Talk:Past teachings of Prem Rawat/Archive 2

Tired of cleaning up after Andries

I am tired of cleaning up after Andries minutiae edits. Can you just leave the Prem Rawat articles alone for a while? You bring this Haan "scholarly" "study" when it was actually an article by a student of theology while studying in a school for Pastors. It took a lot to get that info from you. I don't know if you knew it, but it seems to me to be just such a waste of time. That article may be worthy of mentioning in an encyclopedic article as a footnote only, but you have plastered it all over the Prem Rawat articles as it it was an important study from a scholar. I am considering removing all mentions from all articles. If you want, keep a mention of it in one of the articles, but more than that is totally inappropriate.

As I said, I am tired of cleaning after you, Andries. But if that is what it takes to keep these articles concise and clean, I will continue challenging each and every one of your edits. ≈ jossi ≈ 01:28, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, it will be clear that I disagree with your assesment of Haan's article. He was involved for two years in the DLM. Why does Eileen Barker refer only to his article for more information about the DLM if it so insignificant (in the Dutch version of her book Introduction to NRMs )? She is one of the best researchers in the field. I have to admit that I could add some positive things that he wrote about the DLM. Andries 09:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are the things he wrote so much at variance with your own experience? Do you know a better "field study"? I really try to be open for evidence that I am wrong Andries 09:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reason I suspected Haan's article from the begining, is that all what you have posted from Haan's article is so wrong from a factual perspective, and includes so many wrong assumptions and interpretations that it kept me wondering who is this person? why would he write such things?, etc. It was only when I started asking you questions about it that some facts about him came to light:

• a) that Haan belonged to a group of Catholic crticis, most probably against NRMs
• b) that Haan was not a scholar, but a student of theology in a school for pastors in a small town in the Netherlands
• c) the the "study" was just an article

Andries, please answer me:

1. what was the reason you did not disclose all the facts about Haan and presented his article as a "study" and him as a "scholar"? (FYI a scholar is a learned person (especially in the humanities); someone who by long study has gained 'mastery in one or more disciplines
2. This issue of "involved for two years" needs grounding. What does it mean? Did he just maintained contact with premies for 2 years? What? He did not receive Knowledge, it does not seem that he ever met Maharaji, nor did he seems to have performed service, so his involvement could not have anything anything more than casual.

The reason why E. Baker gave Haans a reference in the bibliography in the Dutch edition? Most probably because it was the only reference about the DLM in the Netherlands. Why don't you disclose where in the book and the context in which Baker mentions Haan's article? ≈ jossi ≈ 11:59, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

"nor did he seems to have performed service", , now this is really funny. Since Service is an expression of gratitude for those that aprecciate the experience of knowledge, it is now expected that Haan should have been sincerely been involved in that as an aspirant to be able to give a valid judgement about DLM. BTW, Haan's study/report was published in 81, at a time before you got envolved yourself. How can you say that his assumptions and interpretations are wrong when you haven't been around at that time? thomas

Jossi, study is not the right word but scholarly article is, I still believe, the right term. Where did I present him as a scholar? I never put a title in fronf of his name. I didn't know the exact meaning of the word study. Barker refers to the article for more information about the DLM and Maharaji without discussing the article. Haan's article reads as if it a well researched, unbiased article with notes, bibliography etc. I had overlooked your question here about Haan but I generally answered your questions about him in an honest and direct way so I think that you falsely accuse me of not disclosing relevant information. The reason I trusted and still trust this article is the magazine in which the article was published has an excellent reputation and I have very good experience with the magazine. Haan went to Paris to meet Maharaji. I had read several articles by Haan about NRMs before the one about the DLM and none seemed to be biased against NRMs. On the contrary, he has expressed criticism of the anti-cult movement. Andries 17:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thomas: why is that you always twist other people's words? What I said is that the concept of "being involved for two years" is fallacious. Involved in what? Can you explain? Have you read Haan's article that you seem to be so knowledgeable about what assumptions and interpretations he made? Or is that you find anyone that is a critic of Maharaji, worthy of recognition no matter what they say? And lastly, how come do you seem to know (wrongly, btw) in which year I came across Maharaji? Are you stalking me by any chance? what else do you "know" about me? ≈ jossi ≈ 16:27, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, i stalked upon your userpage on wiki. i didn't know that it is not for public use and refering to the information is probably a hate crime. if my computing 2004 - 20 - 3 or 4 years isn't accurate because your "more than 20 years" is too vague, than i want to apologize, you were around at that time. so in 1978 - 80 the mentioned period , i was around there too. and i admitt i have only read the translations from andries, which cover very much of what i have experienced myself. that is why i back Andries/Haan, because i have experienced the same. if you have more information than what andries has translated, in english, i would be glad if i could check that too. thomas

You see thomas who many assumptions you made? that's not good IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:22, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, I think it is a bit unfair that you accuse me of minutiae edits. You yourself wrote that I should not remove information or opinions from the article, which is the main reason why my edits are quite small. I want to leave the removal of opposing opinions (that are quite uninformative) to others whom you trust more as a neutral editor because you would revert all my edits. I have to admit that I had not read very well what you wrote here on this talk page about cutting off limbs and I apologize for that. Andries 11:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andries, Thomas, let's put this one to bed, shall we? The article now discloses who Haan is and the context in which circumstances he wrote the article . IMO, you are putting too much weight on this article, but at least it is now well contextualized. So, again, let's get on with other things. OK? ≈ jossi ≈ 21:22, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

OK (....soy gitano.....(Camaron de la Isla))thomas

Maharaji means great king, not perfect master

Perfect master is the translation of satguru. I would appreciate it if ip 64.81.88.140 does not delete an article that it does not like and tries to be more accurate in this article. Thanks Andries 17:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Erroneous statement, Andries. Satguru or Sadguru means literally "true guru". Perfect master was a free from translation/interpretation of "satguru" used in the 70's and early 80's. "Perfect Master" means the master or teacher that can teach perfection (perfection being the inner experience). ≈ jossi ≈ 23:16, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

it is a common term used in the sant mat religion and was inhereted from shri hans . Kirpal Singh and his successors for example are referred to as perfect master as well. from sant mat also comes the idea, that there is only one for an age, word made flesh(as valid for any successor in the guru lineage), etc..Have a look at Thakar Singh or this Sant Mat Page .thomas

external links

Andries, external links are already profusely available in the main article. There is no need to replicate these here, in particular as this article is now over 40Kb. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:28, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

I will insert the external links that directly refer to the past teachings. That is useful and appropriate and has added value compared to the other articles. I want to make the article smaller by deleting both the supporters' interpretations and critics' counterinterpretations but you warned me not to delete anything. I am afraid that everything I delete will get reverted by you, as you have done before. Can you delete something? Thanks Andries 09:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have deleted the external links again, as the other option that is to add "pro" links for balance will increase yet again the size of the article. The links you have inserted add nothing as the have already been mentioned profusely in other articles. FYI, I have requested Gary D to work on the teaching articles and he has accepted. In the meantime, please refrain to make any additional changes. ≈ jossi ≈ 13:51, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

I will re-insert the external links and the reference and if you remove them again then I will put the article on request for comments. Of course the external links have added value. And I am waiting for you to downsize the article because it containst redundant information. And I will give the article a NPOV warning because you removed counterintepretations Andries 17:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did not remove "counterintepretations". I removed only one sentence that did not make sense in English, asking you to re-write it. The othe edits were necessary to correct facts and contextualize the information. Again and for the third time: I am noty saying that the links and references are not relevant. They may be... but these links are references are already provided in the main article and the criticism article and hence their inclusion here only serves your POV.≈ jossi ≈ 22:30, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Andries, by your own actions you are proving to the WP community your unwilligness to stay on purpose and reach concensus. I leave to Gary D to make the necessary synthesis of the article to fit within the 32K limit. Your threat to put the article in request for comments are laughable and without merit at this point. in particular as we are at the threshold of a major copyedit effort by Gary D that has proven in the past to do an admirable job at that on related articles. Puting this article (to which BTW you have not contributed a single substantial piece of new information) will make it clear to the WP community of your lack of interest in reaching concensus and the true motives of your involvement here. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:33, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Look forward to Gary's copyedit effort. In the meantime, I would ask everyone to stay cool and avoid unnecessary edit wars, in particular about small details as the ones discussed above. BTW, Gary, do we have a time table for next round of editing? --Zappaz 00:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Doctor of mind parabole?

Can you prove it? Please provide references. If not do not write it down as facts. And this applies to many other assertions in the article. Thanks Andries 17:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Context

You keep quoting snippets from Maharaji's satsang, extrapolating speech acts and paraboles as the one he made in regard of "doctor of the mind" and stating these to be taken literally. This is an silly exercise to push an anti-Maharaji POV, and unacceptable. At least accept the need to provide context. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:49, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, okay, I will link to the speech to provide context so the reader can himself decided whether it is a parabole. The problem is that I think that the ""context" that you provide is a revisionist interpretation of the past. I rather prefer no context than your revisionism. This applies to many other assertions in the article.Andries

Let us provide facts and context, and let the reader decide if it is revisionism or not. Hope you can accept that premise (that btw it is one the the foundations upon which the wikipedia project is built upon). What you are trying to do is "spoon feed" the readerss your own interpretations and POVs. In my view, people are by nature intelligent enough to make up their own mind and make their own assessments about Maharaji, his work, his history and his message. I know that you don't share that view, and that is a sorry state of affairs IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:32, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hey Andries, context is everything ... in particular when quoting someone. That is if your intention is to provide accurate information. If your intention is spin, then quote out of context as much as you want ... Look at the mess at the last US presidential elections. Both sides used out of context quotes to denigrate their oponents!

An honest researcher will quote and include context as follows:

1. Date of quote;
2. Source;
3. Location, environment, country;
4. Situation (was the quote from an interview, a public address, a comment made and noted by a third party, etc?.);
5. Language (is it a translation?, a transcription, a written piece by the author, etc?);
6. Background of obviousness (is the quote relatable in one culture as oppossed to another culture?)

Adding a link to a page of text is not sufficient context IMO.

As an example for the need of context (in the domain of culture, in this case), have you seen the wonderful advertisement (I have seen them in Heathrow airport, London/) in which a photo of three grasshoppers are shown and underneath each one, the words: "Plague", "Pet", and "Delicacy"? (that is in the US, grasshoppers are a plague, in some counties in the far East grasshoppers are considered pets and in other countries, a delicacy when pan fried... --Zappaz 17:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I gues you are right about the context but Jossi and I hardly agree about anything with regards to Maharaji. I think I will create an alternative version of the article and then Gary D can choose and pick from both versions. . Andries 18:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why are you deleting these quotes

Andries, please substantiate your deletion, or it will be mercilessly reverted. These quotes show clearly that the core message of Maharaji has not change over the years. It is relevant to the article. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:00, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Andries: If your intention is to vandalize this article by removing text without substantiating as for the reasons for the deletion, I am afraid I will have to revert these edits without further explanation. I think that this is fair. If you want to contribute, do it meaningfuly. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:04, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

well, Zappaz just encouraged me to edit this article instead of writing an alternative article so I went ahead. The reason I removed the quote is that it is about the past teachings of Rawat, not about what Rawat now says about the past teachings. Using his recent quotes assumes that his memory is good and that he is a reliable person who does not give a distorted explanation in hindsight. I mean, I do not trust Rawat so I do not think that is a good way to write an article. Andries 20:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz was speaking about meaninful edits. Your edit so far were a) an unwarranted deletion and b) a non-sensical edit. And yes. I will defend the integrity of this article as a tiger. :) ≈ jossi ≈ 20:14, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

It is not a big deal, so if you want to re-insert the quotes, go ahead Andries 20:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) +

Some of the problems with this article

1. Woolly language. Please do not repeat and be specific and concise. Andries 20:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Having an excuse for everything instead of just stating facts and let the reader decide. Andries 20:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Putting all the blame on "Indian Culture" whatever that may be. Just state that he came from the Sant Mat traditon and that the rest of his cultural context is mixed and hence doubtful because he came in the West, went to Catholic school (so he knew what "Lord" meant), married Marolyn, and met westerners. This is not an article about "Indian Culture". Andries 20:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. I agree that in Hinduism and Sikhism the guru has an elevated status but that does not mean that what is said is not taken seriously and literally. Andries 20:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. Too many quotes in the article, especially the recent ones are out of place. Andries 20:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. Old terminology should be mentioned too e.g. agya. Not just its current equivalents. Andries 21:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your edits in which you quote Mishler's interview. Please show us were in that interview Mishler spoke of "control of followers", or is it just your own interpretation?. If it is so then write it that way and no as a fact. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:30, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

You have no right to revert unless you read the link that I had included. Mishler did say it. Andries 20:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Show us where. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:36, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, I do not need to spoonfeed you with proof. Do some reading yourself. Andries 20:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

" In fact, he went along with this image change for about half a year. Then, when he saw that he wouldn't have the same kind of ascribed status that he had as the guru being God, he suddenly realised he wouldn't have the same kind of control over people. He started worrying about what was going to happen to him in terms of his finances." [1] Andries 20:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your assessment of the article, are we speaking about the same article? Have you read it carefully? I really do not understand you. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:32, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

yes, it the article is irredeemably flawed unless you give me or somebody else the freedom to remove whole paragraphs. Andries 20:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only flaw here is your inability to add value to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:36, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

well, may be I miss something but there is a world of difference between the Gary's factual style and the style of this article. We are not such good writers as Gary but I find this style terrible and unencyclopedic. Andries 20:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your intentions to pad this article with linls to the ex-premie website, will be seen by me and other as an attempt to spam search engines. Note that I have ot added a single external link, so do not start. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:02, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

That is crazy. It is normal to have external links if a reader wants more information. Feel free to add links to Elan Vital. Andries 21:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed all links to external sites. Let;s not get started on tis one. It is blatant search engine SPAM and will be not tolerated. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:07, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for this short but intense edit war: I must admit that sometimes I get carried away. I understand that you have an issue with this article and consider it biased, and from my side I see it as a good article, so naturally I tend to defend its content. Please know that I am open to edits that add value. Look forward to Gary D promised copyedit. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:15, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)