Content deleted Content added
→Removed incorrect sentence that is at least doubtful: original intent behind that sentence |
|||
Line 109:
My intent in putting that sentence in the article was to distinguish this case from those NRM leaders we sometimes run across who clearly, sincerely, subjectively, most would say delusionally, believe that they personally are indeed God, and always speak and act (and occasionally rave) unambiguously in accordance with that belief. The sentence is meant to address PR's personal subjective belief, and not what he may have induced in others. Along the lines Ex-Premie notes, here the various positions are that he intentionally tricked his followers, or that he negligently failed to disabuse their mistake, or that he innocently did not realize what was going on. There does not appear to be a position out there that he wanted them to believe it because he believed it himself. This sentence was an attempt, perhaps inartful, to say or at least allude to all the above in a single quick aside. --[[User:Gary D|Gary D]] 20:49, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
:Gary_D, Jossi and Zappaz, please believe me, I really do not want to make big edits in this article anymore but this one sentence mars in my opinion the whole article. May be we can re-phrase it into "There is no proof that he Rawat ever personally thought himself an incarnation of God." that would be fine for me. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 20:57, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
| |||