mediation techniques themselves. If not, they could be discussed on that other section I proposed. Will Beback talk 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think the strict definition you propose should allow avoidance of references that use any of the epithets. Self Knowledge was used extensively as a synonym for Knowledge and appears in some of the original constitution documents of the DLM and Elan Vital organisations, although I don't think any of those primary sources would clearly define the phrase as applying to the techniques only. The semantic confusion comes from the term Knowledge (plus whatever epithet)applying to both the meditation and the claimed experience that comes from employing the techniques. Focusing strictly on the 'techniques' as the article subject in the way you suggest should allow resolution of what is otherwise an inherent confusion. With the consequent distance placed between the specific Prem Rawat 'teaching', and the 'techniques' as a general meditation practice, I wonder whether the following link could be used; although not academically 'verifiable', what is demonstrated in the video is precisely that which other sources describe: Also while I can see that there may be objections, I don't actually see what is wrong with using Mike Finch as a source. No one argues that he was not an intitiator for Prem Rawat and the description he gives accords with other sources: --Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does that video comes from Lord of the Universe? If so then it's probably a reliable source. Regarding the lead, how about we say:
- The techniques of Knowledge was a term used by Shri Hans Ji Maharaj (Hans Rawat) to denote a formulation of four specific meditation techniques that were imparted in a process of initiation. The term has continued to be used by two of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj’s sons, Satpal Maharaj (Satyapal Rawat) and Prem Rawat (Maharaji,Guru Maharaj Ji).
- (Though it'd be better to avoid the "term used to denote" language and insteed be more direct, like TOK are four specific meditation... The term was coined by Shri Hans and has continued to be used by...) And then, add later in the text, something like:
- Practicing these techniques is believed to lead to Spiritual Knowledge, Divine Knowledge and Self Knowledge.
- Though I'm not sure which sources we'd have for that. Will Beback talk 20:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does that video comes from Lord of the Universe? If so then it's probably a reliable source. Regarding the lead, how about we say:
- I think the strict definition you propose should allow avoidance of references that use any of the epithets. Self Knowledge was used extensively as a synonym for Knowledge and appears in some of the original constitution documents of the DLM and Elan Vital organisations, although I don't think any of those primary sources would clearly define the phrase as applying to the techniques only. The semantic confusion comes from the term Knowledge (plus whatever epithet)applying to both the meditation and the claimed experience that comes from employing the techniques. Focusing strictly on the 'techniques' as the article subject in the way you suggest should allow resolution of what is otherwise an inherent confusion. With the consequent distance placed between the specific Prem Rawat 'teaching', and the 'techniques' as a general meditation practice, I wonder whether the following link could be used; although not academically 'verifiable', what is demonstrated in the video is precisely that which other sources describe: Also while I can see that there may be objections, I don't actually see what is wrong with using Mike Finch as a source. No one argues that he was not an intitiator for Prem Rawat and the description he gives accords with other sources: --Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) I take the point about "term used to denote" but of course there are two disambiguation pages for The Knowledge and Knowledge which shows it is a term with more than one usage. Also I’m fairly certain there are no sources which attest to Hans Rawat ‘coining’ the term, and following logically from the Hans Rawat bio that says he was initiated by a teacher, then the base position must be that in the absence of any contrary evidence, the terminology used by Hans Rawat was learnt from his teacher(s), and not invented. I also think that using ‘denote’ is correct because we have no evidence that the techniques (even as a specific quartet) were unique to Hans Rawat, therefore Knowledge is what Hans Rawat called the quartet collectively – not what they uniquely are/were. Indeed, although we have no source to support this, it is obvious from the various descriptions that three of the techniques are the Shambhavi, Kechari and Yoni Mudra from any modern Hatha Yoga text. I’m not suggesting the article can say this, simply that there’s enough evidence to show that Knowledge is a ‘denotion’ not a unique formulation. Neither the specific term ‘Techniques of Knowledge’ nor even the word technique(s) appear in either “Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj”, which uses the yoga specific term Kriya or in Hans Yog Prakash. ToK as term might be unique to the Prem Rawat DLM/Elan Vital era, though I doubt there are any sources that define that, in any event it would seem the article title needs to be changed either to The Knowledge (meditation techniques) or Knowledge (meditation techniques) or techniques of meditation: The Knowledge or some such.
I’m not sure about saying that practicing the techniques leads to Spiritual Knowledge (et seq); I think the way to approach it is to go first to the “Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj” which provides a source close to contemporary with Hans Rawat: (below) supported with the current references from Barret and Kranenborg. The terms kriya, prana, Raj Yoga, third eye, ajapa jap, and Mahamantra can all be wikilinked to existing articles. From there I’d suggest going to the more definitive sources that have written about Divine Light Mission and Prem Rawat so that the ‘experience’ is explicitly located in the context of the DLM/Elan Vital, as that is what the sources are all referenced to – Kranenborg, Melton, Hadden, Chyssides and Hunt.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
relevant text from Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj
- Control of the mind
- The four Kriyas or the four-fold technique taught by Shri Hansji Maharaj furnishes the easiest method of mind control. Ordinarily, the control of the mind is a stupendous task. Many have given it up as well nigh impossible.
- The human mind, Shri Hansji Maharaj admitted, was indeed powerful and not easy to be brought under control, but when it is harnessed to the equally powerful "Prana", it becomes easier to subjugate it.
:Lakhs of people, who were initiated into the mysteries of the "Raj Yoga" testify how an extrovert mind can be changed to an introvert mind, bringing into view the wonderful panorama of the inner working of nature, to the aspirant. Shri Hansji Maharaj claimed, and rightly too, that the knowledge, he was thus imparting was the same, which some five thousand years back Lord Krishna imparted to Arjuna, which enabled him to comprehend the universe as an integral whole. The Vishwa-Rup (Universal consciousness) which Arjuna was shown with the help of the "Third Eye" can be seen and comprehended by any other person, provided he is told where the "Third Eye" (Gyan Chakhshu) is located and how to open it.
:The "Third Eye"
- The "Third Eye", which is situated between the two eye-brows, at the tip of the nose is a nervous plexus, where the three principal nerves of the body, namely, the Spinal Chord (Sushumna), the Ida (left sympathetic nerve) and the Pingla (right sympathetic nerve) converge, as distributory canals for the flow of the "Prana" or the life breath. This spot is directly connected with the gravitational field of the universe, and exhibits two characteristic motions - the "Prana" (Attraction) and "Apan" (Repulsion), in the shape of inhalation and exhalation. The sages of the Upanishadic period termed this vital spot the Agya Chakra, where the mind is focussed, as it provides a window to see the wonderful working of Nature in all its subtlety. That is why Agya Chakra is known as Gyan Netra or Shiva Netra.::
and
- Ajapa Gayatri
- Like all his predecessors, in the long line of saints, seers, Mahatmas and prophets, who appeared on the Indian scene during its long history, Shri Hansji Maharaj discovered the mystery, behind Ajapa Gyatri, which is the essence of the Vedas, the "Ulta Jap", by whose practice Balmiki, the author of the Ramayana turned from a dacoit to a saint, "Tarak Mantra" or "Shiva Mahamantra", which Lord Shiva himself used to distribute, in Varanasi, his abode in the plains.
- Japa, or to apply the mind uninterruptedly and without a break, to a particular object, according to the great Yogi Raj provides the only panacea for all the evils of the mind. Japa practice purifies the mind and brings it under subjugation of the aspirant.
- But, Japa, which the Yogi Raj recommended, was unlike the one, ordinarily resorted to by a spiritua1 aspirant by means of moving beads of a glossary with the aid of fingers, or mechanically repeating a particular mantra or name of the Almighty, either loudly, or ruminating over it in mind.
- Unlike other modes of Japa, as embodied in the scriptures, the aspirant in the practice of Ajapa Jap is simply told to confine the attention of the mind on the "Flight Of Hans" within the nasal apertures (at the top of the nose), merely as a conscious subject. "Hans" is a mysterious sound movement which is the subject matter of Para-Vani; the source of all spoken and written language and can be understood by the grace of a Satguru.
- As author of Hans Yog Prakash, Shri Hansji Maharaj demonstrated how the practice of Ajapa Jap could kindle the Divine Light within, which dispels the ignorance of man as to the reality of his own self. For a spiritual aspirant, anxious to know the nature of the spirit that animates matter, the practice of Ajapa Jap, or Ulta Jap, Mahamantra, which are all synonymous terms, is a "must". It is beneficial not only during this life, but also in the life-beyond. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
New Lede Created
Simple lede created, plus removal of first paragraph of the origins section:
The techniques of Knowledge were taught to Prem Rawat by his father, Hans Ji Maharaj, who learned them from Swarupanand, his teacher. The website "Maharaji.org" (1999) included the traceable story of "Masters" that according to Prem Rawat, referred to the techniques of Knowledge since 1780, including Totapuri, Anandpuri Ji, Dayal Ji, Swarupanand Ji, and his father Hans Ji Maharaj. Hans Ji founded the Divine Light Mission to further his teachings. The reference for this is the internet archive as it does not appear on the current Maharaji website and is presumably not attributable as a current opinion - there's no other provenance for this 'lineage' other than Geaves. This speculative lineage would be best included in a section specific to Prem Rawat. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- This looks good to me. Thanks for doing that work. Will Beback talk 10:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Cite needs http://www.manavdharam.org/shjm/1_brief_into.html added but the code has defeated me for the moment.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I added a cite - I hope it's what you wanted - feel free to change it. Will Beback talk 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. On looking at it I wonder whether that Shri Hans quote should go with the firtst two (or is three overkill ?) and http://www.manavdharam.org/ssjm/2_padyatras.html "He has a vast network of ashrams and centers where sincere aspirants can receive initiation into the Knowledge of the highest Truth." go in as a direct quote from Satpal as demonstration of his personal usage of the term "Knowledge" relative to an 'initiation' ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think two sources is enough for an unextraordinary assertion. That cite may be useful elsewhere in the article. Will Beback talk 19:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. On looking at it I wonder whether that Shri Hans quote should go with the firtst two (or is three overkill ?) and http://www.manavdharam.org/ssjm/2_padyatras.html "He has a vast network of ashrams and centers where sincere aspirants can receive initiation into the Knowledge of the highest Truth." go in as a direct quote from Satpal as demonstration of his personal usage of the term "Knowledge" relative to an 'initiation' ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I added a cite - I hope it's what you wanted - feel free to change it. Will Beback talk 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Cite needs http://www.manavdharam.org/shjm/1_brief_into.html added but the code has defeated me for the moment.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Change of gender
"the techniques are universally applicable and their practice has no impact on ... a student's gender...." Is this worth saying? I doubt anybody would expect his or her gender to be changed by meditation. Unfree (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Lede
What is "lede", and why isn't it in any dictionaries? Unfree (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Lead misspelled, I would guess ;) --Echosmoke (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- The phonetic spelling "lede" was introduced by typesetters working with lead type to differentiate the word for the introductory paragraph from the word signifying the metal, and it has remained current, even though lead type is now rarely used. For more background, see . --JN466 15:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Citations section
The floating ref tags in the "Citations" section strike me as a bit confusing. Isn't there a better way to implement this? It seems like a bit of a kludge to me... --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Revert edits made by 89.242.92.216
Two edits were made by this person that were not discussed on the talk page. The Rawat articles are subject to discussion before editing. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Descriptions section
I am from France and I work on the French Misplaced Pages, especially on Prem Rawat’s page.
Looking for some information I end up on this page. I’m really surprised to find a rough description of the technics of Knowledge. So, I read some of the discussions around this article and the main one, and understood there was a fight between pro and anti PR.
Anyway, I wonder what is the encyclopedic interest to reveal those technics as it is mention that it can make people confused without preparation? Does this not violate Misplaced Pages rules about biography of a living person? Even Melton himself said they are secret. I didn’t red his book, so I can’t make a clear statement about his intention, but it is his responsibility to pass over this rule. I don’t think Misplaced Pages has to take this bias, only mention that some writers did. So, I will suggest sticking in the Descriptions chapter to something like that:
According to the Dutch religious scholar and Christian minister Reender Kranenborg and the American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton, these techniques are secret and were originally called "Light", "Sound", "Name" or "Word" and "Nectar" but Prem Rawat now refers to them as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th techniques. Prem Rawat asks practitioners to promise "not to reveal these techniques to anyone", but says to "let other people go through their own journey... they, too, can have the techniques when they are ready."
Kranenborg and Melton provide differing details of them in their writings but agree on a general description of the practices, referring for some of those, to tantric practices or sabda-brahman meditation. Another description including the details of the four techniques of knowledge is provided by Dr. Daniel Kriegman who describes the recruitment process utilized by the Divine Light Mission in the early 1970s.” Michael Drury, describes these techniques as helping the practitioner to develop "a deep and spiritual self-knowledge."
It is important to notice that Knowledge has always be free of charge, but it requires a specific preparation to properly understand and take benefit of the technics. Faunus (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not going to restore the deleted content for now, but I will note that the justification for removal of sourced content given here is completely and utterly at odds with fundamental policies of the English-language Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Cite error: The named reference
Maharaj
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).