Talk:Current teachings of Prem Rawat/Archive 2

it should be clearly stated in big letters that only rawat is seen by his students and himself as competent to explain his teachings, no matter how long a student is practicing. i think this is important, because in comparison to other teachings like math, physics. etc, this is a pretty unique fact. and if this has been different in the history of the whole thing, why that change appeared. This matter seems to be so sacred to students/premies, that it comes close to religious feelings that get hurt. thomas

This is a good point, Thomas. We need to add a paragraph or two about the importance of the teacher and the role of "reminding" that the teacher undertakes. I will work on this, as well as adding something about the relationship between the teacher and the student, as Maharaji presents it. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

you are welcome.thomas

this is nuts

I'm beginning to see why the "obsessive hate group" label is sticking. I can see where the anti people should have a say in criticism-- that's their schtick.

But all I see here is obsessive ranting. Indeed, the apostates can't possibly write about what THEY understood the teachings to be today, based on what THEY thought and rejected five, or fifteen years ago. Utter gibberish.

Do these people think that the skinheads and American Nazis should have the ability to weigh in on the teaching of Judiasm? Perhaps they should also voice their criticism in any section on Moses, too.

These people rejected the teachings. They had all that in their "criticism" section. Now they want to go back and add more? Insane, totally insane.

And leave my girlfriend out of it, you creeps. She volunteered to help, did a good job and just like a hate group you lot are now trying to probe into her personal life and motives. I've seen the archives where you people do this over and over. Way out of line, sickos. Richard G. 13:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Richard, where is the hatred? I was a student of Maharaji's for over 25 years. I have listened to him speak for longer than most students listen to professors to gain their PHDs. I have practiced what he taught, sought regular reviews of what he taught, two of them being from Maharaji himself. I have suggested (only seeking a discussion so far) that maybe the meditation techniques and his earlier teachings should be included in this article. What is wrong, sick or hateful about that? I can understand your emotional attachment to your girlfriend's writing, but your reaction including references to skinheads and nazis seems a little 'out of line'. I hope contributors with less emotional involvement can give their views. --John Brauns 18:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

you are a teacher?.thomas

Richard, you are the one who brought your girlfriend into this project. I was simply asking for provenance. I object to this article because it is clearly based on the POV of a devotee of Prem Rawat,is a complete whitewash, and inaccurate without any background material. I don't know why you are referring to me in the plural (creeps) because I don't consult others when I place my opinions/comments here. Yet, now you have come to a point that you believe what Elan Vital has said about ex-premies being a hate group, and worse, you have called me a Nazi, a skinhead, and a sicko. I have to inform you Richard, that this is not about freedom of religion. It's about a cult leader who wants free advertisement.

You have stated that you are not a premie. I assert that neither you, nor anyone here who has not been involved with Prem Rawat, received knowledge, practiced it as prescribed by Rawat himself, and that includes GaryD and Zappaz, can never, ever know how destructive this man really is to the people who follow him. In short, he is a destructive cult leader. You can call me whatever names you want, but it does not matter that I left five years ago. Prem Rawat's "teachings" are not that complicated, but his revisionism is very complicated. That's why his teachings are so secretive. I also assert that he has devolved in a way that is only more destructive to those who have (especially) been long-time followers/true believers of his divinity, and continue to be the same.

As a teacher, you surely must know the difference between being a teacher of a subject, and someone who has "teachings." There is an enormous difference. This "NRM" is a destructive cult because the person who leads it is deceitful, self-destructive himself, and worse, he uses his own followers in the most cynical way and he is very abusive. There is ample proof of this.

For you to characterize me as a Nazi who wants to be involved in the writing about Judaism is a remark that is beyond the pale. If you didn't want your girlfriend involved, you should have kept her out of it. That was your decision, you made it, now you are obligated to stand up to the scrutiny. Your arrogance about this subject, which again, you known next to nothing about, is unacceptable, and I don't care if you have fifteen doctorate degrees -- you still don't understand what Rawat is about. I assert that this article has no purpose other than to advertise Prem Rawat's personality cult. It's beyond being an NRM. It's without question, a cult that has members who worship a living person. Maybe you, Richard, are in denial about it because someone is involved who is so close to home. That's your personal problem, not mine. Meanwhile, I have a right to say what I want without being called a Nazi! That's a moronic thing to say, college degrees or not.

Another Ex-Premie 17:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is that you Cynthia?: give it a break, would you? Funny,... same three, same three Cynthia, John, Jim. The three musketers! :) --64.81.88.140 18:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You really want me to be Cynthia, don't you? That would give you the EV/Rawat license to discredit anything I say because of the EV Australian FAQs that characterize Cynthia as mentally unstable. I now ask you this: Why, when the hate-group allegations were recently published on the U.S/NAM EV website, they did not include the smear campaign about Cynthia's mental health? Was that a legal manuever to avoid civil litigation?

Well, you won't get to do that with me. Btw, what the hell is YOUR name? Are you so ashamed or afraid of being a premie that you choose remain anonymous, hiding? When I was a true-believing premie I would have proudly defended Rawat as my LORD At least Jossi, misguided as he is, has the balls to put his name to his comments. Not so with you, "140." Are you too afraid to disclose your own identity because your guru is a totally disgusting creep of a cult leader? Believe me, Cynthia is not the only ex-premie who knows the facts about Rawat and she doesn't have all the facts, either (even though she likes to think that, bless her heart).

There are plenty of people who know what's behind this advertisement of Prem Rawat. Guess again, you coward. I'm now thinking that Zappaz has received knowledge because he certainly has chosen his alliance, even though he claims to be a NPOV neutral Wiki person. S/he seems to be completely biased in your court of "Luv." I'm planning to work on this article, but I have a life. I have to fit this learning curve of NPOV and the time to edit this article, with my life and career, which I can assure you that I will. But, I'm not going to sacrifice my career for this article. You premies are so predicable. Cynthia! LOL! Cynthia doesn't know everything, even though sometimes that how she comes across and sometimes that what she thinks. I like Cynthia, but she doesn't know everything.

Another Ex-Premie 23:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What a stupid comment! As if YOU aren't the same Team Rawat too: You, Jossi, Richard, Zappaz ... give me a break.

-- Jim

The more you say, Richard, the phonier you look. Your girlfriend, if she really exists, should be available to defend her article and her edits just like anyone else. Where is she?

In any event, whether your supposed girlfriend or anyone else does it, this article needs work. It needs context. Rawat's teachings had their genesis in India. How much do they differ with similar teachings of other India gurus? Rawat's always purported to be unique amongst teachers. Is he? Don't you think that's a fair issue for commentary in this article? Likewise, don't you think it's fair to compare Rawat's teachings with those of his brother, seeing as both claim to be the authentic heirs of Shri Hans?

And Rawat's teachings have most definitely changed over time. Isn't that worthy of comment? Like I said, he used to urge us to try to "realize Knowledge" which meant aspiring to a state where the mind was defeated once and for all. God-realization, in other words (HIS other words, by the way). He claimed that he, his immediate family and even his holy men, his mahatmas, had achieved that goal. If we "surrendered" ourselves completely, we, too, could get there. Then one day he stopped talking about that way. He stopped encouraging premies to try to meditate every moment of every day (yes, including sleep!). Now, not only does he no longer encourage premies to try to realize Knowledge, he doesn't even acknowledge that it's possible. You don't have to hate Rawat to notice this change and the article should mention it.

Another very big part of Rawat's teaching has concerned the mind. Like I said before, he used to tell premies on initiation that it was poison and Knowledge the antidote. In the late seventies, he used to tell horror stories about how the mind would replicate even our finest sentiments and purest thoughts just to trap us and eventually take us away from Rawat. Some might say this was astute advice. Others would say it was the hallmark of a cult leader. No article about Rawat's teachings would be complete without some mention of this issue.

Then there was "Grace", something else that was central to Rawat's teachings for decades. Not just any old grace either. HIS grace. The Grace of Guru Maharaj Ji. He didn't just suggest that we pray to him for it, he even told us exactly what to pray. We've got those satsangs safely archived as proof. How could any article about Rawat's teachings not go there?

See, it's not as if Rawat used to teach something completely different, geography, say, and how he's teaching math. I mean, even then, perhaps, a proper article about Rawat's teachings might explain that. But here it's all the same subject but with minor -- and major -- variations. And seeing as Rawat has done a piss poor job of ever properly withdrawing former teachings of his that he no longer actively espouses, there are many, many premies who still subscribe to some of his formerly espoused views. All you have to do is read the "Expressions" on ELK, for instance, to see how many people think that Rawat's Grace is guiding them daily. They still pray to him like never before. We can provide undeniable proof to that effect.

Even how Knowledge is transmitted must be discussed as that's changed too over time. It used to require the physical touch of an authorized conduit of the Master's Grace. That's who the mahatmas were. Thus when they squeezed your eyes gently doing the light technique they were supposedly opening your third eye. We can prove this too and boy has it ever changed!  :)

Then there's the whole issue about "Satsang, Service and Meditation" which used to be the path as Rawat described it for decades. Boy has that ever changed! It used to be essential that we all allow Rawat's Grace to talk through us incessantly. Now only he can do the talking!

Anyway, clearly, clearly, this is not going to be easy for you guys. Rawat has definitely instructed premies to not discuss him or his Knowledge other than to say it's great, he's great. But you wanted this article. This was all your idea. Now I think it's the best thing since sliced bread.

As for NPOV, sure, I think it's dumb but that's the name of the game here and I accept it. So let's all work together to make this the best NPOV article ever!

)

Jim

There are a huge number of misconceptions made by the ex-premies. That is why their input into an article about Maharaji's teahnings is just not possible. Jim's comments about his mis-understandings of the teachnings is just, well, too funny to read! I do not have time to comment now. But expect a line-by-line comment from me. ROFL! --64.81.88.140 18:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've asked Gary to intervene

Clearly we need a neutral editor here. While I have some misgivings about Gary, he's obviously the closest thing to one the other articles ever got. Zappaz and Richard have now completely tossed off any veneer of impartiality. So, once we get a reasonable editor here, we should start working on this article. Boy oh boy!

Jim

As you can see, Jim has requested that I intervene here as a neutral, or at least show up and make a comment. As you can tell, I have been lurking, doing some low-level maintenance and adding an explanatory note or two regarding my prior work here. I'm sorry if I disappoint you, Jim, but I don't think there's anything substantial for me to do yet. The way the process seems to work among this group, first there has to be a complete venting of spleens on all sides and an initial heated combat, unfortunately probably all on the talk page. Then there has to be a dump of "pro" and "anti" material in the article; so far, most of the heat has been on the talk page (grown to 36KB already), and I don't mediate talk-page disputes. It is only after that point that I or another editor accepted as a neutral by both sides can profitably come in and do copyedit work on all the conflicting raw material in the article, because just like all the other PR areas I've worked on, I don't know anything about his teachings, pro or con, and so cannot contribute on that basis. I've seen a bunch of references here to lots of other material, but I haven't yet seen any of the actual material. So I think I'll just sit with my popcorn and hot dog awhile and watch a few more rounds of the fight. --Gary D 19:15, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Jim and others ex-es, do some work yourself and do not leave it to Andries or Gary

Jim and other ex-es, why don't you make some edits in the article yourself? Why always leave the difficult work to me and Gary_D? Andries 19:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now that's a damn good question, Andries! Here's my excuses. First, I have some serious reserations about any Wiki article to begin with because, as I said from the start, I see Wiki as a refuge for indefensible ideas. But I'm obviously ambivalent enough to care to some extent at least. That's why I keep commenting.

Also, I have a real hard time with the idea that I'll post something only to have it deleted as happened when I first tried to add something to the earlier Rawat article. Gary says it's all part of the process. I disagree. I think that there's a better way to do this and that's to hash out some basic parameters for the article first. It might all amount to the same thing but, intellectually, that just rubs me the wrong way. First principles seem like the logical starting point.

But, yes, Andries, I'll contribute this time. I'm going to be in a trial over in Vancouver this next week but, depending on my circumstances, may or may not be able to spend some time with this there.

Jim

Is it okay to reference "The Keys" when they're not available for inspection?

The only reference offered for the current article is "The Keys, September 2004, presented by Maharaji". But unless these are openly available for inspection, this is hardly a legitimate attribution, is it? How do WE know what "The Keys" say or don't say?

--24.68.220.3 20:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

Principles

• This is an article about the teachings of Maharaji, as Maharaji presents them today. It is an absolutely valid proposition to include in an encyclopedia these teachings untainted by criticism.
• The Prem Rawat article and Criticism of Prem Rawat articles contain plenty of historical information already. There is no need to repeat it here.
• Ex-premies have had their chance to present their POV about all the issues thay raise in this talk page. If they feel that they "forgot" some points, they can go there and add it.
• If ex-premies want to write an article about their recollection of the teachings of Maharaji from 10, 15 or 20 years ago, they can do it, although I doubt the encyclopedic relevance of such an article. For example, If I was a practicing ortodox jew 20 years ago, what value would have an article in which I make comments on what I remebered today of what I was taught by my Rabbi then. Ridiculous isnt' it?.
• Adding to the ridiculossness of this debate is the unnatural notion that three ex-premies here consider themselves "experts" on the subject and want to "contribute" to explain to the public at large the teachings of Maharaji!. Well... that is just too sad to comment on. Too sad indeed (or funny if you wish).
• ≈ jossi ≈ 21:08, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, this article can and should say that the teaching have changed over the years. Its title is not Current teachings of Prem Rawat. Andries 21:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. The teachings have not changed one iota. That is the ex-premie party line. What has evolved is the presentation.
2. Satsang, Service, Meditation, Master was called in the 70's. Now it is called different: keep in touch, participate, practice, Teacher. This is already covered in the Techniques of Knowledge article

Jossi, Rawat's commandment on Satsang was 'Never delay in attending Satsang'. Satsang was held every evening. How can you say this that 'Keep in touch' is not a change in Rawat's teachings? Rawat's commandment on Meditation was 'Constantly Meditate and Remember Holy Name'. How can you say his current instruction of practicing Knowledge a minimum of one hour a day is not a change in Rawat's teachings? --John Brauns 21:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You do not understand, I guess. Go ahead and add these points to the Evolution of teachings of Prem Rawat and after that I will explain how that evolved and how the core of Maharaji's teachnings has not changed.≈ jossi ≈ 21:49, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

1. The reason for the change in nomenlature? Already explained in the main article Prem_Rawat#Turn_toward_Western_modes_of_teaching
2. We could add a summary of that here to give context.
3. We also need to add to the article two missing points: the importance of the teacher and the relationship teacher/student. (Although the latter is already covered somewhat in the Techniques of Knowledge article).

≈ jossi ≈ 21:31, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Gary D reconsiders: A procedural proposal

Perhaps I was too hasty in waving off Jim's invitation before. While I don't believe either side trusts the other side or me enough to agree in advance in principle to material before they've seen it, on the other hand we are all familiar with a procedure that worked for us before on the other article and that everybody seemed able to live with, and maybe I can contribute now by making a similar suggestion here: since the "anti" editors may be concerned about being prematurely reverted, why don't the "pro" editors agree to a "no-revert" truce period in which "anti" editors' material can be put in raw without being molested, and the "anti" editors agree to get their material in within a definite time, for final editing thereafter? Let's also for the truce period put at the top of the article the following "under construction" disclaimer I originally used on the /temp1 main article, so that no one needs be worried that readers coming upon the article for the first time will be misled either way:

Note: this article is currently undergoing substantial editing. During this construction period the article may temporarily display POV, factual inaccuracies, fragmentation, and poor readability. Please be patient, and discuss on [[Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat/temp1|its talk page]] before effecting reverts or substantial deletes.

For a truce time period for assembling "anti" material, I propose three weeks, which is until November 1. I see Jim has already begun putting material on the page today, which bodes well for the "anti" editors moving right along. If it is going to take longer than that, I would suggest the "anti"s take the raw material to a /temp page instead, as three weeks is about the longest we can ask the "pros" to live with this burr under their saddle prior to a neutral edit.

Is this proposed process something the "pros" and the "antis" might want to agree to? --Gary D 23:34, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary. Yes, I agree that this sounds reasonable. I'm going to invite other exes to contribute as well. See what happens. I wonder, though, would you mind opining briefly about what position you think you and other Wiki editors will take vis-a-vis the issues? This article's different than the others. I think exes will be able to easily prove the kinds of things I've mentioned as demonstrated in my initial addition. In that case, not only did Rawat say it (which is beyond reasonable dispute, the excerpt being part of an official DLM publication), but he even made a point of offering his explanation in classic teaching language ("Previously we were talking about hell and heaven, but now we are going to identify, to verify the states of heaven and hell.") The only complaints the supporters have is that the history and genesis of Rawat's teachings are somehow irrelevant. It'd be nice to know right now if this material is going to be protected here or not.

--24.68.220.3 23:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)Jim

Sorry, but I must disagree, Gary. This is not about pro and con sides. This is about the teachings of Maharaji as Maharaji teaches them in 2004 , not 30 years ago. So this is what I have done:

• Renamed this article Current teachings of Prem Rawat as suggested by Andries. This article is to stay as is more or less, with the addition of a section as committed before about the importance of the teacher and the relationship student/teacher.
• I have created a new article called Evolution of Teachings of Prem Rawat in which we can write an historical progression and document that evolution. I moved there thee last text entered. Some of the text from the main article can then be moved to that article, no point in keeping it in two places.

Let anyone with a liking for the past to write up a good article about the history of Maharaji's teachings. And let those more atuned to the present write an excellent one about the current teachings.

≈ jossi ≈ 02:17, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, one small point but one I think you would appreciate - the title of the article Current teachings of Prem Rawat strongly implies that Rawat's teachings have changed, which I know is a view you don't hold. I can't think of a better title as 'Current Presentation of the teachings of Prem Rawat' is clearly far too cumbersome. Also, the Knowledge session is still a fundamental part of his current teachings, so I cannot see how it could be excluded from this article, even if the argument that his earlier 'presentations' should be moved elsewhere is carried. To be honest, I cannot see how you could ever be happy with a scholarly article on Rawat's teachings, in the same way that I could never be happy with what I see as an advertisement for Rawat's guru business. If someone was to propose abandoning the article, I would not object! --John Brauns 08:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The ones keeping tabs on and documenting the past of Rawat are most definitively the 'anti' group, so it is a good idea that they get a stab at writing the historical article. They have the sources!. Don't see many 'pro' people interested in that ... by reading the extensive comments on this page (that btw, have been archived due to length). It makes sense, as we will need good articles on the teachings both from a current and an historical perspective. This adds to the interest of this subject, as there are not many spiritual teachers out there that afford themselves the luxury of evolution. Once we have these two articles written we could add a summary about this very interesting fact to the main article as well. --Senegal 02:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that this is a good compromise and will ensure things waters remain calm "round this parts". I am not in the mood, neither have the time or inclination for a new "battle". Two teams working on two different articles unencumbered by edit wars, 32K for each, Gary exercising final copyedits to everyone's delight, well ... a WP win! :-) Let the editing begin! --Zappaz 04:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So it turns out my initial intuition was correct, it was too early to intervene, only I didn't foresee the form the hitch would take. As the keystone of my proposal was mutual free agreement, in the absense of that, my proposal is "not carried," as they say, and I commend you instead to the good graces of the ex-premies. If they agree to this arrangement, you can move forward on that basis. Heck, if you and they can come to agreement, you don't need me. There are a few things to keep in mind, however:

• There is no such thing as a Wikipedia article with a limited group of editors. Two articles does not and cannot mean one is "your" article and one is "their" article; the ex-premies retain full rights to edit "PR's teachings-now," as you retain full rights to edit "PR's teachings-then."
• This arrangement transforms the original "Teachings of Prem Rawat" page, what I would call the "tactical high ground," into an open redirect anyone can edit. Unless the ex-premies have agreed to this arrangement, you run the risk the ex-premies will simply start building their article there and cut you out entirely, which if you have not secured their agreement they are well within their Wikipedia rights to do.
• The only reason Ed Poor, and me right behind him, and legions of Wikipedians right behind me, aren't clamoring for the combination of the main PR and criticism articles is that their combined total length exceeds 32KB. Considering that this arrangement involves a split between the far more closely related articles, "PR's teachings-then" and "PR's teachings-now," if you hope to keep these articles separated permanently, you would need to write nearly 32KB of really tight, excellent, non-redundant prose, and hope the ex-premies are equally verbose, or the "Wikipedia abhors a fractured article" principle will take over and the two articles will find themselves smacked together in a shotgun marriage anyway, and without the benefit of consensus building along the way.

Good luck. May you avoid the dogs of (edit) war. --Gary D 07:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Gary, I don't see a reason why this cannot be be worked out:

• There is no reason why we should not consider merging the 'teachings then' and 'teachings now' articles once these have been developed. Jossi was of the suggestion that core teachings have not changed, so this should not be a problem
• Anyone is welcome to edit any of the articles. Simply, there are people here that have more of an "handle" on the early days and others are more attuned to the current days. Let those gravitate to the article of they can contribute better.
• If the ex-premies want to re-open he "Teachings of Prem Rawat", so be it ... we can then merge the text from the other two into that one later in the process, a job that I am sure you will be interested in contemplating :-)

--Zappaz 11:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Splitting the article is wrong and won't work anyway

Obviously, the only reason the supporters now want to split this article between Current Teachings and a history or evolution page is that, by this new strategy, hey hope to protect the article from any possibly embarrassing or critical contributions. Never mind that this would reduce their proposed page to a simple advertisement for a clearly controversial product. Is there a Wiki precedent for a move like this? Could someone show me? Right, I didn't think so.

Also, any history of teachings page would necessarily have to describe the current teachings in any event to describe the transition which itself is part of the story. This would create an overlap that I thought was contrary to Wiki procedure. Am I right about this?

Furthermore, should there be yet another article about the teachings of Prem Rawat which centres on comparing them to his brother's or other gurus for instance? This is a natural subject area as Rawat has made a point of asserting the uniqueness of his "gift". Just how unique, therefore, is a valid issue. But this is more of a "lateral" focus than the "vertical" one about the history and evolution of the teachings. Should this be a separate article? I don't think so.

If it weren't for the embarrassment factor, no one would dispute that all this material should be part of one article. The supporters are just trying to ghettoize the parts of the story they don't like.

Jim

No you are wrong as usual. The reason for the split is that you have zero clue about the current teachings because you are not a student. Having you in particular (shall I post here a copy of your very obscene remarks on another talk page about Maharaji and his students?) writing on this article is just unacceptable. Richard's comparison of a skinhead writing about judaism applies here.

Also note that there is nothing I am embarrassed about. On the contrary I am as proud as one can be. The one that needs to be ashamed is only you, by your obsession, your hate and your despicable attitude towards other human beings that don't share your hateful POV. --64.81.88.140 18:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here it is: can you really accept that the person that wrote this has any standing in this forum to contribute to any of the articles in question? Should this person get any respect from anyone? Should this person be given the opportunity to peddle his very obvious hate of Maharaji and his students? You be the judge.

Rawat's like an old, old, old stripper, perhaps in her 80's, with a small, loyal following of degenerate losers who are willing to keep showing up, paying their two bucks and masturbating at her "timeless" fan show. If you squint hard enough ... well, it sure helps if your eyesights failing to begin with. But take the show out into broad daylight? Think about it! - Jim Heller, September 29, 2004

I don't understand your complaint, 140. We both have strong POV's about Rawat, yours is positive, mine negative. There are all sorts of Wikipedia subjects that polarize people. Big deal. I thought the goal of the exercise here was to get the facts out irrespective of our POV's. Yes, I completely believe what you've quoted me as saying. In fact, ironically, I think your effort to prevent any contextual or critical commentary to enter the piece proves my point in spades. You don't want Rawat's teachings to see the full light of day because they are an embarrassment. Honestly, didn't you cringe a bit to read his stupid "lesson" about earth being a place we're sent back to if the punishment in hell isn't bad enough? Could you imagine anything crazier? Yet, these are part of the teachings of Prem Rawat.

And wait until we get into what he said about the mind! Just plain enough to make a person shake in their boots. Or maybe even kill themselves (as several poor premies did, they got so freaked out. I know one in particular, an ashram premie who started worrying that he couldn't control his doubts about Rawat being God and all. He hung himself.) This is going to be an extremely interesting article indeed.

And you know what? You can't stop it. The facts are all there. Straight out of the Rawat's own mouth as evidenced in his offical publications and eyewitness accounts.

So quit flailing and start thinking about all the ways we can make this a really informative article about a most interesting subject!

)

--Jim

This is not funny and you cannot get away by trying to be "clever". Your bigoted and obscene comments says it all. Whatever you do, you will not get away by hiding behind cute comments like the ones above. Your smileys are not cute cannot counteract the fact that you have zero credibilty around here.

This has nothing to do with "strong POVs". You are simply disgusting by any standards.

Go ahead and write about what you consider his teachings to be. Be my guest. And you know very well that the Q&A from were you got the heaven and hell stuff are most definitively not his teachings. He was answering questions in 1971 from a group of people that were so interested in his opinions about these subjects. He also talked about guru, satguru, yoga, kundalini, karma, mukti, etc. So what. These are not his teachings and you know it. Go ahead write about it, that will give us a chance to clarify it for you and others. --64.81.88.140 19:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

.140, why are these question and answers not part of the teachings? I do not understand. They have been published in the official magazine Elan Vital after all. Thanks in advance. Andries 16:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no problems whatsoever with a different POV than mine. Maharaji's teachings are not for everybody, only for those that want them, and his help.

In our society, freedom of speech is a freedom we cherish. Same about freedom of belief, and the freedom to pursue happiness.

Sadly, there will always be people that will hide behind these freedoms to pursue despicable actions. That is the price we pay, and we need to learn to live with it. It will be only by the concerted, conscious efforts of many of us, that those few do not gain a foothold on our freedoms.

Calling off these articles as someone suggested is not possible. We need to write an article about the teachings because without it, the other articles are not completed. Hope that others are as committed as I am to write the best articles we can. Let us not be intimidated and stand up against the bigotry displayed above. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:53, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, I agree with you in supporting freedom of speech, and will stand with you to fight bigotry. I take it you now agree that there should be only one article on Rawat's teachings, that it should include the techniques and the way Rawat used to present his message (with of course authoritative commentaries to account for his youth and cultural influences), and that there should be consensus from all with relevant knowledge who are willing to contribute? If you disagree, please explain here before we proceed. --John Brauns 22:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No. I stand by the current state of affairs, supported by several editors:

1. Two articles to which anyone can contribute good material. One about current teachnings and another about the evolution of the teachings
2. Once these are done, Gary D, as Zappaz proposed, hopefully can attempt to merge them if at all possible. If there are overlaps, Gary can take care of these at that point. (Hope you dont mind me "volunteering" you for this, Gary...)

And if you are serious about fighting bigotry, display in the home page of your website quoting the above bigoted expresssion and say that you are against it. Then we talk. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Are you calling me a bigot? God, that hurts! Here's Dictionary.com's defintion of the word:

bigotry

\Big"ot*ry\, n. [Cf. F. bigoterie.] 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.

That certainly doesn't apply to me. I'm not obstinate because that word implies resistance to reason. I'm completely into reasoning about Rawat. All the more so that I don't have an "unreasoning attachment" to my beliefs, as I have excellent reasons for adhering to them. As for the last criterion, narrow-minded intolerance, well I guess it depends on what's "narrow-minded". You got a good argument for Rawat, let me hear it. I'm more than willing to entertain it. It's not my fault if the argument fails, as all in defence of him seem to do so easily.

Are you bigotted in your rejection of the belief that some have that Sun Myung Moon is the messiah? That's how I feel about Rawat. He's a joke. A former teenage Lord of the Universe, Saviour of Mankind. Now what on earth could possibly be funnier than that? Bigot is hardly a fair term at all, thank you very much.

--24.68.220.3 23:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

If Maharai is so "funny" as you say, what happened to you, then? Why did you followed him for so long, lived in his ashram, listened to him, talked about your love form him to others, did service for him, etc, etc.? If he is a joke, you are a joke as well, don't you see that?. Not only you followed him for 10 years or more, 25 years later you are still following him, checking everything he does and says, spending countless hours here and other forums posting comment after comment after comment about Maharaji and his students. Is this some kind of weird hobby or something? Yes agree, bigot is too kind of a word to define you. Creepy. Yikes! --4.8.16.157 04:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are not helping your case with your words. Given enough rope you will do a nice job of hanging yourself unaided. If I was you I would disappear for a while. And don't give us any BS about "reasoning": your own words, demeanor, and attitude shows how "reasonable" you really are.

This is what Wikipedia says about Bigot,

Bigot is a pejorative term for a person who is obstinately devoted to their opinions, often engaging in a rude and intolerant manner when these are challenged. Forms of bigotry may have an related ideology, like racism and nationalism. Bigotry is not "intolerance," but "unreasonable intolerance." Jews are understandably intolerant of Nazis; that doesn't necessarily make them anti-Nazi bigots.

--64.81.88.140 03:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I oppose splitting the article. though I admit that it is practical to do so to prevent endless disputes and edit wars. It is very unusual in Wikipedia. Religious groups that have changed their names and teachings such as Aum Shinrikyo and Children of God only have one article. I do not oppose that there are separate articles such as these, as long as all the teachings including their history are written down in the article Teachings of Prem Rawat. The articles Current teachings of Prem Rawat and Evolution of Teachings of Prem Rawat can be linked to from that article. (By the way, I do not think that ex-premies are unreasonable intolerant of Prem Rawat.) Andries 04:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(By the way, I do not think that ex-premies are unreasonable intolerant of Prem Rawat) Do you really believe that Andrie? If you do, you then deserve being clumped with them as well. Just read the nice description of Maharaji and his students from no one else than ex-premie guru Jim Heller. Is that reasonable intolerance? That is what you really think? Shame Andries, shame. --4.8.16.157 05:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A glaring omission in this article -- KNOWLEDGE SELECTION

What's omitted is the Knowledge Selection process.

Under the "Keys" section of this article the following is stated:

The sixth Key is the “Knowledge Session”, in which persons ready to learn the techniques are taught by Rawat via a multimedia presentation available in fifty languages. These techniques are taught without cost.

Nowhere here does it state who decides when someone is "ready" to receive this sixth key, the "Key" in which the techniques are taught or "revealed" on DVD. Throughout the history of people preparing to receive knowledge (called aspirants) there has always been what are called Knowledge Selections -- and this hasn't changed. It beggars belief that anyone who watches all the Keys will then simply say "Okay, I'm ready, mail me the Sixth DVD."

Also, under "The Thirst" it's stated:

Rawat teaches that the path or journey of finding peace within is not a process of creating something, but rather of undoing. He sees this process as involving a commitment of a lifetime, and describes the foundation for this process as developing and maintaining an understanding and a trust that “what I am looking for is already within and I need to uncover it.”

Who decides when an aspirant is ready and where do they have to travel to in order to be selected (or rejected), and who facilitates the watching of the 6th DVD?

Be honest.

Another Ex-Premie 19:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you:

• There is no longer a Knowledge selection process, and there has not been one for many years. People decide for themselves when they are ready. The criteria has been greatly simplified, mainly that you are at least 18 years old and of legal age in your country, and that you feel prepared. (All done in trust, knowing that if a person is not ready and claimed to be, they will not benefit from Knowledge.) Maharaji explains this in detail in the Keys.

• Knowledge sessions are facilitated by a technical operator that runs the multimedia presentation and the AV equipment needed, and another person that ensures the comfort of the attendees and provide then assistance if needed. These people do this as volunteers. Knowledge sessions are available throughout the year in most Western countries mostly in weekends. In India, due to the large number of people, there are Knowledge sessions every day of the year. In special cases such as people in hospitals, or bed-ridden, etc, these volunteers make the effort to come to were these people are to conduct the Knowledge session at their convenience.

• The techniques are taught via a multimedia presentation made by Maharaji. It is available in more than 50 languages (of which he speaks five himself: in English, Hindi, Nepalese, Spanish and Italian. The other languages are dubbed). Maharaji explains the techniques step-by-step, demonstrating them one by one in ample detail, to ensure that these are understood and practiced correctly. The whole process takes 2 1/2 hours, of which one hour is dedicated to practicing the techniques one by one, 15 minutes each. Before the presentation starts, you can hear Maharaji asking for three promises: to keep in touch, to give Knowledge a fair chance, and to not to share these techniques with anyone. He then asks that "...if you agree with these three promises, stay and receive the gift of Knowledge". Sweet, simple, and free.

I have included some of these details in the Techniques of Knowledge article. Given that English is not my mother tonge, I would appreciate Gary D, Richard or any other good editor to iron out any glaring grammar and style issues.

The aspects regarding the discontinuing of the Knowledge selection process can go in the Evolution of teachings of Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ 20:18, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not disappointed, if what you're saying is in fact true (which will be verified) I'm glad that people don't have to go through a process of being monitored by premies or instructors in order to determine if they've been suitably persuaded to dedicate their lives to Maharaji and "ready" to even get knowledge.

I do wonder what you mean by "discontinued several years ago." You're good at not being specific, Jossi. You recently said the word "premie" is no longer used and was done away with ten or fifteen years ago and you were not exactly telling the truth about that either. Even Richard's girlfriend calls herself a premie.

As recently as 2000 I am aware of Knowledge Selections that took place and the "key" feature looked for in all the aspirants (that was required by the Instructor, Belki) was an understanding by aspirants of the supernatural connection between Maharaji and the experience of knowledge imparted. Some aspirants were rejected on that basis because they hadn't "gotten" that Maharaji is the one who reveals (not teaches, but "reveals") knowledge, not the instructor. This was when Instructors still taught the techniques.

Another Ex-Premie 10:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, 2000 seems about right. Around that time, all the aspects about and around "selection" were completely made obsolete. (BTW, your interpretation of what it means to be "ready" is, to say the least, incorrect, and in any case now no longer relevant, as there is no one besides the individual preparing to receive Knowledg to make the assessment of "readiness".)
• Regarding the word Premie, I guess that old habits die hard. Some people that received Knowledge a long time ago, still call themselves and others "premies". I do not see a big problem with this... premie is a beautiful word, IMO. It means "lover", lover of life, lover of breath. Only issue is that it is an Hindi word, most of us don't live there an we don't speak Hindi either.
• Regarding the "suprenatural connection" that you mention: the connection that develops between a student and a teacher is one of mutual respect, trust and love. Nothing supernatural about that, rather, a very human connection I would say... ≈ jossi ≈ 16:20, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi,it's obvious that the word "student" or "PWK" has been substituted for the benefit of newcomers at introductory programs. But, I know that people still use the term Premie including Rawat. But I will not belabor that point.

I do not know how you can justify referencing "The Keys" at the bottom of this article without at least a list of what these Keys are by title. What is the big secret? Who determines when someone is ready for the 6th Key? How many times does a person have to watch each and every key before moving on to the next? Who determines if they are ready to move on to another key? How exactly does that process get accomplished and who facilitates it? Certainly some screening must take place before someone (possibly) spends money to travel to where the Key 6 will be shown, or am I wrong about that?

Are you saying that someone simply decides they want knowledge and shows up at a place where the 6th Key will be shown? I don't believe that. Who does the screening of the interested people and how is readiness for the 6th key determined, Jossi? I also do not believe that there is not an Instructor involved in screening people for people receiving K or the revisist terms learning the techniques. There has to be a screening process and that consitutes "selection." Additionally, how will the general public know which keys to ask for and from whom, if they don't get a published list from EV or Visions Int'l? How is Joe Blow who is no where near any students of Rawat going to accomplish this new "process" without assistance from someone? Again, selection. What is the criteria for that process? There are contradictory messages in this article about the changes, the ease of availablility of the Keys (and knowledge) yet, there is still no list of the Keys! How does someone make a vow or promise to a DVD prior to watching it? What happens if someone attending the 6th Key session is having trouble understanding the DVD? Are you saying there is not an Instructor available to assist?

Another Ex-Premie 13:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I spoke with my source at the PR foundation and that is what I understood regarding the keys:

• The titles of the keys are Key one, Key two, Key three, Key four, Key 5 and Key 6.
• There are no promises to be made before you start with the Keys, only that you are of legal age and at least 18-years old.
• No one determines when a person is "ready" to progress to the next key. That is a personal decision made by each person.
• You get key one, watch the material at your own pace, and when you are ready to move on to the next one, you send it back asking for the next one, and so on.
• Same for key 6, only difference is that you get invited for a viewing of key 6 at a location near you.
• There is no involvement of "instructors" on key 6, just a technical operator and a usher. If you have a medical condition or are disabled they can come to your house or hospital and show key 6 to you privately. She told me that thousands of key 6 showings have happened since 2000 and that is has been very successful. People that have already learned the techniques can also ask to be invited to watch the key 6 presentation again to dispell any questions they may have.
• She also said that PR designed the keys based on trust, and that maybe some people may attempt to "cheat" the system, but that in that case these people will be cheating themselves, as key 6 without preparation does not work, and that PR trust that people are honest.

I will attempt to weave-in some of this info into the article. --Zappaz 16:06, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the question of how one "makes a promise to a DVD" (funny idea!): before the Key 6 presentation starts Maharaji says: "if you agree to the three promises" (keep in touch, give Knowledge a fair chance, and don't share the techniques with anyone), "stay and receive the gift of Knowledge" . It is very simple: if you agree to these promises, you stay; and if you don't, you leave. As simple as that. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:17, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, Rawat still uses the word premie when referring to his followers. As you say, old habits die hard. :-) --John Brauns 23:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, if the supposed connection Rawat has with his devotees/premies/followers/students isn't supernatural, why does he tell them to remember him at the time of death? Why do so many of the "Expressions" on ELK suggest that these people think they can pray to Rawat? You must concede that Rawat in the past taught that there was most definitely a supernatural connection. Where, then, did he ever categorically disavow this teaching? Why is this so murky? Could it be that Rawat has become the Master of Mixed Signals?

-- Jim 13/10/2004

I have expressed this before: I have no intention in engaging in a discussion or responding to any question from the person above. The reasons are obviously displayed in red somewhere in this page. This person has the right to say what he wants, and I exercise the right to ignore him. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:43, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

That's very impressive, Jossi. I win by default. Easy.

)

Jim - Thursday, Oct 14, 2004

Propose changing "Evolution of Teachings of Prem Rawat"

The word evolution is inaccurate and misleading as it applies to Prem Rawat's techings from the past. Prem Rawat's teachings have changed a lot over the past decades, so I propose that the title of the "Evolution..." article be changed to "Past Teachings of Prem Rawat." This article is called "Current Teachings.." so the logical alternate title must be "Past..." rather than "Evolution..."

I would like to start placing text into the "evolution" article but I don't know how to change the title. Based on the definition of the word evolution, both here in Wiki, and the dictionary definition, that title doesn't really apply here. Rawat has changed his teachings over his past. This has nothing to do with evolution.

Another Ex-Premie 16:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another_Ex-premie, I agree, the title of an article should not be controversial itself. That is why I moved the contents to Past teachings of Prem Rawat. Andries 16:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are putting the cart before the horse. Write first the article and then we can all see if it is an evolution or not. --≈ jossi ≈ 18:15, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Changing the title of an article without knowing the contents of the article does not make sense. Those making all these changes: relax. Please wite that article first and then we can talk about the title. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:30, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Pot Kettle black. You were the first one to separata the article teachings of Prem Rawat into two articles. I think that the title of an article should be uncontroversial and hence the title with the word Evolution in it is wrong. Andries 18:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is a very funny discussion. You guys have a real problem with anything that may, just may, be a postive statement about Maharaji. You will fight for the word "change" or "past" instead of the word "evolution". Let's drop this silly discussion and get the article written first, OK? After that we can have a symposium to decide the title. :-) ≈ jossi ≈ 18:51, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hey! You gave Richard's premie girlfriend plenty of time to write her article. Give me some time. This isn't the only thing I have to do with the time in my life. The article will be written and then you can pounce on it all you want. Calm down and take a breath or two, Jossi. There's no reason for histrionics everytime an ex-premie makes a comment here. You premies told us you're the only ones competent to write the "Current Teachings..." so take a break and have some patience please.

Another Ex-Premie 21:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I intend to remove the redirect from Teachings of Prem Rawat

By the way, as I said before, I opposed the separation of the article into two articles. I will write try to write a short summary of both articles with links to the extensive articles past teachings of Prem Rawat and Current teachings of Prem Rawat and then place the summary at Teachings of Prem Rawat and then remove its redirect to Current teachings of Prem Rawat. Andries 19:18, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

yes Andries, that is a possibility, but you would have to wait to the "past" or "evolution" of teachings article is written. That article is now just shell, just some text and little substance. And to be honest, I do not think that you have the language and copyedit skills to do that.

My proposal and the addition by Zappaz is that we write separate articles and then Gary D can attempt to combine them, if amicable to do that. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:02, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, the "Teachings..." article was an empty shell for quite some time until the text was inserted by Richard's girlfriend or someone on her behalf. So, enjoy your inner peace while I get over a bad cold and work on it. The deadline is Nov. 1st. The article is being written and you can bet your inner peace that it definitely will be about Prem Rawat's past teachings. Lighten up already. Put that Knowledge to work for yourself.

Another Ex-Premie 13:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You abusive style is not conducive to good editing. My inner peace as well as yours has nothing to do with this discussion. I would appreciate you keep these "comments" to yourself. Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ 16:15, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Were you always so prissy and supercilious, Jossi, or is that just the price of defending Rawat? You have to hunch up a bit, I guess, huh? On your guard, humourless .... no thanks!

)

Jim Sunday, October 17, 2004

edits Nov.2

Greetings, all. Some edits herewith.

Deleted weird line about "he never mentioned Keys." I've listend to lectures: he never mentioned radioactive rabbits, either. Or the preferred method of making cappucino in 17th century Milan. If someone is trying to imply something evil then they ought to just come out and say it and back it up. What he didn't say is malicious innuendo. Also, the "two distinct" audience bit is a chimera. How can you possibly say that people attend his lectures for one reason or the other? There's no screening process. There's no questionairre. The best you could say is "some" and that's been changed.

Is this an encyclopedic article?

Seriously. Is it intended to be one? --Pjacobi 19:15, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

Yes, it is. What is your point? ≈ jossi ≈ 05:32, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Did you compare articles on other religions? --Pjacobi 22:42, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

I do not understand what is your point? It is maybe because your understanding of WP differs from mine? Wikipedia is not Britannica, neither Encarta. It is the largest encyclopedia ever, covering topics not covered in any other encyclopedia. Have you read Crushing by elephant? :) ≈ jossi ≈ 00:52, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong questions, Pjacobi. You might want to ask why there are so many secrets about this "religion" and why Jossi even classifies it a religion. You might also want to ask why, in a recently launched website tailored to Young Premies who are spreading Prem Rawat's message to college kids, why, in the FAQs they flat out say it is not a religion:

'"Does this have anything to do with religion?

"Nope! This is not a religion', a spiritual practice or a lifestyle. It is a practical way to experience a feeling that is already inside of you."

http://www.coolchill.org/handouts/FAQ.doc

Further, on another website called "What's Hot," that also caters to spreading Prem Rawat's message to college kids, on its main page, there is a warning-type label that says "NRC" -- No Religious Content." It also states in the faqs there, that Knowledge is not a meditation practice, when on the main Prem Rawat article here, it states:

"..through four meditative techniques or kriyas that he collectively calls the "Knowledge" and which he brought to..."

http://www.whatshott.org/ (use "whatsh2" for both the user id and password) enter the site after you see the splash screen and click on faq "Is this a meditation?"

You might also want to ask why,in the Past Teachings of Prem Rawat article, it isn't mentioned that the prerequisite for receiving Knowledge (in the past) was a clear "understanding" that Prem Rawat is the Lord. The "importance" of understanding PR's "role in one's life as Lord" was still a requirement in Knowledge Selections as recently as 1999, when I left this cult.

Also curiously omitted from that "Past Teachings" article is the standard "Knowledge Session vow" that was also a requirement for all aspirants to make prior to be revealed the "techniques of Knowledge." Ask Jossi if he took that vow. Further, "the Keys" DVDs mentioned in THIS article are not just 5 hours, but they are likely closer to 100 hours of required listening/watching, prior to being approved to receive Knowledge. If you read between the lines you see that current students have covered the Key's (length) issue by using pure whitewash, saying that they "...are supported by one hundred hours of videos excerpted from his addresess (sic)." Why would anyone need three to six months (in The Prem Rawat Foundation's Faqs) http://tprf.org/faq.htm of "preparation for Knowledge" to watch only five or six hours of videos to gain an understanding of PR, his message, and his Knowledge? If that were true, it would be tantamount to Prem Rawat asking someone to prepare for Knowledge by watching a five or six hour mini-series on tv, that could easily be done over a weekend. I doubt you'll get a straight answer to these questions, but, anyway, here's the vow that I took and every single other aspirant was REQUIRED to take (without exception) to become a premie. And people like Jossi wonder why ex-premies become angry when "current students" whitewash the real truth about our past as devotees of Prem Rawat. But, hey, go ahead, slap my wrists if I call it a secretive, mind-destroying, destructive cult. I'm ready now, for Jossi to rebut what I'm saying here, by calling me a "hater." That's pretty much all he's got -- besides "you're lying apostate." LOL. Truth in advertising has never been one of Prem Rawat's strong suits.

"Oh my Guru Maharaji, I dedicate myself to your Lotus Feet.

I am weak and ignorant and am filled with the impurities of this world.

Oh Guru Maharaji, please take my mind and purge me of the impurities I possess.

Reveal to me the Knowledge of all knowledges.

Strengthen me, uplift me and reveal the Kingdom of Heaven within inside of me.

Bring me from hate to love, from darkness to light, death to immortality.

I will obey you implicitly and will never reveal this knowledge to anyone for any reason.

I will keep in contact with you through my devotional love, satsang, meditation and service.

Thank you my LORD for everything."

Another Ex-Premie 15:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FYI, anon: I have no intention to respond to your blather. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:15, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't talking to you, Jossi, so I don't expect a response. :)

Another Ex-Premie 12:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)