Talk:Prem Rawat

Archive 9 • Archive 8 • Archive 7 • Archive 6 • Archive 5 • Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1

Project status as of October 6, 2004 (final Gary D report)

Here are the main points of project status at this time:

• The overall project structure now appears stable as a main biographical article, a criticism article (linked from main page), and a teachings article (linked from main page), with other ancillary articles as well.
• The major revision to the main article is online, accepted and stable; its "dispute tags" have been removed
• The criticism article has been fully negotiated, its "dispute tags" have been removed, and it has been marked in the edit history as a "baseline reference consensus version" for future editors' use
• Characteristic of the classic successful compromise, everyone is a little unhappy with the results but everyone can also live with them
• A preparatory stub has been created for the teachings article, and I am informed Richard G is close to presenting a first draft version
• We have commitments from our editors' group to protect these articles from vandalism attacks and to ask their respective constituencies to respect the articles (and our hard work!) as well
• Existing ancillary topic articles such as Elan Vital, Hans Ji Maharaj, Techniques of Knowledge and Divine Light Mission may see some work in the coming days; no additional ancillary articles appear to be on the horizon, but who knows?

Having come to the end of the intensive edit period, I am content to have this status section now scroll off into the archives. Anyone who feels it should continue to be maintained, however, is of course free to do so. And now I give you all the secret Wikipedia salute! --Gary D 20:04, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?

Jossi & Andries, you are both right. I hope Gary remembers that we split of the criticism into a separate article only to stop the edit wars. Eventually, I want a single article.

I would prefer Gary to merge Prem Rawat with Criticism of Prem Rawat, because:

• he is a better writer
• he has attracted a following
• I don't have the time

But I'm still planning to do the merge myself, after the dust settles, if no one else does it. Gary, you da man! --Uncle Ed 14:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I hope that you accept the fact that working on the main articles and the ancillary articles has been not an easy job. It was a long process of give and take, compromises and concensus. All editors have agreed to this current format, with additional articles being developed. Your recurrent idea of an eventual merge is in direct contradiction with the process worked out by many editors that invested in this article for many, many days. Gary's initial idea of an eventual merge was abandoned by him and others half-way thorugh the process.

I hope that this clears any misunderstandings on the "merge" subject . ≈ jossi ≈ 15:16, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't planning to do anything till after Halloween in any case. Still too much dust around here, ahem! --Uncle Ed 16:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I do not often agree with Jossi but I think it would be a big mistake to merge the articles Prem Rawat with Criticism of Prem Rawat. All the exhausting time-consuming (and sometimes bitter) disputes would re-emerge. Andries 16:57, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed! Hey, if I have a following, I can be a guru! ;-)

Our enemy now is the WP article size limit. Both the main and criticism articles are 30 to 31 KB in length each. Conceptually, I actually still prefer a single omnibus article, too, but that would mean 60KB+. I had once suggested dividing the main article along lines other than viewpoint, but there is just no other divisible piece of the article that's anywhere near as large as the criticism material, and besides, restoration of the criticism to the main article would push out everything else in the article anyway, since the criticism material is already at the size limit. I think this all means that we're just stuck with it as is.

BTW, I don't think you're proposing editing all this down to a single article smaller than 32 KB, but let me knock down that straw man anyway:

• The topic is just larger than that, so a single 32 KB article wouldn't get the job done of telling the full story
• The editorial blood bath that would be unleashed in attempting to perform a 50% edit-down on these finely negotiated articles, I would not want to witness =yow!=

--Gary D 20:37, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Maharaji/ Guru Mahara ji

I corrected an invalid assertion on the opening paragraph:

• Rawat is not known in India as Guru Maharaji
• There are no materials from Iindia using this name any more [1]
• In India as in the West students call him Maharaji
• The fact that he was known in the past as Guru Maharaj Ji is explained in the article

--Zappaz 15:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree with removing the name Guru Maharaji Ji from the intro. At his most famous period he was called like that and many people still remember this name. Andries 16:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The most famous period must be nowadays, if you take into account that he spoke to more than a million people this year, a definitive record attendance. The encyclopedic information about his previous name is already well described in the body of the article. I have modified your edit just a bit. --Zappaz 16:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz,

1. In the seventies the most real newspapers articles written using the name Guru Maharaj ji. [2] [3] More than in any other decade

2. The 1981 reference by Haan also describes him as "Goeroe Maharaj ji"

3. "There were several popular Eastern gurus in the late 1960s including the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and Guru Maharaj Ji. The first two , with their long beards their long flowing beards, fitted the Western conception of an Eastern guru; the third was, when he sprang into prominence in 1971, a 13-year-old boy." from David V. Barrett the New Believers page 325 "The British organization changed its name in 1991, 20 years after Maharaji took Britain by storm page 326

4. Of course the names should be stated first. How do people otherwise know if they are reading the good article?

5. Here is the beginning of an email from Ed Poor from the English mailing list

"From: "Poor, Edmund W" <[e-mail]>

Subject: [WikiEN-l] Criticism of Prem Rawat

To: <[e-mail]>

Anybody remember Guru Maharaj Ji?"

6. "October 1983 Whatever Happened to Guru Maharaj Ji? Once Heralded as the Avatar of the Age, the Leader of the Divine Light Mission is Hard to Find These Days" from Hinduism today [4]

Andries 17:17, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is the problem Andries? I have already added that ... Formerly he was called Guru Maharaj Ji, a title he dropped in the 1980s.. --Zappaz 17:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem anymore. I had overlooked that sentence. Thanks. Andries 17:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Guys, guys, lighten up a little. It's just an article... --Uncle Ed 20:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletion

Andries: Just to remind you that this page is also a baseline reference concesus poage. If you want to make any substantial edits, like the one you just did, you will need to discuss it here. --Zappaz 18:02, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did hereunder. Followers really believed him to be God and the DLM magazines must have given at least some the imprerssion that he personally claimed to be God hence some must have thought that he was sincere. Andries 18:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed incorrect sentence that is at least doubtful

I think the following sentence is untrue and at least doubtful and contradicts what comes further. See also http://gallery.forum8.org/god_claims.htm Some ex-premies do believe that Maharaji claimed to be God. Of course, what he really thought can not be verified.

"It has not been alleged that Rawat ever personally thought himself an incarnation of God."

Andries 17:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, Andries. The sentence is correct and I have re-added it. Maybe you have a misunderstanding due to language? --Zappaz 18:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit that it is a bit complicated sentence. Fact is that some followers believed him to personally claim to be God based on ambiguous DLM publications. So so some of them must have believed him to be sincere, although this was implicit. So logically spoken the sentence is not true. Note that the sentence makes a very general statement about all the followers. Andries 18:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, here is what is written in the article further that contradicts the disputed sentence.

"Rawat in this speech attributed great power and possibly divinity to "The Lord, Guru Maharaj Ji", apparently referring to his father and teacher. [..] Critics assert that in their view there can be no doubt Rawat was both referring to himself and intending his followers to understand that."

Andries 18:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Andries, I agree with Zappaz. It's impossible for anyone to really know, during Rawat's various stages of life to the present, exactly what he believed (or now believes) about himself in terms of his divinity -- even though he denies ever claiming to be divine.

That doesn't mean he didn't deceive premies into believing what he said about himself as evidenced by the quotes -- being the Lord Incarnate with great powers -- whether or not he said it in the third person or using "I" statements. No one can get inside of his mind and know what Rawat thinks about himself, now or in the past. That's something only he knows. These are two different issues. There's no question that most premies worshipped him in the past (and some continue to do so) based upon his own words and behavior, however. The quotes are ample proof of that, as well as testimony of ex-premies. I certainly do not know what Rawat thinks of himself.

Another Ex-Premie 19:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can somebody please write down here the disputed sentence in other words? It may be due to a wrong understanding of English. Thanks Andries 19:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That sentence is consistent with Gary's copyedit as referred throughout in the article. In any case, given that the edit was approved by concensus after a long process, I see no point in discussing this again. If there is new substantial information please add it, otherwise let's keep this article as is. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 19:47, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I overlooked that sentence. It is just one sentence. Andries 19:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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. --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. Andries 20:57, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)