Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:11, 9 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.

archive 1

Criticism

Why has all criticism been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.150.96.2 (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Psychological changes in converts

Andries, would you care to summarize the first part of that section (Jeanne's Messer's material)?. It is way to long IMO and could be nicely summarized in one long paragraph (I can do it if you want, but I give you first choice as it is your addition). Thanks. --Zappaz 04:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bhajans

I was not aware that DLM members sang bhajans too, apart from aarti. Please provide reference, otherwise I will revert. Andries 16:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I already reverted because the edit about bhajans struck me as blatant nonsense about the non-Indian branch of the DLM. It can be re-inserted after providing references. Feel free to create a section on the Indian branch of the DLM. We should by the way also write something about the Prem Nagar ashram. Andries 17:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that I was wrong about the bhajans. Andries 14:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

New cite format

I will move all references to the new cite format in the next few days. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Deletions

Any deletions of material that have been in an article for months, without any explanation in this page about the reasosn, will be reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think that the digressions about the different versions of arti are largely irrelevant. They are a side issue for this article and should be moved to arti if they should be in Misplaced Pages at all. Andries 14:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• The link to the article past teachings of Prem Rawat should be removed because that article is in a disastrous state. Linking to that article makes this article worse. Andries 14:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the material on Arti is irrelevant. If an article is in "a disastrous shape", help fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The digression about arti should not be here. How can you seriously doubt this? And if it should be here then at least provide references. But even after you provide references then I will continue to argue for either its deletion or its move to arti. Andries 15:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What is exactly the problem with that material? Can you please explain? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It digresses on an issue that is largely irrelevant for the DLM. It devotes three sentences to a general treatment of Arti. I can understand a treatment of Arti in the DLM, but the article does not do that. It gives a general treatment of arti that is totally out of place here. Andries 15:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I will find the references you request, but there is no need to add {{fact}} to each word in a sentence (LOL!). TaKe a deep breath, Andries! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I will continue to argue for its move to arti, regardless if references are provided, with the exception of statements that are specific for the arti version used in the DLM or statements that describe how arti is performed in the DLM. Andries 15:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? Why text related to Aarti cannot be discussed here? I have a hard time understanding your motives. Please explain. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Because general articles should treat general subjects. I mean, this article is about the DLM and should only treat arti as it relates to the DLM and not digress about arti in general. For the same reason we do not mention criticism of communism in an article about an individual communist. This sounds to me so logical and natural that I really do not understand that anybody can disagree with this. Is this so difficult to understand or am I misssing something? Andries 16:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing wrong in providing context for readers. Most readers know nothing about arti, so I see no problem in a few words explaining what arti is, and how it is used in India. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to provide some context for the ignorant reader then provide the short Misplaced Pages definition or explain how Aarti and which version is used in the DLM. Do not digress on side issues. Andries 17:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not speak of the "ignorant" reader. That is abusive to our readers and I would suggest you refactor that comment. Providing context is our duty as editor os Misplaced Pages. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Arti

After I short visit to the library, I found that there are many, many versions of Arti, and vbery big differenes it applies to Hinduism a and Sikihsm. I ask for some patience until I gather all the material. It is very pertient to this article, because it is assumed that the arti sung to Maharaji is the same as Hinduism arti, but this is not the case. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Next time, I will use the same standards with you. Any material that you add that you do not provide references within 15 days, will be mercilessly deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fifteen days is a lot: I have only 48 hours at Sathya Sai Baba and it will be clear that I considered the missing references a good excuse to remove a digression that I found off-topic. Andries 17:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As an ex-member of the cult, DLM, having been in it from 81 to 85 I can confirm that Arti existed in several variations - the original translation from Hindi used in the cult was done by Guru Charanand, one of Maharaji's main early followers. Several other versions emerged,and the song, which could take 20 minutes to sing in full, was often abridged. Some problematic verses, iee, those referring to Guru Maharaj Ji as father/Mother, etc, were sometimes avoided,a nd the whole song was abandoned in western Ashrams after about 1984. User:arthurchappell

Pat Halley?

I have removed the Pat Halley section as it has nothing to do with Divine Light Mission.Momento 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That was one of the most widely published incidents in the history of Prem Rawat and the DLM. Where do you want to put? I do not accept its deletion from Misplaced Pages. Andries 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Marc Galanter

I think that this is a different marc Galanter. Galanter is a psychiatrist. Andries 01:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Then find a bio and disambiguate the article. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this one is? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This may be the one. See . Pleas ehelp write a short bio and disambiguate . Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Marc Galanter, M.D is one and the same in both links above, but not the Wiki article subject "Marc Galanter," who is a law professor (also in NY). FYI, there are excerts on EPO from Galanter's book, Cults: Faith Healing and Coercion chapter titled A Charismatic Religious Sect The Divine Light Mission. That book was published in 1989 and a 2nd edition was published in 1999. Galanter also published Spirituality and the Healthy Mind in 2005. Galanter has edited and written books published by American Psychiatric Publishing, as well as by Oxford Univ. Press. Galanter is the Director of the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse and Professor of Psychiatry at New York University Medical Center in New York. Sylviecyn 15:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Andries and I found two Marc Galanter's Marc Galanter and Marc Galanter (MD). The one cited in this article is Marc Galanter (MD). 16:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said above, but hadn't noticed that you created the Galanter, MD stub on May 14, 2006. Sylviecyn 13:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge issue

Object to merging "Past teachings" into this article. See comments on Talk:Prem Rawat. Sylviecyn 14:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Some duplication in the references

Refs and were the same as and . I tried to cure the problem by dropping the last two sentences from the Beliefs section. If I over-corrected, please fix. Note that there is STILL a duplication in the text (regarding the name change to Elan Vital) but it's between the introductory paragraph and the Evolution section at the end, which appears less serious. The whole article leaves a person wondering what happened after 1983. Does anyone feel like bringing the story down to the present day? Also references through appear to be telling the story of his accession to guruship over and over again, in similar wording, and with little difference, and it is not clear that this is necessary. Perhaps a few of these could be dropped, but I'm not the one to do it. EdJohnston 02:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hummel

I consolidated the source into one ref, as it was all from same book; attributed the text to Hummel rather than asserting his opinion as fact; corrected some spelling mistakes and grammar. I also removed the mention of Prem's brother as it was unsourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)ö

Fine. I think that there are still some grammar mistakes in the entry. I also have to add some diacritics to the German original. Andries 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about this translation? "the 'mind' was declared the main enemy of direct religious experience. " ≈ jossi ≈

(talk) 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit that the translation of the sentence is incomplete

German original "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."

English translation: "The young guru explains that the main enemy of direct religious experience is thinking in concepts that is called with the English word "mind" also in German translations."

My German is pretty basic and all I read there is something about "conceptional thinking". I hope that this is just a honest mistake, and not a POV interpretation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit that my translation should have included the equation of "Mind"=conceptional Thinking/Thinking in Concepts. Andries 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem Andries, because the Hummel quote confirms Rawat's own teachings, when he always said that the enemy of every premie is their mind and the concepts it produces, especially about himself and Knowledge. It's especially appropriate for the DLM article because when Elan Vital was DLM, the problematic "mind" was the main subject of discussion (satsangs) Sylviecyn 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, if there is an objection to having this quote here, perhaps it would be better placed in the main Rawat article under teachings. Sylviecyn 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has a problem with Hummel's quote but several editors have a problem with Andries' inaccurate translation.Momento 01:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Otherwise is misleading. "Conceptual thinking" is considered antithesis of inner experiences, which by their nature are not related to intellect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good example of why we should avoid foreign language sources altogether. The author is referring to other existing translations of Prem Rawat's words. He says: "The young guru has declared that conceptual thinking (which has been called by the English word 'mind' even in German translations) is the main enemy of a direct religious experience." There is no word in German for "mind" but most English-speaking readers would not know that, so this sentence, and others like it, are not translatable without ambiguity and confusion unless you put in a bunch of explanatory footnotes. Let's not. Rumiton 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the word Lehre in this context would be better translated as "doctrine." There was no systematic doctrine. There most certainly were systematic "teachings" as the German author well knew. They were the Knowledge. Rumiton 14:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think "teachings" is a better translation of "Lehre" than "doctrine". Andries 05:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Rumiton. The inaccurate translations are unacceptable. I'm also concerned that Hummel, Melton, Kronenberg, van der Lans and Derks? are all ordained Christian ministers. It may be necessary to preface their comments with "Rawat was closely studied by Christian scholars who concluded....." and then combine their comments. It is starting to look like undue weight and bias.Momento 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That could be done, I see no harm in that. Note that many scholars of religion and theologians, but not all, come from one or another faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good way to go. Nice and neutral. Rumiton 02:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted Andries last edit because it was ungrammatical and because this is an article about DLM not Hummel or Prem Rawat or his father.Momento 10:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You reverted to a misleading version.

1. Hummel was not the leader of the EZW when his 1980 book was published. The relevant context reg. Hummel is that the quoted book was based on research at the Heidelberg uni, not so much that he was a pastor or that he later became the leader of the EZW.

2. Of course the philosophical and religious influences on Hans, the founder of the sect, are very relevant to this entry.

Andries 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

When I revert an ungrammatical and bloated edit, I do not have to certify that the proceeding version is correct. What you should be doing Andries is making grammatical, accurate and appropriate edits. Your last one wasn't.Momento 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lehre. Andries, my Collins German-English Comprehensive Dictionary allows both meanings, but in the Ecclesiastical sense, which is Hummel's genre, it gives doctrine only. I believe to use "teachings" creates an absurdity. Of course things were taught, if only the words of songs. This is the point. Wars have started over the correct translation of words. I could give you many 20th Century examples, and you could probably think of others. This is an English language website, and we are having enough problems with agreeing on the meanings and intentions of English words. No doubt someone important wrote something once in Cantonese about Prem Rawat. Who can say exactly what it means? Let's not go to other languages.

Has anyone seen Vassyana lately? Rumiton 11:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, I know enough to be able to compare the DLM's teachings with the teachings of other religious groups and Hummel is fully right regarding the lack of systematic teachings in the DLM. In other groups, meditation techniques are only a small part of a large and systematic set of teachings. Andries 05:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not notice ecclesiastical language in Hummel's book. Andries 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana reported some massive computer problems early April. No word from him/her since. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

From Hummel, Reinhart Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen. Religiöse Bewegungen in westlichen Kulturen, Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3-17-005609-3,

pp.76-77: "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.
Im Zentrum steht bei Vater und Sohn die vierfache Meditationstechnik, die vier >>Kriyas<<, die Sri Hans von Svami Sarupanand gelernt hatte. "

"

pp.78: "Innerhalb dieses eklektischen Denken dominiert der Einfluβ der in Nordindien beheimaten Sant-Tradition, der schon in der Geschichte des Radhasoami Satsang wirksam war. Von ihr bestimmt ist die Ablehnung äußerlicher Rituale und Zeremonien und die Forderung, das Göttliche im eigenen Inneren zu suchen; damit verbunden die Polemik gegen den Trennenden Charakter der in Äuβerlichkeiten estarrten Religionen und gegen die Kastentrennung; ferner die Ablehnung der Askese zugunsten des Lebens im Stande des Haushalters, wie Sri Hans es selbst geführt hat; die Ablehnung der Bilderverehrung und die Konzentration auf den Guru als die Manifestation des Göttlichen; "

Hello Andries. I am getting interested in Hummel's work, mainly because Lutheran ideology intrigues and horrifies me. I am in some doubt as to the meaning of the excerpt you give because of the many mispellings. eg your "had" could be either hat or hatte. Sorry to seem fussy, but would you mind going through and correcting the typos? Thank you. Rumiton 11:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I will check the type-errors. Andries 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can also translate but this will take some time. Andries 12:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Give it to me typo-free and I will do a translation. Then we can compare. I do see more what you are saying about Hummel from this longer excerpt. Rumiton 13:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I just removed a few of my type-errors, though your main problem may be the German original. Andries 14:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm. I just read the above and I take back what I said. I kind of like the guy. I'll try to get a translation done tomorrow night. Rumiton 16:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not sarcastic. Andries 18:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't perfect, but I think it shows the tone of Hummel's writing.

pp76-77. 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 imaginative speeches (Andries A.: discourses that were rich in metaphors) were more concerned with practical applications than with saturated theory (Andries A.: 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. However they may judge the group, the lack of conceptual boundaries in the movement is clear to all observers. (Andries A.: Whatever judgment one may have about the movement, its spiritual lack of contours is clear to all observers.)

In central position with both father and son stand the four meditation techniques, the kriyas, which Shri Hans learned from Swami Sarupanand.

P78. Within this eclectic thinking, the influence of the Sant tradition from Northern India, which was strong in the history of Radhasoami Satsang, was dominant. This is certainly the origin of the rejection of external rituals and ceremonies, and the call to seek God within oneself. Connected with this was the argument against the divisive nature of ossified, externally based religions and the caste system. (Andries A.:Related with this was his rhetoric against the divisive nature of religions that were fossilized in show and the caste system.) Further, the rejection of asceticism in favour of the life of the householder, which Shri Hans himself led, the refusal to worship images, and the concentration on the Guru as the manifestation of the divine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumiton (talk • contribs)

Thanks, Rumiton, for the translation. I would argue that the current edit uses selectively Hummel's words. Please try and summarize Hummels views in a more accurate way than currently depicted in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have some problems (may be it is just taste differences) with the translation. I will write my alternative translation of some sentences with (Andries A.: ) within Rumiton's text. Andries 19:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Andries. I agree you are right about "rich in metaphores." The word metaphore did not come to me, for some reason. "...geistige Konturlosigkeit" is difficult, but I don't believe "spiritual lack of contours" is correct. Geistig is quite a precise word, and here means something more like "mental" or "intellectual." Spiritual is so vague as to be almost meaningless. I shall do some more tonight. Rumiton 03:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Andries, can you supply me with Hummel's German text for the assertion that Hans was "influenced by the Bhagavad Gita," and this gave him an "emphasis on the practical life." Thank you. Rumiton 06:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is in the history of the article. I still have to check for spelling. Please all be careful not to remove it again.

page 74 "Seine eigene Position wird durch seine haufige Berufung auf Kabir, Nanak, Mira Bai und andere Heilige des Sant-Tradition, sowie auf die Bhagavad Gita deutlich. Von der ersteren stammt eine Reduktion des Hinduismus auf die innere Realisierung des Gottlichen und die Guruverehrung, von der letzteren seine Betonung des Praktischen Lebens."

Andries 05:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Andries. I can certainly see how the Sants might have influenced him, but I am a bit bewildered how anyone might obtain an "emphasis on the practical life" from the Bhagavad Gita. But he said it, we quote it. Rumiton 11:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not difficult to understand at all for me. The Bhagavad Gita put emphasis on fulfilling wordly duties as a sacrifice to Krishna. Krishna told Arjuna to fight because this was his wordly duty and that this was superior to life as an ascetic. Andries 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I have always read that story as a parable. Killing off your friends and relatives to mean stamping out beloved negative tendencies, anger, hatred, lust etc. Rumiton 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because he said it, doesn't mean we quote it. There are hundreds of pages of scholastic material on Rawat. The editors job is to reduce 100's of pages to a page or two that represents the total. Commonly held views by several scholars take precedence over one scholar's unshared opinion.Momento 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also please the section where Hummel refers to Hans' "reduction of Hinduism." Thanks. Rumiton 10:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And Haan's quoted text, especially about western DLM operating "to the expense of the social side." I can read basic Dutch, but I'll get a Dutch friend to have a look over it. Thanks. Rumiton 11:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is on page 44, 45 of his article. Please give me more time. Andries 12:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Kranenborg wrote more or less the same as Haan about the neglect of social work in the West, but more strongly worded and in a more critical tone. Andries 12:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeanne Messer

Who is Jeanne Messer? and why is she described as a "follower" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/13372.html http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/13373.html http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/13374.htmlAndries 16:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Since when can you make assertions based on hearsay in a chat room? Please do not use these as sources to assert these opinions. You know very well that these type of edits are totally unacceptable. I have also removed some of these links above as per BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you do not want to hear the answer then please do not ask questions. Andries 17:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That flippant answer does not address the concern I raised about your editing behavior, Andries. Do not add material to articles based on unreliable sources, period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I get the message. She is probably introduced in the book by Glock and Bellah as a premie. Andries 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

More ungrounded speculation? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Deprogramming

What is the reference for stating that "deprogrammed" ex-members became "vocal critics" of the organisation? Rumiton 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know what a "Pretap" is? Rumiton 13:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a typo for PremPal. "Vocal critics" is Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholarsMomento 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Messer

Found a whole lot of Messer "Guru Maharaj,li and the Divine Light Mission," in Robert Bellah and Charles Glock, eds., The New Religious Consciousness (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), pp. 54-55,' and put it here - http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars#Jeanne_Messer Momento 06:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

This article needs an over haul, it has lost its way. It should be about DLM, not Rawat's teachings etc. It is also lacking in sources, cites and balance. I'm going to start on it.Momento 04:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The first thing to go is the Haley pie incident. This article is about DLM not the atypical behaviour of two followers out of 50,000.Momento 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

God, yes. What a convoluted mess. What happened here? The Beliefs and Practices section seems to be more about philosophers, preachers and parsons than about DLM. I'll help too. Rumiton 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Made a start at cleaning up. Needs more polishing and readability.Momento 00:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've done some changes, too. It's still a bit verbose, I think. Rumiton 15:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems a lot of added material that doesn't have any sources.Momento 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do you mean? Rumiton 02:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Around this time the anti-cult movement was reaching its peak, and new religious movements were seen as participating in mind control of adherents. Kidnapping of adult sect members with physical and mental assault was taking place, and was often seen as justified, even by courts. Following this treatment, several deprogrammed ex-members became vocal critics of the mission". Where is the source for this?Momento 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deprogrammed ex-members is from Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. General background is from deprogramming. Is a Wiki rule offended here? Rumiton 10:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You would certainly have to cite the source. And does it say "deprogrammed ex-members". I wonder if the there is any need to include " ex-members became vocal critics of the mission", it applies to virtually every religion or NRM.Momento 20:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the book referred to, the quote has been in the article for some time. I think it's all kind of interesting as a measure of the opposition Prem Rawat faced and as a sign of the times. There were passions that are hard to relate to today. But no biggie. Rumiton 11:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Downton's views

Downton's views should not be mentioned twice. Please stop adding contents that is already there a few sentences earlier. Andries 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Since material was added by you, the sentence you keep deleting misses an important aspect. I removed the dup and added the cite in the correct chronological order. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct chhronological order is first Downton and then Lans and Derks. Derks and Van der Lans wrote a comment on Downton and they wrote after 1975 i.e. also after 1976. Andries 19:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It is no about when they wrote something, but about which years they wrote about. That is what I meant by chronological. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Derks and Van der Lans "After 1975" is later than Downton's "by 1976". Also I think that the comment on Downton should be after what Downton wrote. Otherwise it is not clear what Derks and Van Der Lans commented on. Andries 21:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There's too much in this article that is not correctly attributed.Momento 21

09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are on the intent to drag me to an editwar. I will not give you that pleasure, Andries. For the record, I keep finding your editing behavior to be a disgrace. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And I think that your edits are misguided. Fee free to file a request for comments. Andries 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I will do whatever I see necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lede

Thanks for changing that Rumiton, I was about to do the same.Momento (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Elan Vital

The Elan Vital indicates that the Divine Light Mission was set up by Elan Vital in 1971. 84.9.48.220 (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You have it totally wrong, and I am starting to suspect you are deliberately time-wasting. According to the Colorado Secretary of State, the DLM changed its name to Elan Vital in 1983. Read the Elan Vital article. Rumiton (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This person has posted anonymously on several occasions. I have corrected the EV article.Momento (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the IP. Shopping for a blocking, I think. Rumiton (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just removed a section named "Criticism." The size meant it was undue weight to one POV, and also I think it was an extraordinary claim. No other source that I am aware of claims that the Divine Light Mission forced all its members into poverty and celibacy, though there could be value in reporting on the lifestyle in the ashrams which were run by DLM, in which a percentage voluntarily spent some time. Rumiton (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing the entire criticism section is a bad way of fixing a weight problem. If there was a specific problem with one assertion why didn't you just remove that one part? Please restore the part that isn't a problem.

As for the assertion that followers live in poverty, I just read an L.A. Times article in which Malibu neighbors complain that followers had to live out of dumpsters. So it odes not appear to be an extraordinary claim. However if the group has made a rebuttal or counterclaim that can be included too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many scholarly sources that describe the DLM's ashrams, so it would not be a problem to add material about that aspect. Criticism can be added as well alongside other material on the ashram's vows. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many scholarly sources on the ashrams at Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars. It would be a good idea to summarize all that material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The statement about "disbanding" the DLM is simply inaccurate, or at best misleading. I see the Melton footnote, but in this case he was either unclear or wrong. By all accounts, EV is the same organization as DLM, so it's very odd phrasing to say "the mission was disbanded" (with a lowercase m) -- the Mission was not disbanded. The Ashrams were disbanded, is that what he meant? In any case, the fact that exact wording of one source (a tertiary source at that) is quoted in the lede -- with weird punctuation -- is a sign that this is not a consensus view, and may be an example of (synthesis, using a source selectively to make a point).

More neutral, encyclopedic phrasing would say something like "In the early 1980s, the DLM in America was transformed as ashrams were closed and elements of Indian culture were removed, marked by a name change to Elan Vital." Sound fair? Msalt (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the encyclopedia phrasing is more neutral. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashrams

Here is some materials on the ashrams. I would suggest adding summaries of these to what is already there, under a new section heading "Ashrams". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Messer

All Mission activities depend entirely on volunteered labor and funds. The knowledge itself, the primary source of satisfaction to devotees, is independent of the Mission proper, and DLM has no power to discipline or enforce agreements. Devotees move in and out of service roles or financial commitments, and DLM has little chance to predict or control income or staffing.

Galanter

Premies could live in ashrams to devote themselves more full to Service. Premies often worked part or full time outside the ashram and gave a sizable portion-sometimes all-of their income to the movement. They also practiced celibacy, vegetarianism, and frequent meditation. The focus of this ascetic existence was their religious mission rather than personal pleasure or gain.

Geaves

Many of the characteristics of the Indian movement founded by Prem Rawat’s father, who had died only in 1966, were imported wholesale into the western environment. Ashrams were established with a lifetime commitment of celibacy expected from those who joined. Members were expected to forswear drugs and alcohol, and adopt a strict vegetarian diet. The closing of the ashrams took away the possibility of a committed workforce and instead Prem Rawat’s activities to promote his teachings became more dependent on part-time volunteer assistance from individuals who were now raising families and creating careers for themselves.

Melton

Many were initiated and became the core of the Mission in the United States. Headquarters were established in Denver, and by the end of 1973, tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers as well as over twenty ashrams, which housed approximately 500 of the most dedicated premies, had emerged.

Parke & Stoner

While the ashrams have often been self-supporting they have not been a good source of income for the Mission. Unlike the Moonies, the Children of God, or the Hare Krishnas, Divine Light Mission members do not sell anything. They do not solicit on street corners, selling candy, flowers, peanuts, or literature. And unlike the Church of Scientology, Guru Maharaj Ji's group does not charge for the courses or the teaching of the techniques of "knowledge." The group gets its money through gifts and the tithing of its members. The more gainfully employed a premie is, the higher the tithe the Mission receives.

Pilarzyk;

Like some of its youth culture counterparts, the Divine Light Mission movement experienced rapid growth from its inception in the United States in 1971. By the summer of 1974, the American movement had grown to a total of 27 ashrams which housed over 1200 of an estimated 50,000 members or "premies." However, its development was not as simple, gradual, consistent, nor as long-lasting as changes within other "Eastern imports" such as the Hare Krsna movement. By July of 1972, the first national conference of DLM leaders took place, and guidelines were laid down which specified certain rules and regulations for U.S. ashrams. DLM officials note that this led to an initial departure of followers who viewed ashram life more as an economic convenience than as a step toward the enhancement of the spiritual path to God-realization.

Maeve

From the small beginning of one mahatma in London and a handful of premies, the mission grew, with up to half a dozen mahatmas at any one time giving knowledge, the establishment of Divine Information Centres in most major towns and cities and the setting up of about forty ashrams (designated premie households) throughout Britain by the end of 1973. Ashrams played an important part in the mission's structure. Here premies had chosen to live in small communal households, under vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. In practice they were under the direct supervision of head office and acted as cadres for the whole movement. A large membership had grown up very rapidly but the organizers had no clear idea where to lead the following, nor did they have the financial resources to maintain so many full-time workers. The ashrams which should have provided a sound financial basis for the mission's operations were not even self-financing and had to be supported from funds.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a brief mention of the first ashrams in India, taken from the Shri Hans wikipedia page.Msalt (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary

Momento, I do not think that you can just copy/paste that. What I suggested is to summarize these verbatim quotes, into a few paragraphs in a new section about "Ashrams". That section can also include the material in the criticism section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right and I, or someone else. will attend to it. I just thought the info was so good that I'd drop it in and fix it up later.Momento (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a go. There was a lot of repetition among the sources, which only makes the information more important, but means it didn't boil down to a lot of points. I think this could be used to clarify the lifestyle difference between receiving knowledge in the 70s, joining the DLM, and joining an ashram, distinctions that seem to be lost on some scholars. Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you can attempt to incorporate the sources above together with the criticism section, as all these sources discuss the ashrams. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, do you have a source for saying that the Rajasthan ashram was the first? Otherwise we need to remove it as OR. I took that phrasing directly from the source (which is the Shri Hans wikipedia page). It does not say Rajasthan was the first. Msalt (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Overview of Page

I just arrived here, though most of you know me from recent editing of Prem Rawat. A few big picture thoughts -- perhaps someone can clue me in without me repeating past thrashes.

1. I can't believe how little there is about DLM in India! 6 years and millions of adherents under Shri Hans are simply ignored on this page, not to mention how DLM evolved after the India/rest of the world split in 1974.

2. I don't see how the Halley incident can be excluded. It was a notable controversy, and the attackers were by all accounts DLM members. Whether they were typical or not doesn't matter. Notable controversies rarely arise from typical members. Besides that's obviously an OR argument.

3. Categories are a total mess. Why is a description of the early years of DLM under "Beliefs and Practices"? I think the structure in Prem Rawat is a good model -- start with narrative development, in large blocks, followed by meta-issues (teachings or beliefs and practices, criticism, etc. Westerization certainly is a good idea for one narrative section, as in P.R. Perhaps "DLM- India" should be one section for the post-split period (or whatever name the organization there took). "Elan Vital" is a logical section heading for discussing the years after that change.

4. A lot of the work we have done on Prem Rawat, esp. in regards to Millenium '73 and Westernization, is applicable here. How are we distinguishing what belongs on the Prem Rawat page vs. what belongs here? For example, a lot of the detail on P.R. in reception about # of adherents seems more applicable on this page.

5. Sources. Can we agree on a single location for discussion of sources for Prem Rawat & DLM, so we don't have to repeat discussions? Perhaps we can agree to use the Prem Rawat talk /scholars page as a staging ground for consensus sources.

BTW, of course Jean Messer is a devotee of Rawat, and she is the first to admit it. She is totally upfront about it in Glock and Bellah. Or, if you prefer, here a source that says it in so many words. "The Limits of 'Coercive Persuasion' as an Explanation for Conversion to Authoritarian Sects", Political Psychology, Vol @ #2 Summer 1980 p34 fn8 == "Ms. Messer is a devotee of Guru Maharaj-Ji" It's on J-stor. It's hard to see how anyone in good faith can cite Messer -- so must have read G&B -- and claim to need proof that she is a devotee. Msalt (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

6. Succession box at top of page lists "Key People " with Prem Rawat as the current one. Does he have an official role with the DLM/Elan Vital? Shouldn't this somehow reflect the split into 2 organizations? Shouldn't we list the actual leader of the organization, rather than using the weasel words "key people"? You could say "Object of Veneration" but that feels weird. Msalt (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

7. I added external links to Elan Vital and 'Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti', which is the apparent successor to DLM - India. Since they are both self-published organiational sites by the (split) subject of the article, I assume that will be non-controversial. Msalt (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

All good questions, Msalt. You can check other articles on similar subjects and see how the treatment of an organization vs. the treatment of a biography have been addressed. That does not mean that you have to follow a specific way of doing so, so there is no shortcut to discussing and reaching consensus. If you need help with sources, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Section titles

Section titles do not need book title capitalization. Instead of "Founding And Early Years In India", simply use "Founding and early years in India". Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know that, thanks.Msalt (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reorganized the Sections

OK, I reorganized the sections, doing my best to avoid any changes that might be controversial. Basically, I reorganized the existing iformation and added information about the DLM in the 1960s under Shri Hans, which I took from his Misplaced Pages page and Melton, as well as some basic information about the DLM's successor in India. In reorganizing, I followed the lead of the Prem Rawat page, creating sections for major chronological parts of the narrative (early years in India, Succession, International Expansion, and Leadership split). Material about succession was repeated in various places around the page, so I created a section for it and pulled it together.

I believe it is much more clear and easy to read, but I welcome all input. Msalt (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, Msalt. Just note that there is no need to wikilink multiple times to the same article (such as Hans Ji Maharaj). Once linked once, no need to re-link. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I remain wary of criticism for unsourced comments under BLP, as you might imagine, so it's hard to know when to leave something uncited.

I know that the alternate names for Rawat have been a sore point for some, though for the life of me I can't figure out why. In this case, since we are talking about 1966, they seem unavoidable, but do you think we should move them from the lead to the Succession section? Msalt (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, if a bit long. Point by point: I don't know why the names thing became so controversial, either. Perhaps because Sant Ji and Balyogeshwar were childhood names, unused since, or possibly because in the western culture name changing might be seen as vaguely disreputable. I never heard of Hansadeh but Hansadesh seems familiar. I don't have a source for that. I guess the problem with the original Indian DLM is the lack of English language sources, not any reluctance by anybody to have it described. Rumiton (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw a reference somewhere to description of Shri Hans and the early Indian DLM in some very early books published by the American or English DLMs. Obviously I'm vague on it, but if someone has copies of those, I'm sure they would qualify under the self-publishing rule for either non-controversial, or self-attributed statements.

I'm not sure why there would be a lack of English sources, it's either the first or second most common language in India, and really the most universal. Maybe since DLM was focused in the North though it used more Hindi. I'm a bit blurry at this point but again I have a dim memory of reading (maybe in Talk: Prem Rawat) that either Prem Rawat or his father actually taught in English when in India. It could also be that the material is not scanned, logged in databases or uploaded to the web, even if available in India in English. That makes total sense.

Hansadesh -- you're exactly right. My mistake, I'll fix it. Msalt (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit long, and I actually cut out quite a bit of simple duplication, but I wanted to avoid anything controversial in making such a big change all at once. Now we can start cutting..... Msalt (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes in students outside India

There are a number of problems with this section that I think can be best resolved by eliminating it entirely. This would also help with the length of the article. For instance

1) It's imbalanced and a problem of weight to only look at Rawat's DLM outside of India, vs. the Indian DLMs under Shri Hans and Satpal. Yet I doubt there are scholarly studies of the other two for comparison.

2) One can argue, but many academics feel that Downton's book Sacred Journeys is simply not scholarly. (as opposed to, say, his journal article of about the same time). Yes, I have citations from scholarly journals.

3) the last 3 paragraphs of the section describe the Westernization process and appear totally unconnected to the subject of the section.

4) It has a sense of cheerleading, or POV, esp. given the active role of devotees of the only branch described in editing this article.

5) There are negative studies on psychology of DLM initiates too. However, rather than adding these, I think it would be best to sidestep the entire debate because....

6) it's fundamentally not part of an encyclopedic article on an organization to analyze whether membership helps or hurts members. You can look at a wide range of articles on other groups from the Elks to the Salvation Army to Toastmasters to the Church of Scientology -- none of the Misplaced Pages articles discuss good or bad effects on members. We can assume that anyone joining an organization feels that it improves their lives, but whether or not we have scholarly studies verifying that, it is not a typical thing to discuss in an encyclopedic article about it.

7) Similarly, none of the print encyclopedias of religion I have seen that include the DLM discuss positive or negative effects of membership (the various Melton publications, etc.). Encyclopedias are the not the best sources for facts, but they are the best source for what's considered encyclopedic.

All agreed? Msalt (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, there being no objection, I'm going to go ahead.

I agree that the "Changes section" should go but what about "Criticism" section. If we are removing the benefits - lower drug use and reduction of symptoms of psychological distress after they joined the group (Galanter), increased energy levels, an increased awareness of coincidences and a tendency to see them as divine interventions, as well as improvements in their marriage and work life (Messer), why keep Levine's comments. Particularly as he says the criticism " was perceived by outsiders, particularly parents".Momento (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, no doubt the Criticism section can use plenty of work, but given the heat over at Prem Rawat, I think the best course is for us to move a step at a time, as deliberately as possible. In case it's not obvious, I am focusing on the least controversial moves first. I don't see any other course with any hope of consensus. Msalt (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Msalt, I'm wondering why this article's focus is of Divine Light Mission founded by Rawat's father. It's true that Shri Hans founded DLM in India, but that's about the extent of it except for the two years Rawat's mother and brothers were in the U.S. DLM in the U.S. had nothing to do with his father. It was incorporated in 1972 in Colorado and by 1974 the family split had taken place, so for a full 11 years, DLM International Headquarters in the U.S. operated completely idependently from the Indian DLM or DUO. I'm also wondering why there is so much in this article about the spirituality of DLM when it in fact is the exact same corporation as Elan Vital. This article is pretty bad, too. It's lacking a lot of correct information, is misleading. It's gonna take some time to fix this thing. What I think has happened is that in an effort to distance Prem Rawat from DLM and to give Rawat closer association to today's version of DLM which is Elan Vital, this article has become way too large with strange with inaccurate statements that make no sense. I recommend that the DLM and Elan Vital articles be combined because they are one and the same organization/corporation. It was a simple corporate name-change with the state of Colorado that brought DLM to become Elan Vital. Any changes in how it was run and changes in the cult can be explained in one article. Unless there are other such corporations that warrant two articles because they've had a name change, it doesn't make sense to have two for one. Did I mention there are many inaccuracies in the article? Let me count the ways. Sylviecyn (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I just disagree. The Divine Light Mission is the organization of the continuous line of teaching that began with Shri Hans in India, was succeeded there by Prem Rawat (under different names), and split into two branches via court order in 1974. It seems very clear to me that this is one organization that deserves one article.

Now, you can make a very strong case that the Elan Vital article should be consolidated with this one. But the same would be true of the M.U.S.S. organization founded by Satpal. Conversely, if Elan Vital remains separate, than clearly M.U.S.S. deserves an article as well. Msalt (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RE MUSS, this is somewhat interesting. Religion is so all-pervasive in India that I doubt whether we could find anything like the scholarly appraisals that are available in the west. I might be wrong, but I don't think attempts at being objective about spirituality are very popular over there. Also MUSS wold be seen as pretty traditional Hinduism, so it would be like an Italian writer doing an objective analysis of the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church. Might not be burned at the stake these days, but life could be made pretty uncomfortable. Rumiton (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are not enough sources for an article on MUSS, attesting to lack of notability. In all the research I have done, I found only one book that mentions it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite claims that it was a "mere name change" the numerous sources on the subject say otherwise. It was not merw name change, but a very substantial change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more about that, Jossi. And it's an interesting question. It's unlikely that even very substantial changes would cause Misplaced Pages to create a second article on one organization, if the name didn't change. And we don't have separate Prem Rawat and Guru Maharaji Ji pages, even though he (or his notable public persona) underwent a very similar parallel change at the same time as the organization. So I guess I'm inclined to think that all of these variants of DLM should be on one page.

As for M.U.S.S and a lack of sources, I'm not so sure about that. I found a lot of additional material on Sat Pal, all from India, in web searches by simply punctuating his name differently (as Satpal Maharaj). I'm wary of American-centric or British-centric blinders here; just because sources are not in the online and offline databases we prefer, or not on the web, does not mean they don't exist. There are more English speakers in India than in the U.S. and Britain combined, so I don't think our viewpoint should automatically determine what's on En.Misplaced Pages.org. For example, I found a newspaper article in India that said that SatPal has become very prominent, while Prem "sank into oblivion" after the lawsuit that split Indian DLM. From an Indian point of view, things look very different, and that is a contrasting view that should also be included here. Msalt (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Any changes in how it was run and changes in the cult can be explained in one article. Please stop the baiting, Sylviecyn. If you have an opinion about the subject, keep it to yourself. Unless you want your group to start being characterized in talk pages on pejorative terms as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

EL section

Apologetics Index (a self-published site of Anton Hein) as an EL? He does not have an article in WP for lack of notability, neither his website which belongs to Christian apologetics ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs and Practices Section

I removed this text.

"Rawat's perspectives delivered during his satsang talks brought great pleasure and meaning 
to many listeners. The practice of satsang, service and meditation also resulted for many in 
an inner calm and contentment which guided their behavior."

I assume that I don't need to explain why. If you're really baffled, my edit summary spells it out. Msalt (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any sourcing for the statement that "No rules or regulations were imposed, and no beliefs or ethical practices were taught." (in the early DLM), and in fact this is a point of controversy. The very next section, on ashrams, notes the celibacy, vegetarianism, and frequent meditation, not to mention the avoidance of alcohol and drugs. These were by most accounts very important elements of the early DLM, and we have many reliable sources. I think we need to remove or, at least, drastically rephrase this. It's also important that we are clear about which phase of the DLM/EV we're talking about. Msalt (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Singer

• In the early 1980s Dr. Margaret Singer included the DLM in her list of cults. In 1979, Singer mentioned the DLM as one of a set of groups that have "intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader", in an article in Psychology Today..

That is not "criticism", but an observation.

The summary of the cited material is misleading The text reads: The term "cult" is always one of individual judgment. It has been variously applied to groups involved in beliefs and practices just off the beat of traditional religions; to groups making exploratory excursions into non-Western philosophical practices; and to groups involving intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader. The people have studied, however, come from groups in the last, narrow band of the spectrum: groups such as the Children of G{od, the Unification Church of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the Krishna Consciousness movement, the Divine Light Mission, and the Church of Scientology. )

Per WP:MOS we should not use titles in names

I propose to summarize Singer's point staying close to the source, and moving the text to "Beliefs and practices" where it belongs

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to moving the material. How shall we summarize Singer's statements about the subject? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you can do that yourself. You added the material, so give it a go. Just moving there does not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like the existing text is accurate. If you can suggest how to make it more accurate I'm interested. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You added it, not me. So, you can do the honors in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no one is saying how it's incorrect, and since it looks correct to me, there's nothing left to do. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks accurate to me. Msalt (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not. There is no "list of cults", and Singer only says that he "studied some groups" in the "last band of the spectrum", which "involves intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader", without any specific details about any of these. (Which is typical of Singer's poor scholarship, see DIMPAC, btw) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The only objection to the existing text that I see here is to the first sentence, concerning the "list of cults". I guess we'll have to find a source for it. The other material seems properly expressed and doesn't involve any detail. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the text of the full Psych Today article has been posted here: ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have that paper, thanks. As for "her list of cults", please delete until sources are forthcoming, I could not find any mention of "her list" anywhere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a "fact" tag so that editors will know to look for a source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.cultfaq.org/coming-out-of-the-cults.html – there is not a list as such, but she gives a number of examples of a particular type of group. Perhaps this is what is meant by "list". Jayen466 18:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We are already using that source. What is missing is a source for the first sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I know. Busy IRL today. Did not read the discussion properly. Jayen466 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a mention of a publication by West and Singer, 1980, on this page: http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/mc3_salibo.htm Could be something to do with it. The majority of the new religious movements can be classified, according to Singer, into ten types: 1. Neo-Christian religious cults; 2) Hindu and Eastern religious cults; 3) occult, witchcraft and satanism cults; 4) spiritualist cults; 5) Zen and other Sino-Japanese philosophical cults; 6) race cults; 8) psychological cults; 9) political cults; 10) certain communal and self-help or self-improvement groups that, over time, become transformed into cults. (West and Singer, 1980, p. 3249). Singer herself has studied members of groups where an intensive relationship between the leader and the devotees is a dominant feature. Among those specifically mentioned by her are Jim Jones's People's Temple, the Church of Scientology, the Divine Light Mission, Synanon, the Worldwide Church of God, the Unification Church, the Hare Krishna, and Transcendental Meditation. Jayen466 18:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Other

• The movement was criticized for emphasizing the superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect. The sociologist Ralph Larkin with Daniel A. Foss wrote in 1978 that the DLM "emphasized formal structure without substantive content." In response the religious scholar Dr. Ron Geaves, who is a student of Prem Rawat, accused them of bias, pointing to the number of students that were attracted to the DLM.

These break NPOV, providing one viewpoint without context and missing other viewpoints on the subject. For example, viewpoints by Hunt and Mangalwadi, Vishal and Hoeksem (see last sentence in lead of Prem Rawat

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Which viewpoint needs context, and what context does it need? Is this the ref you're saying should also be summarized here?:

• The Divine Light Mission has not been interested in teachings and philosophies. Balyogeshwar and his brother have consistently rejected "theoretical" knowledge as "useless." I found the DLM devotees most difficult to talk to, because they neither wanted to teach their philosophy to me nor answer philosophical questions and objections. Their one comment was "Take the practical knowledge of the experience of Sound and Light and all your doubts and questions will be answered."

If so I agree it should be summarized in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• The movement was criticized for emphasizing the superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect. Vishal Mangalwadi wrote in 1977 that the DLM was not "interested in teachings and philosophies". Instead, he wrote, they encouraged him to practice the techniques of knowledge in order to have his questions answered. The sociologist Ralph Larkin with Daniel A. Foss wrote in 1978 that the DLM "emphasized formal structure without substantive content." In response Ron Geaves, a religious scholar and a student of Prem Rawat, accused Larkin and Foss of bias, pointing to the number of students that were attracted to the DLM.

How's that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You are missing counter points made by other scholars, otherwise, it is a good start. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Which points? What's missing? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hunt's, Chryssides, Melton, Price, Lippy, and many others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest some text to cover their points. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Time Magazine

• An article which mentioned the Divine Light Mission appeared in Time Magazine in 1997.

I fail to see why this is included, and why it is included in a section called "criticism".

Finally, I see no reason why not move whatever is left in that section, to other sections of the article, for a better NPOV presentation of the subject. See {{criticism section}} for a rationale. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a quote from the TIME article to make the sentence more sensible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

An article which mentioned the Divine Light Mission appeared in Time Magazine in 1997 that referred to the DLM as part of the "cultism of the '70s".. That is not what the article says, Will. Please stay close to the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It sure seems to be what the article is saying:

• The modern era of cultism dates to the 1970s, when the free inquiry of the previous decade led quite a few exhausted seekers into intellectual surrender. Out from the rubble of the countercultures came such groups as the Children of God and the Divine Light Mission, est and the Church of Scientology, the robotic political followers of Lyndon LaRouche and the Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. On Nov. 18, 1978, the cultism of the '70s arrived at its dark crescendo in Jonestown, Guyana, where more than 900 members of Jim Jones' Peoples Temple died at his order, most by suicide

You don't think that they consider the DLM to be part of the "modern era of cultism dates to the 1970s"? That's what it looks like to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't. I re-read it, and it does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Which groups do you think TIME is referring to when they write of "the cultism of the '70s"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems very clear to me that Time is referring to DLM among other groups. Msalt (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

None, specifically. It speaks of of "exhausted seekers". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, when Time writes about cults in the 1970s, and then lists Children of God and the Divine Light Mission, est and the Church of Scientology, you don't think they are referring to those groups as part of the "cultism of the '70s"? If so I think your interpretation of their writing is incorrect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't refer to "Divine Light Mission as part of the "cultism of the '70s", it says "the modern era of cultism dates to the 1970s". It says "Out from the rubble of the countercultures came the Divine Light Mission". Surely that is clear.Momento (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You've misquoted it. "Out from the rubble of the countercultures came such groups as the Children of God and the Divine Light Mission, est and the Church of Scientology, the robotic political followers of Lyndon LaRouche and the Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon." An plain interpretation of the material is that the listed groups are part of the cultism of the '70s. If you refuse to acknowledge obvious material then that's disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case it isn't obvious-enough already, see the title of the article: "The Lure of the Cult". It isn't about the rubble of the counterculture or exhausted seekers. It's about cults. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is any doubt, we have to take the sentence in which DLM is mentioned.Momento (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any doubt. But the solution may be to quote the paragraph. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No doubt, and no problem that needs a solution. Momento does not have a veto when acting disruptively. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Msalt (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt stick closer to the source "Out from the rubble of the countercultures came the Divine Light Mission".Momento (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming section

Also, I've re-named the section "reception" to make it clearer that these are general views of how the group has been received. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is material all over the article that is also related to general views, but you have not moved these. Calling a criticism section, "reception" does not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We can move the material on general views to the reception section if you like. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, give it a go. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding much in the way of general views outside of the intro. This is the only bit I'd think of moving to "reception"

• According to scholars, Prem Rawat's desire to consolidate his power and authority over the movement in the United States resulted in greater formalization: rules and regulation for ashram living, standards for recruited "candidates," and pressure toward certifying the movement's teachers. In the early 1980s Margaret Singer included the DLM in her list of cults. In 1979, Singer mentioned the DLM as one of a set of groups that have "intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader", in an article in Psychology Today.

But I don't think that making that move would improve the article. Is there some material I'm overlooking? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The "beliefs and practices" section, for starters has material that is relevant. maybe you need to re-look at this whole idea of a reception section and conflate all aspects about DLM discussed by scholars. I need to go now, so I will catch up tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you check you'll see I propose above moving half of the "beliefs and practices" section, but also discard the idea bacause I don't see how it would really improve the article. Perhaps you can give a more detailed suggestion when you return. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just read the "Reception" section. It reads like a "Criticism" section and that isn't fair or NPOV. Didn't you find one non-negative comment?Momento (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ready and waiting for positiv comments. Go for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Added some Downton. His book "Sacred Journeys" studies DLM from 72 to 77 and is the most comprehensive study available.Momento (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have strong objections to Momento's additions. They clearly further Momento's POV and amount to cheerleading. They are not about the reception of Rawat -- instead, they list alleged benefits to users of Rawat's teachings. Furthermore, by all accounts what it means to follow Rawat today is drastically different than in the early 1970s, yet this section implies that these benefits are current. Furthermore, "Sacred Journeys" is not a scholarly book, according to reviews by scholars in several scholarly journals, but is presented as such here. And Momento has cherry picked the most positive findings, rather than representing a neutral and fair summary of them. Msalt (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

1: The book is about DLM not Rawat. Downton's comments about the initial reception, motivation and experience of the early converts is an extremely valuable insight and his PPOV not mine.

2: Downton is a professor emeritus of Sociology at the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Colorado at Boulder where DLM was HQ'd. The book is published by Columbia University Press. It is the result of a five year study. It's scholarship is not in doubt.

3: Your OR about "following" Rawat is irrelevant, and also misinformed, you would do well to do some research.

4: The comments are not "cherry picked" they are Downton's summaries not mine.

As Downton says " I have talked to many people in the last five years who were skeptical and sometimes antagonistic toward Guru Maharaj Ji and Divine Light Mission. Yet, most were not very well informed about either the guru or the movement, nor were they interested in learning how premies might be benefiting from their involvement. For example, one woman whom I had met at a party in 1973 nearly shouted, "Oh, I am quite willing to accept all the different spiritual movements in the country, but not the one with the boy guru. That one I can't stand." As we talked, it became apparent she knew little more than what she had read in the newspapers about the Mission. In fact, she had never even met, let along talked at length with, a premie. Because she felt Divine Light Mission was contrary to her values, she was more than ready to condemn and reject it".Momento (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

House of Delegates Panel

The link to that source is broken, does anyone have that article. I would like to check for context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Clearly a cherry-picked quote for effect, without any indication of the counter arguments presented, and that the congressional panel never formed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you define "cherry picked"? I don't think it's taken out of context. There's little other mention of the group in the article. It's basically saying that these groups were descibed by someone at the hearing.

• In addition to the Unification Church, the Church of Scientology and Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission were singled out at the hearing as cults that employ manipulative techniques and turn children against their parents.

If you want a counterargument you might check the letters to the editor section, where a proponent of the DLM may have provided a different POV. In general the Washington Post is a newspaper of the highest standards so I can't see a good reason to remove this material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This summary is a disgrace. The Washington Post didn't report that "a Maryland House of Delegates committee had singled out etc". The committee didn't "single out" anything. Testimony was given by a variety of people to the committee. I'm changing it.Momento (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not ask the material to be removed, did I? What I said that it is a cherry-picked quote, without context, and without presenting the facts that there was such a panel was never formed, does not explain who made these comments at the hearings, etc. Basically poor research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm removed the appalling summary. This is a more accurate summary but hardly worthy of inclusion - A 1980 article in The Washington Post reported that a Maryland House of Delegates committee was urged to investigate religious cults in the state and told that "Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission (amongst other groups) was a cult that employ manipulative techniques and turned children against their parents." Committee members Del. Robin Ficker (R-Montgomery) likened such a probe to "the Spanish Inquisition" and Del. Luiz Simmons, another Montgomery Republican, compared it to the McCarthy hearings in the early 1950s. Momento (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento, please don't delete sourced material. I've copyedited toremove "singled out". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, what do you mean by "cherry-picked"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant that the necessary context was omitted for "effect". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be a failure to assume good faith. How do you know what effect was intended by the original editor of that material? I don't see any particular context that's necessary to understand what the article said about the subject. There's nothing else in the article about the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And where does it say the committee "listed" DLM or referred to it as "controversial"Momento (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

<<< The panel referred in that source, is the Maryland's Task Force to Study the Effects of Cult Activities on Public Senior Higher Educational Institutions., about which it was written that Both the House and Senate hearings on the resolution were stacked with "experts" from the anti-cult movement. No civil liberties groups testified, nor did representatives of the mainline religions who generally oppose such measures, nor any representatives of the groups who would be directly affected by the action. All info is here: http://www.religiousfreedom.com/tskfrce/tfrcindex.htm no mention of DLM in any of the documents filled by the task force, or by the many people and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of the that "task force". Their full report is here].≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How can this be? The article is from 1980, this stuff is from years later.Momento (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Legislature in the US is slow... :) If this is not the task force, then there was no panel formed, there is no records of such hearing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

<< The current wording is not factually accurate, misleading, and omits important context and viewpoints presented at that hearing. A 1980 article in The Washington Post reported that a Maryland House of Delegates committee listed, among other controversial groups: "Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission ... as cults that employ manipulative techniques and turn children against their parents.". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct Jossi, the WaPo doesn't say who "singled out at the hearing as cults that employ etc". It is a gross distortion to claim that it was the Committee that "singled out" or "listed" or in any way referred to DLM. But I've already explained that.Momento (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've re-worded it for better accuracy:

• A 1980 article in The Washington Post reported that, at a Maryland House of Delegates committee hearing, the Divine Light Mission was listed among cults that employ manipulative techniques and turn children against their parents.

If we still can't agree we could simply quote the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say "listed"?Momento (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When a number of things are written one after another it's called a "list". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Look guys, I am sure we can find a better source to indicate that by a number of people, especially concerned parents, DLM was seen as a "manipulative cult that turned children against their parents." (It was, and it's relevant to the Reception section.) But this source does not cut the mustard. I propose that rather than fighting over it, we should all try to come up with a better source that presents this POV. Jayen466 10:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe my English isn't good enough but where in the WaPo article does it say that "a number of things were written one after another"?Momento (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've revised the summary of the source. However, I still think it lacks notability and focus for use in this article. Jayen466 12:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I've done a copyedit of the Reception section, because it seemed to have become rather disorganised. I have regrouped and summarised some of the material, though the sources should still be the same. Please cast your eagle eyes over it. I also think Singer should better go in the reception section. Is there something a little more substantial that she has said specifically about DLM? Mentions in passing are not really that notable for this article IMO. Jayen466 00:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good start, but it still misses many other scholar's opinions. I am also unhappy about the "panel" that was never formed, the "hearings" that are not described, and the lack of context provided about that source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

The mention of DLM in the WP article seems fairly tangential to me, the main group discussed being that of Rev. Moon; if in addition the panel was never formed, then I would be happy to drop the passage. Jayen466 00:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the failure to form a panel is a sufficient reason to delete the WaPo material, nor is the fact that the article isn't focused on the DLM. It's verifiable and relevant to the perception of the group. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe some observers noted that a number of premies came off drugs through their involvement with DLM; IIRC, Galanter's book "Cults – Faith, Healing and Coercion" mentions the case of a heroin addict. The book is available on http://www.questia.com, if any of you feels like having a stab; something along these lines might be worth including as well. Jayen466 00:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Geaves: when he says "students," does he mean university/college students or students of Rawat? If the former, we should say so; if the latter, perhaps "people" will do. Jayen466 01:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The latter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The section will benefit from opinions about the DLM from George D. Chryssides, Hunt, Brian Wilsom, Tim Miller, , Raymond Lee, Rosemary Goring, James Lewis, and many others that wrote about the DLM. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved Singer to the Reception section, but I think there are now too many gratuitous mentions of the word "cult" there (gratuitous in the sense that we only mention that someone used the word "cult" about DLM, without giving any relevant background). Jayen466 14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any objections to removing

• the two Singer passages,
• the mention of the Time magazine article
• the Maryland passage?

In my opinion, the Singer and Time Magazine passages don't say anything except that the movement was often called a cult, which we already have a far better, and explicit, reference for in Levine. The Maryland passage is useful for what it says ("turning children against their parents"), but the article it is cited to is not ideal, since neither the Maryland committee nor this particular hearing were particularly notable.

Lastly, we are missing page references for Kaslow and Bromley (refs 41 and 42) – could the editor who inserted these passages please add them? There is much potentially useful material in Kaslow, but I was unable to find this particular passage. Note that the point about financial exploitation in the passage sourced to Kaslow is another duplicate, since it is covered in exactly the same words, but more explicit detail, below by Levine. The book edited by Kaslow also mentions (p. 58) that the word cult has no precise consensual meaning; hence it is somewhat questionable what "cult-like" behaviour is meant to signify in our text. The one example given in Kaslow (i.e. violent behaviour often leading to groups being called cults) does not seem to fit with DLM. Jayen466 23:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No objections for removal of these, per your arguments.

As for Bromley, there is nothing to support that text in that source. Page 113 reads: The new religions in the medium tension category (for example the Divine Light Mission and the followers of Yoigi Bhajan and Muktananda) have been defined by the public as more peculiar than threatening. Although viewed by the public as religious in nature, such groups have generally been ostracized by their unconventional beliefs. These new religions have been granted only limited access to legitimate means to spread their influence and mobilize resources. As both Stark and Bryan Wilson suggest, these religious movements appear to be in a position of optimal tension with society—neither inviting suppression nor risking secularization.

Also page 227, It is ironic that, as the ACM began its period of aggressive expansion during the mid-1970s, many of the highly visible groups it opposed had either leveled off in growth or even entered a state of decline. This is true not only for the more radical millennial groups such as the CHildren of God, which divorce itself from the more conventional Jesus Movement, but also for visible groups such as the Unification Church, the Hare Krishnas, and the Divine Light Mission (see Bromley and Shupe 1981:26-46; and Pilarzky, 1978). Such developments in these religious groups occurred partly for internal reasons but also in part because the news media's discrditing reports about their activities. The media disseminated in uncritical fashion ACM claims and apostate accounts to create a widespread public acceptance of "mind-control", and "cult" stereotypes. Although toward the end of the ACM;s first decade of operation,m there could be seen a gradual trend toward "balance coverage" (as anticultism alone ceased to be newsworthy), the news media were still dominated by negative images of many religious groups.

Some of this can be added if suitable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd object to removing Singer, Times and Wapo outright. The multiple sources make it clear that the labelling of the DLM as a "cult" was not unusual. However we don't need to list each individually. It would be sufficient to say something like "The group has been called a cult a number of times" and then use the citations as sources for that assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources

This Knowledge was self-understanding, yielding calmness, peace, and contentment, since the innermost self is identical with the divine. Knowledge is attained through initiation, which provides four techniques that allow the practitioner to go within ... and emphasizing that the Knowledge is universal, non Indian, in nature.Chryssides, George D. (2001). Historical dictionary of new religious movements. Metuchen, N.J: Scarecrow Press. pp. pp.210-1. ISBN 0-8108-4095-2. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

The meditation techniques the Maharaji teaches today are the same he learned from his father, Hans Ji Maharaj, who, in turn, learned them from his spiritual teacher . 'Knowledge', claims Maharaji, 'is a way to be able to take all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you ... What you are looking for is inside of you.Baumann, Martin (2002). Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. p.428. ISBN 1-57607-223-1. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Just as individuals vary with respect to their contacts with NRMs and outside foci, so also do NRMs vary in the degree to which they provide social rewards as part of a conversion "strategy" ( Long and Hadden, 1983). At one extreme is located Lofland and Skonovd's "revivalist" motif in which recruits are overwhelmed initially by waves of intense sentiment orchestrated by the movement -- "love bombed" in the case of the Unification Church (UC) ( Bromley and Shupe, 1979). Other programs of conversion are less extreme but also prescribe the establishment of interpersonal bonds prior to discussing movement precepts and practices (see, e.g., Stark and Bainbridge ( 1980b :1387) discussion of a Mormon conversion "manual"). At the other extreme are groups in which affective bonds are discouraged (e.g., Balch and Taylor, 1977; Johnson, 1976).

The Divine Light Mission appears to occupy the middle ground. Close, strong ties between newcomers and members develop gradually over the three to four month period between initial contact and the "knowledge" session that marks the transition to DLM membership. There is little evidence to suggest that social rewards are orchestrated by the movement either in degree or timing. Emergent friendships with members are an important forum in which recruits air doubts and discuss DLM beliefs. These relationships thus supplement a very cognitive conversion process in which active consideration of the movement's ideas and beliefs is encouraged from the outset.
4 Cognitive Outcomes

People seek and religious organizations provide explanations to very general questions of ultimate meaning as well as providing solutions to more prosaic problems ( Stark and Bainbridge, 1980a). Heirich ( 1977 :674) suggests that conversion entails a change of explanatory schemes of "root reality" similar to the gestalt shifts that accompany Kuhnian scientific revolutions. Experiences or encounters anomalous with a given reality play a key role in seeding doubts about its explanatory efficacy. Thus for Heirich links between the content of a new vision and adherents' prior experiences are crucial: "the new reality used by converts should speak directly to the problem they have encountered and should explain it more successfully than its earlier competitor" ( 1977 :675). C. David Gartrell, Zane K. Shannon, Contacts, Cognitions, and Conversion: a Rational Choice ApproachReview of Religious Research, Vol. 27, 1985

(preceding and following paragraph added by Jayen466 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC) )

The earlier review ( Richardson, 1985b) included psychological assessment studies of (a) a nationwide, communal, Jesus Movement organization ( Richardson, Stewart, & Simmonds, 1979; Simmonds, 1978; Simmonds, Richardson, & Harder, 1976); (b) an Eastern-oriented, California, "new age" group, Ananda Cooperative Village ( Nordquist, 1978; Rosen & Nordquist, 1980); (c) the Unification Church in the United States and Europe ( Galanter, 1980; Galanter, Rabkin, Rabkin, & Deutsch, 1979; Kuner, 1983); (d) the Children of God and Ananda Marga groups in Europe ( Kuner, 1983); (e) a fundamentalist campus group at an elite American college ( Nicholi, 1974); (f) the Divine Light Mission ( Galanter, 1978; Galanter & Buckley, 1978); and (g) other assessment research including several groups ( Ungerleider & Wellisch, 1979). The review also critiqued one report of a major "anticult" clinical psychologist who has served as a legitimator for groups opposed to new religions ( Singer, 1979), as well as discussing other relevant work by social scientists.

This earlier body of scholarship was impressive in coverage and consistency of findings. Noteworthy was the finding from studies of communally oriented groups that an unusual personality type was being fostered in or attracted to such groups. For instance, Nordquist and Rosen's ( Nordquist, 1978; Rosen & Nordquist, 1980) work on Ananda Cooperative Village showed a typical member to be comparatively high in social compassion and concerned about the environment and living a more simple, noncompetitive life. Their findings were summarized by saying, "Taken as a whole, these results do not suggest personality disorders or major psychopathologies. They reflect a different setting and lifestyle centered around values of selfrealization and even altruism" (Richardson, 1985b , pp. 213-214).

Research on the Jesus Movement group revealed a "dependency-prone" personality for many members, but one that participant observation demonstrated to be functional within the communal context of the group. Dramatic behavioral changes associated with participation (stopping use of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and premarital sex) and the loving atmosphere within the group made us aware that the seemingly maladaptive pattern we found "fit" that particular context well and had positive value for participants ( Richardson et at., 1979).

Kuner ( 1983 ) application of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) to European members of the Unification Church, Ananda Marga, the Children of God, and a control group revealed overall group profiles within normal ranges, with few members' scores indicating poor mental health. He added that members had better scores than control group members and seemed to live with less worry and psychic stress, concluding that the new religions often serve as therapeutic groups for socially alienated youths.

Psychiatrist Marc Galanter's study of Unification Church members using a number of personality inventories revealed that "affiliation with the Unification Church apparently provided considerable and sustained relief from neurotic distress. Although the improvement was ubiquitous, a greater religious commitment was reported by those who indicated the most improvement" ( Galanter et al., 1979 , p. 168). His research on the Divine Light Mission led to similar conclusions: "The diversity of specific psychological symptoms alleviated here is notable. A decline was reported in symptoms affected by behavioral norms, such as drug taking and job trouble; it was also found in subjectively experienced symptoms, such as anxiety, not readily regulated" ( Galanter & Buckley, 1978 , p. 690). Galanter's provocative 1978 article propounded a biologically based relief effect, based on interaction of the human organism with features of the communal setting of the new religious groups. The article derived directly from the consistent finding across groups in Galanter's research of an ameliorative effect of participation for most members.

This earlier review of personality and psychiatric assessment of members of several new religions led me to conclude ( Richardson, 1985b) that:
The personality assessments of these group members reveal that life in the new religions is often therapeutic instead of harmful. Other information suggests that these young people are affirming their idealism by virtue of their involvement in such groups. Certainly there is some "submerging of personality" in groups which are communal or collective, simply because they do not foster the individualistic and competitive lifestyle to which we are accustomed, particularly in American society. However, there is little data to support the almost completely negative picture painted by a few (mental health professionals and others). (p. 221)- Richardson, James, T. Clinical and Personality Assessment of Participants in New Religions, p.147,International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Vol. 5, 1995

Added full cite context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Divine Light Mission was founded by the Hindu Shri Hans Maharaj Ji. Disciple of the guru Sarupanand Ji, Hans Maharaj Ji diffused the teachings of the Sant Mat tradition in Sind and Lahore, and in 1930 he established a mission in Delhi. Shortly after the declaration of Indian independence, he authorized the initiation and propagation activities of the first mahatmas, followers who committed their own lives to the teaching of Hans Maharaj's doctrine. Hans Maharaj founded the monthly magazine Hansadesh, and by 1960 the need to organize the numerous followers who could be found across Northern India led to the founding of the Divine Light Mission. Lewis, James, R. Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy Lewis, James P. (2001). Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books. pp. p.252. ISBN 1-57392-842-9. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

• Furthermore, there are other shabd yoga related movements which have associatons with Radhasoami but have tried to distance themselves. Such groups include...the Divine Light Mission. p.245

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Will add some more, tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Are these quotes all that the authors had to say on the subject, or are they "cherry-picked" (an accusation made on this page against another quotation)? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't the material from Lewis include his description of the Millenia '73 festival as a "fiasco"? Why is there no mention of the DLM's internal problems that Lewis discusses? This single example that I've checked does not appear to be representative if the material in the book. I don't think it's helpful to post cherry-picked quotes here. Are we supposed to summarize this specially-selected material and put it in the article? That would not be appropriate or NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened to good old WP:AGF, Will? These quotes are from material I gathered during the past few years. If there is more useful material in these books, by all means provide them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I provided material, and the decision on what to add, or not to add, and how and where to add to these to the article, is on the hands of these editors actively editing this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

First you accuse other editors of cherry picking quotes, then you take offense at the same charge. That doesn't appear consistent. It's clear that these quotes are not in context, and don't convey important information about the subject in the original material. You may not have described them as being fair or representative, but if they're not what's the point of posting them here? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Added the "Contacts, Cognitions, and Conversion: a Rational Choice Approach" quote. Excellent material on initial reception of new followers.Momento (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento, in other contexts you've been critical of what you've called ""conjectural interpretations of a source based on an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information". Can you please quote the entire text you used for your summary of the "Contacts, Cognitions, and Conversion: a Rational Choice Approach"? Or did you rely on the admittedly incomplete quotation provided by Jossi? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Momento, I don't find this addition successful either. First, the initial sentence is without context; the reader has no idea what "middle ground" is meant to signify here. Second, I think the passage appears in the wrong place – describing, as it does, an aspect of the movement's internal dynamics and entry path, it seems more related to Beliefs and Practices. Thirdly, the description should be written in the past tense, since the Divine Light Mission no longer exists in this form (appeared to occupy the middle ground ... developed gradually etc.). It might also be useful to include in the text the year this was written (1985). Jayen466 10:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it can't be a ""conjectural interpretations of a source based on an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information", because it's a direct quote. It is what they said, not what I say they said. I have removed the "middle ground" sentence and put it in the past tense. And left it where it is because it does describe the reception experience and doesn't describe "Beliefs or Practices".Momento (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a fun bit from - New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response by Bryan Wilson - Some NRM's, somewhat naively, believed in the earlier years that they could use the media to spread their message to the rest of the nation, only to find that the media's construction of their message was a complete travesty. For example, Elan Vital (formerly known as Divine Light Mission) publicised the advent of the child guru Maharaj Ji in the early 1970s, only to find that he was portrayed as "baptising crowds by water cannon".(The multi-colored water with which the crowds were sprayed on a few occasions was in fact no more than an exuberant act, and had no sacramental significance whatever).Momento (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Those were annual events held in April and are called Holi festivals. The festivals did have a huge significance for Rawat's North American followers who attended the three-day festivals in Miami Beach, Florida. In the 1970s through at least 1980, for example, DLM leased the Orange Bowl stadium in Miami Beach for the Holi events on the Saturday afternoon of the weekend festival. These events have been held at least well into the late 1990s Holi. It's true that Rawat wasn't "baptising" crowds in the Christian sense, but there has been a significance of Rawat's Holi Fesitivals for followers being blessed by Prem Rawat who sprayed them with his "Holi water cannon," and certainly the significance has been there in the sense that it represents Hindu mythology. Hope this helps to explain Holi.

Also, Elan Vital wasn't a new term to Divine Light Mission in 1983. In the mid to late 1970s the glossy DLM (U.S.) publication And It Is Divine (AIID) changed its name to Elan Vital ("the vital force of life," or "life force") long before DLM changed its name to Elan Vital in the U.S. in 1983. I realize I'm not providing sources, but hope this bit of background helps to explain the DLM/EV sponsored Holi events and the DLM name change. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

<<< I will transcribe the full quote from "Contacts, Cognitions, and Conversion: a Rational Choice Approach", so that editors can incorporate context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in Questia, so if you want to save yourself the transcription effort, I could Ctrl-C the relevant passages out. Jayen466 15:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

C. David Gartrell, Zane K. Shannon; Contacts, Cognitions, and Conversion: a Rational Choice Approach, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 27, 1985

Just as individuals vary with respect to their contacts with NRMs and outside foci, so also do NRMs vary in the degree to which they provide social rewards as part of a conversion "strategy" ( Long and Hadden, 1983). At one extreme is located Lofland and Skonovd's "revivalist" motif in which recruits are overwhelmed initially by waves of intense sentiment orchestrated by the movement -- "love bombed" in the case of the Unification Church (UC) (Bromley and Shupe, 1979). Other programs of conversion are less extreme but also prescribe the establishment of interpersonal bonds prior to discussing movement precepts and practices (see, e.g., Stark and Bainbridge ( 1980b :1387) discussion of a Mormon conversion "manual"). At the other extreme are groups in which affective bonds are discouraged (e.g., Balch and Taylor, 1977; Johnson, 1976).
The Divine Light Mission appears to occupy the middle ground. Close, strong ties between newcomers and members develop gradually over the three to four month period between initial contact and the "knowledge" session that marks the transition to DLM membership. There is little evidence to suggest that social rewards are orchestrated by the movement either in degree or timing. Emergent friendships with members are an important forum in which recruits air doubts and discuss DLM beliefs. These relationships thus supplement a very cognitive conversion process in which active consideration of the movement's ideas and beliefs is encouraged from the outset. p.35

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I was just getting there. Also inserted above, plus following para. Jayen466 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Messer, Jeanne 'Guru Maharaj Ji and the Divine Light Mission, in The New Religious Consciousness edited by Charles Y. Glock and Robert N. Bellah, Berkeley: University of California Press. pp.52-72. ISBN 0-52003-472-4
2. Galanter, Marc (1999). Cults: faith, healing, and coercion. Oxford : Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512370-0.
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. J. Gordon Melton Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America New York/London: Garland, 1986; revised edition, Garland, pages 141-145
5. Parke, Jo Anne; Stoner, Carroll (1977). All gods children: the cult experience--salvation or slavery?. Radnor, Pa: Chilton. ISBN 0-8019-6620-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
6. Pilarzyk, Thomas, The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory Review of Religious Research, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 23-43
7. Price, Maeve (1979): The Divine Light Mission as a social organization. Sociological Review, 27, Page 279-296
8. "Panel Urged to Probe Cults", The Washington Post, March 14, 1980. "In addition to the Unification Church, the Church of Scientology and Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission were singled out at the hearing as cults that employ manipulative techniques and turn children against their parents."