Talk:Prem Rawat

---

Archive 10 • Archive 9 • Archive 8 • Archive 7 • Archive 6 • Archive 5 • Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1

---

Project status as of October 6 11, 2004 (updated by Senegal)

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?
• New articles Current teachings of Prem Rawat and Evolution of teachings of Prem Rawat are being currently developed. A lively discussion about these articles is being held at Talk:Current teachings of Prem Rawat

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)

Updated by Senegal, based on previous edit by Gary D. --Senegal 03:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, Quotes should go into Wikiquote

I mean, where will it end? I would like to insert embarrassing and contradicting quotes too. But I do not think that I have the right to do so. I will revert. Andries 09:29, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why would you revert? That is not acceptable. This is a good quote and adds to the controversy of the claims of divinity. --Zappaz 09:40, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it is a good quote and that is why it should go into Wikiquote. As I have argued before (with Jim Heller) I generally think that writing an article by providing quotes is a very bad way of writing an article. So I opposed the quotes that Heller provided too. I wrote to Jim Heller that Adolf Hitler could be "proven" to be a Christian by providing quotes from his speeches and his book "Mein Kampf". Andries 09:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The quote is already in Wilkiquote. I think that this quote is highly relevant for this article as it clearly demonstrate the use of "guru maharaj ji" as referring to his father, an isue at the core of the claims of divinity controversy. I just came across this article on the ex-premie website [1] and I think that it is an excellent addition to the article. I will not revert back immediately, but instead I will appreciate comments from Gary D and other neutral editors about the relevance of this quote. --Zappaz 09:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

In the magazine "And It Is Divine", (January 1973, v 1, i3) he was quoted as saying when referring to the day he received the techniques of Knowdlege from his father:

...when I was born, God existed. But I never new Him. I just never knew Him until Guru Maharaj Ji came into my life, till Guru Maharaj Ji came in my way, and showed me and revealed me that secret. And the day he did that, there it was, I knew God.

---

Zappaz, I sincerely appreciate your explanation it but the link that you provided supports, in my opinion, my view that quotes in the article should be minimized. I mean, the link also says that the guru (formerly Hans Maharaj and now Prem Rawat) is greater than God. In other words, this supports the view of the critics that Prem Rawat claimed divinity. And to allow such quotes in the article would be unfair if no "counter quotes" should be allowed and hence the article would disintegrate by the many quotes. I learned this idea of minimizing quotes from an experienced editor of Wikipedia who conmmented on a near edit war in the Adolf Hitler article (or Nazism, I do not remember). Andries 10:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, when inserting this quote at least the context should be provided i.e. mentioning that Prem Rawat argued that guru was greater than God and used his father as an example, and also providing the link to the scanned publication in the article. Andries 11:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I assume that you agre that this quote is relevant, then. Thank you.

• Regarding the link, let's wait until the scanned page is placed in a more stable web page than in a volatile discussion forum. Could you ask your ex-premie friends to put the scanned page image on their site?.
• Concerning the 'guru greater than god" issue this is already discussed at length in the Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat#Alleged_claims_of_personal_divinity section and the elanvital FAQs. They relevance of the specific quote I added is to the previous paragraph in which the confusion about referrals to "guru maharaj ji" are presented

As I said before, I would appreciate comments from other editors, in particular Gary D and other neutral editors about the relevance of this specific quote.--Zappaz 15:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I think it is a bit strange that you consider the scanned publication good enough to take quotes from but not good enough to link to it. I think that you have to cite more of the scanned publication to present the quote into context e.g by adding "Understanding that Guru Maharaji Ji comes in this life time of ours. [..] " But as I said before, this quote battle will not add value to the article. Andries 16:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I admit that the quote proves that Prem Rawat did not always refer to himself when using the words Guru Maharaj Ji but that was already clear from the peace bomb discourse. Andries 19:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What kind of a game are you playing, Zappaz? When I've tried to get you to discuss the quotes and their implications regarding Rawat's divinity, you begged off. But as soon as no one's there to actually challenge you to thoroughly debate the issue, you reassert your view. All I can infer from this little cat-and-mouse game is that even you know how specious and untenable your argument is. Rawat has his own unique idiom that one would have to properly understand to make sense of the apparent discrepancies. But it's not that hard to figure out either. Sometimes he referred to his father specifically, sometimes himself and sometimes just the generic "universal" Guru Maharaj Ji which he obviously thought were all one and the same, hence the same name for Pete's sake!

Now are you willing to debate this properly or not?

-- Jim October 16, 2004

I am not playing any games. We have debated this extensively already. You probably missed it. My points and counter-points are all laid out in the now archive 10. Go there and read them.

This newly found quote, simply makes my thesis much more solid than before. On the other hand, your assertions keep changing from he say he was God, to sometimes he referred to his father, to today's Rawat has his own unique idiom that one would have to properly understand to make sense of the apparent discrepancies (?????).

My thesis stands and stands firmer than ever. As for debating this again, I will only oblige if you have any new information to provide to such debate, otherwise it will be an exercise in futility. (Note that I have read most of the relevant material on your website, plus additional material from libraries and the web). --Zappaz 21:32, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not a matter of having anything new to provide, it's a matter of following through with the discussion. You refused to do that when confronted with the quote of Rawat reminding his followers in 1990 that the guru was really Hari or, as his own organization so helpfully translated, God. This was long after he could scapegoat his youth or family and put the lie to what you were saying as well as Geaves. You refused to discuss it.

Then, in the archive you've linked to, I posted a set of questions and answers which I claimed were irrefutable proof that Rawat claimed to be God in human form. Again, rather than answer my specific question:

Unless you have someone else in mind who Rawat's talking about, who "gives people such a technique...." who is the "form of Guru", you must admit he's talking about himself.

You just threw smoke at the issue:

Secondly, my thesis still stands strong: I do not see anywhere that PR says he is God. PR is talking about what a satguru is and giving a pretty accurate description based on the ancient Indian tradition of satguru: He quotes very appropriately from Shankaracharya, Brahmanand, the Ramayana and from the Bhagavad Gita. Pretty amazing coming from a 13 year-old kid. Don't you think? and very much aligned with the cultural trappings from where he came. Read in detail my thesis above. I understand why my thesis it is not palatable to you, and I have explained that quite clearly already

Go back to the question and answer session, please, and answer the question this time. One simple question, but I dare you to answer it honestly: who is Rawat talking about when he refers to the person who "gives people such a technique..." or who is the "form of the Guru"? Come on, Zappaz, who?

--24.68.220.3 23:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

Zappaz, I think you make the mistake of classifying Jim's opinion as changing but I think you do not see the complexity of the issue. Andries 22:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, Firmer and firmer, then why was there a book with the title Who is Guru Maharaji with a picture of Prem Rawat on the cover that was presented as the authorized biography? [2] I think this is the only authorized book on Prem Rawat. I am not saying that you are completely wrong but I think it is wrong to insert a quote into the article from a newly published document on the internet that finally supported your thesis after reading the hundreds of articles about Maharaji on ex-premie and elsewhere from which you were unable to find a quote that supports your thesis. Inserting selective and out of context quotes is not a good way to write a Wikipedia article. Andries 22:00, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that you are mistaken, Andries. We are discussing here the claim that PR referred to himself as God, not what devotees thought if him. Please read the discussion in the archive 10, in which I lay the basis for my proposition.

As for your point about not understanding the complexity of the issue, well, would that apply to you, maybe? I have been studying this subject in particular for 11 months now. How much have you invested?. The fact is that this quote proves the narrowness of interpretation by the ex-premies and IMO is important for this article.

I have requested from Gary D to make a dispassionate assessment of the relevance of this quote. --Zappaz 22:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, the biography was authorized and the copy right belongs to Shri Hans Productions. The book says that "Shri Hans Productions was Divine Light Mission's first subsidiary in America. Its focus is on the media, to communicate Gum Maharaj Ji's message of peace." An authorized biography means that consent has been given to its contents. I find your thesis hard to take seriously. Andries 23:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I dare you to actually answer the question this time, Zappaz

Rawat said:

God manifested Himself fully into a form. Not a part, but wholly into a form, to cure people from the disease of sufferings. He came into this world; nobody recognized Him. For He never came like a flash or something, so that people could recognize Him. He came as the law of nature was; He came very silently. But what He was doing side by side, it was rather impossible for people of any time to recognize Him.

People of this time also can't recognize what He is doing. They can't recognize what His works are. They can't respect Him. But when He will finish up, and the whole result will be added up, people will pray.

Jesus came; they crucified Him. Nobody listened to Him. After that, the holy Bible was written. So many churches were made; so many things happened. When Jesus was there, nobody listened to Him. That's why He says -- what were the last words of Jesus when He left His body? 'Father, forgive this whole world.' Yes, forgive this whole world! He called, 'You forgive this whole world. They can't bear that.'

Now He took a form to refine this whole world. He was trying to do all that in the Middle East. But now He has taken a form to refine this whole world, from one corner to the other corner of the whole world. He has come. And what does He do? He gives people such a technique, such a method, which is perfect, and gets them away from sufferings, the cause of sufferings of this world.

God made the mind but He never made a stoplight. And when He saw that 'There is no stop in this mind which I have made,' He was very sorry. He had to take a form. The form of Guru is nobody but Himself, the whole that you want to see. The whole power is now in the form of a body. That is the body which is the Supremest of all, and its duties, works are not like those of humanity.

Who is Rawat talking about who "gives people such a technique", who is the "form of the Guru"? Will you admit that he's talking about himself?

--24.68.220.3 23:37, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

Jim, as I already told you these debates are senseless and quotes such as you provided should go into Wikiquote. Note that I, unlike Zappaz, did not insist on adding quotes to the article but if Zappaz insists to insert quotes then I will also insist to insert quotes, otherwise I think it is unfair. Andries 23:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Andries, how can you say these debates are useless? The only possible honest answer to the question is that Rawat was talking about himself. Do you agree or not? If so, then these comments are certain proof that he was calling himself God in human form. End of story. Tell me how I'm wrong.

--24.68.220.3 23:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

Jim, the debates are senseless because most people including Zappaz and I have already made up our minds. I agree with you but we will not change our opinions. Besides, this is not the place to have debates unless it is related to the content of the article. I think it is important to stay open for evidence of being wrong but most ex-cult members, (incl. me) know from experience that this is difficult. Andries 23:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The only reason why Andries and others don't want that quote in the article is quite obvious: it throws a wrench in their construct... In any case, the article already makes this point and the quote is featured in Wikiquote, so it is not a big deal. I too would like to hear from other editors such as Gary, Ed and Senagal as it pertains to the relevance of this information to the article and specifically to that section. Maybe not the quote, but at least the information needs to go there. ≈ jossi ≈ 01:38, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)