Talk:Current teachings of Prem Rawat/Archive 1

Avoiding sentence-by-sentence attribution=

Okay, I have set up a preparatory stub of an article in anticipation of Richard's girlfriend (or anyone else) coming in to fill in the teachings. Note that I have set it up in the intro as being presented throughout from Rawat's point of view, in hopes we can avoid beginning every sentence with the clutter of "Rawat says that...". I don't know if this "POV covers all" method will work, but I think it's worth a shot. --Gary D 23:52, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Anything to stop the squabbling on the talk pages! --Uncle Ed 18:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh i don't know if you can have a wikipage presenting a POV by declaring that? i thought NPOV is mandatory? could you please explain how this is going to work? and can you please show me where in wiki it is ruled that you can have an "exclusive" article, i can't find it.thanks alot thomas

My apologies; I think I explained badly in the article stub what I am trying to do. I am not attempting to reserve the entire page to a particular POV as an "exclusive" article, nor to restrict criticism of PR's teachings from the article. I probably should not have associated the phrase "point of view" with what it was I was attempting to do. Rather, I am attempting to construct a device for the purely textual matter of avoiding sentence-by-sentence attribution in favor of one overall attribution at the beginning. In the name of text flow and brevity, I am trying to avoid this:

"Prem Rawat said that the sky was dark. Prem Rawat said that the moon was high. Prem Rawat said that the train was late."

In favor of this:

"Prem Rawat said the following: The sky was dark. The moon was high. The train was late."

I'm sure there will be plenty of room and opportunity to place in the article criticism and other viewpoints on the teachings. The stub should probably be rewritten to state its purpose more carefully, but that can probably best wait until we have some substantive text added to the article. --Gary D 20:24, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

ok got it. thanks. thomas

Let me be clear on what I tried to do

Seeing as I put the first paragraph together, I think I need to be clear about my intent in doing what I did. To summarize the above exchange, I put the phrase in about "from [Rawat's] point of view" simply as an overall blanket textual attribution, to try to eliminate the need for sentence-by-sentence attribution. However, the material that was added (mostly) includes sentence by sentence attribution anyway, so perhaps my effort was in vain. I think either the material's internal attributions or the first paragraph's overall attribution probably should be removed. Let me also be clear that, as also appears from the above exchange, I did not intend to suggest with my first paragrpah that this article can or must be restricted to PR's version only and no context or other viewpoint could be included. I do not have the authority to declare such a thing, nor would I want to. --Gary D 00:51, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

That was always understood, Gary. The issue at hand is the need to have in WP an overview of the teachings as they are taught nowadays by PR. Readers need to be afforded that possibility, don't you think? In particular as the whole history and evolution from the early days through the 80's has been covered at length in the main article and the criticism article has plently of that stuff as well. In the context of the teachings as taught over the last ten years and today, I do not see much place for critics POV for the simple fact that they have not been students for decades and surely they can only speculate about the subject. Of course, if there is any criticism about the teachings as presented in the article, surely it needs to be included. Let's wait and see.--Zappaz 02:36, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New text

New text submitted by Richard was moved here by Zappaz (thanks!). I have corrected some of the information and intend to add some more text in the coming days.≈ jossi ≈ 04:44, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Where is the provenance for this article? There are no links, no resources, and no author's name, except for Richard's "girlfriend" who he says is a premie. How is this an appropriate article in Wikipedia? Are there any other articles in Wiki that someone could show me that are similar? Thanks!

Another Ex-Premie 15:37, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What? you don't like the article? What is the problem? She is a student of Maharaji and wrote about her understanding of his teachings. The article is spot-on and represents a an excellent overview of his teachings. You left his teachings when? 20, 30 years ago? So what do you care? The authority on the subject of Maharaji's teachings is Maharaji himself. Richard's girlfriend wrote a excellent article based on these teachings. There you go. Regarding references, surely Richard can ask her girlfriend for the source of the quotations. --64.81.88.140 16:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I left five years ago. Don't make assumptions! If the authority on the teachings is only Rawat, then is he writing this article or what? Or is Lexy/Richard ghost-writing for him? I just want to know what the provenance is. Simple question. You don't have to get rude and nasty.

I highly doubt that Maharaji would approve of some obsure premie who is unknown to him, writing about his teachings and putting them up on the internet. I know how he operates a bit better than that! There isn't even a source for his quotes. Furthermore, where is Lexy? Doesn't "she" know how to place something on the internet in the forum of a post or text into the article "herself?" This whole thing is suspect to me. It's a free advertisement for Prem Rawat, nothing more. Plus, there aren't any sources for the quotes. Where did he say those things and when? I also agree that the techniques need to be published. They aren't a secret and no reader is bound by any oaths to Rawat. Is it the policy of Wikipedia to only allow members of an NRM to write about the teachings? Also, concerning teachings, how about including a link to the team training sessions he conducted in 1999? That's teaching, right? And before you come back with that "H" word, I don't hate Maharaji!

Another Ex-Premie 06:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

do i understand you right? you are practicing for 20,30 years and haven't gained any authority in the subject of maharaji's teachings? that would mean , if exes or anybody else raise some critics/questions against the teachings , your are not the one that could answer properly, with the exceptions of quoting rawat( which you already did, in the short conversation about devotion, i knew every word already, pure rawat, nothing individual, congratulations), and do i know if you quote it the right way? The best thing would be having Mr. rawat here for conversation, wouldn't it? thomas

I was no rude, neither nasty. Re-read my comment. The provenance of this is The Keys. Clearly referenced. So what is the deal? And what about all this rant about you doubting that Maharaii would approve of this or that? A common treat of hate groups is to believe in conspiracy theories. And regarding the training "transcript", pleeeze..! An anonymous collections of notes, "leaked" by another anonymous source... published on your website as "original transcripts", blah, blah, blah. Very credible indeed! Conspiracy theories galore! And don't give me the BS that you don't hate Maharaji. Hate is a manifestation of the ex-premies actions. Any one can see that.--64.81.88.140 15:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anyone can say they have a collection of DVDs called "the Keys," "The Lock" "The Door to Your Self," or anything that Rawat wants to use as a label. There is no definition of what these keys are specifically. For instance, what are the titles of the DVDs or are they too secret to reveal? They are simply mentioned by what Maharaji calls them now. Not good enough. You can believe what you want that's fed to you from the Rawat pipeline about me being a member of a hate-group. That's not my concern because it's too obvious that you've eaten whole what the EV FAQs say about ex-premies. My, how this "Power of Love" attributed to Maharaji has devolved! And you call me a hater!

Another Ex-Premie 17:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Meditation Techniques

The main 'teachings' of Prem Rawat are four meditation techniques, and the importance of Prem Rawat. I would like to add descriptions of the meditation techniques to this article, both as they were taught until the mid 80s, and since. I would also like to point out the change in Rawat's instruction in how to practice the techniques that occurred then. In particular the change from practicing meditation constantly, to only practicing for a minimum of one hour a day. I know this will be controversial for current premies (this is the word Rawat currently uses for his followers) as they have made a vow never to reveal the meditation techniques, but this vow does not apply to Wikipedia contributors generally, so I can't see any reason for not including this information. I would also like to add some earlier quotes to show how the way he presents his teachings has evolved over the years. What do you guys think? --John Brauns 17:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to make a clarification, before this attempt by the small group of critics to influence an article that has nothing to do with them, escalates any further:

• This is an article about the teachings of Prem Rawat, as Prem Rawat presents them. Not about what people think about the teachings (pro or con). This needs to be respected.
• The main teachings of Prem Rawat are not the techniques of Knowledge. Read the article: it is well presented and explained there.
• There is already an article about the Techniques of Knowledge and a link to an anonymous web page with one description of the techniques is already there. Another description is available from another link from the criticism article (the anti-Geaves website). That is IMO more than enough.
• The discussion about the evolution of the teachings is already well developed both in the main article and in Criticism of Prem Rawat article.
• Your understanding (or better, your misunderstanding) about the "change" to "meditate" only one hour, clearly shows that your knowledge of the subjet is to say the least, out of touch with his teachings.

≈ jossi ≈ 18:13, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, Prem Rawat presents the meditation techniques personally (albeit these days via a DVD) so these are definitely part of his teachings. In fact, I would argue they are a very important part of his teachings as is evidenced by the fact that some of his presentations are only open to those who have been taught the meditation techniques. Their absence from this article is a serious omission. I cannot see any reason for a separate article on the techniques of Knowledge - that article should be included here. Regarding the change from constant meditation to a minimum of one hour, please tell me how I have misunderstood. I was there in Birmingham when he personally taught the new way to practice Knowledge. A woman asked him to clarify this, and he very clearly said he didn't want premies to meditate constantly any more. If we cannot reach agreement on this then of course the article should reflect both points of view. --John Brauns 21:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your point of view is totally, absolutely and utterly irrelevant to this article. This is an article about the teachings of Maharaji, not about you or me or anyone else for that matter. You had your chance at the Criticism of Prem Rawat to present your POV. You need to back-off now, Capisco?--64.81.88.140 21:39, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Prem Rawat presents the meditation techniques personally (albeit these days via a DVD) That is incorrect. It is not a DVD. The fact is that you don't know about this at all, shows your lack authority to be a credible contributor to this article.
• The article discuss the techniques of Knoweldge and links to the article already developed about them. That is quite a good stand/alone article. I would suggest you read this and the techniques of Knowledge article.
• The practice of Knowledge has never changed. You are probably confused. That is understandable.

≈ jossi ≈ 21:59, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

What's the difference between what you envision and an advertisement, Jossi? It sounds like you don't want any description of the history of the teachings or their context. Just what Rawat would say about them and not a thing more. Isn't that a little limiting? And is that what Wikipedia's for? Is that what any encyclopedia's for? Advertising?

In fact, the article should look like this one on the teachings of Scientology:[1]

The teachings are set out along with come critical commentary about where they derived from, how they've developed, etc.

--24.68.220.3 18:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

I tend to agree with jossi. We needed an article in WP that presents the teachings of PR, as he presents them. Let's not forget that this is just one article: We have already explored the biography in a pretty good article, and we have quite an extensive article on the Criticism. We also have a detailed article on the techniques and other smaller articles on the Elan Vital and the DLM.

This is not "advertising" as Jim writes. Why anyone would think that? It is a presentation of the teachings of Prem Rawat, period. The main difference with the Scientology_Teachings article is that Hubbard is no longer alive. But PR is, and as such, the speculation about what he teaches is overriden by the fact that he tours and speaks and his teachings are quite available and open to anyone as explained in the article.

We needed a good article on the teachings, and what we have is just what was needed. Readers need to be given the opportunity to read bout the teachings as PR teaches them. That is explained in the opening paragraph. The only thing missing from the current article is quoting sources. Besides that, I would live it as is. --Zappaz 18:48, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're so funny, Zappaz! Wondering why anyone would think presenting the teachings just as Rawat does with no commentary would be tantamount to advertising! You really make me laugh. And it's just as funny reading your attempt to distinguish this article from the one on Scientology's teachings which, contrary to what you say, has all sorts of information and critical commentary that doesn't have a thing to do with speculating about what Hubbard really meant.

--24.68.220.3 19:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

can you please show me another article in wikipedia that is just plain POV.when rawat is touring and speaking,why a whole article about his teachings then, we have enough links to pro rawat sites where you can read the same? mhm i am getting a bad feeling about wicki, why ? please read Plutocracy on Wikipedia. i do not know if this is true, but that is the feeeling i get here.thomas

Thomas, I think you are seeing a conspiracy where there is none at all. It is quite common that teachings are described without criticism. I would like to add a description of the historical background of the teachings, evolution, and classification by scholars. Andries 19:40, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

you may be right, but do you think that in case of other interests than pure wikipedianism, you would see a sign "sponsored by XXX"? i don't think so.thomas

You say it's quite common that teachings are described without criticism, Andries. Could you give us some examples then? And are any of these teachings you're referring to controversial? Do any of them have controversial origins? Do they make controversial claims? I very much doubt it.

--24.68.220.3 20:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

Richard_G thanks, and Lexy thanks for writing this article. Andries 19:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John, May be the article about Knowledge should be merged with this one. What you want to write about receiving Knowledge fits better in the article about the Divine Light Mission, I think. Andries 19:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree the article about the techniques should be merged with this one, but I don't understand your second sentence. --John Brauns 21:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, Zappaz and Jim, of course the article can and should state that the teachings have evolved over the years. Of course the article can and should provide a (historical) background for the teachings and classifications by scholars. This is an encyclopedia after all. Andries 19:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Andries, the core of the teachings have not evolved. That is a misconception. What has evolved is its presentation. Clearly today with the advent of digital technology. Maharaji is taking advantage of it to present his message and his teachings. The thing that kills all this debate, is that his teachings are openly available and will be even more available via the Keys. Any reader of Wikipedia could go online and access his teachings. So what a WP article should contain, then? a summary of these teachings! That is what Lexy has done and and admirable job at that. I am sure that Lexy can come up with a good section about the evolutions of the presentation of Maharaji's teachings to satisfy Andries' concern.

The issue at hand is a different one: the attempt of the ex-premie hate group to continue throw mud to their object of hate. They are not satisfied by their barrage of outrageous accusations against Maharaji on the criticism article, they want now to throw mud at his teachings as well. No way, Jose. For pete's sake, why the POV of five or ten people that have abandoned the teachings of Maharaji 20 years ago should be of any encyclopedic interest? They had their chance to present their POV at the criticism page. The critics' "conspiracy theories", "secrecy theories" and all that garbage falls of from their own weight with presented with the openness and simplicity of Maharaji's message. That is what they will try to contaminate this article.

This is an article about the teachings of Maharaji as Maharaji teaches them. They can be corroborated by anyone. Let it be that. --64.81.88.140 21:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How ironic to see people who talk about "teachings" afraid of discussing them

Am I the only one who's struck by the irony that this article is supposedly about "teachings" yet the people who want the article are afraid of any commentary? What kind of teachings have no context, no history, nothing giving rise to discussion or analysis? Really, this is a fascinating subject and I sincerely thank the premies who first thought of it. This will be a very interesting article when it's done, I should think. After all, what is more interesting than the teachings of Prem Rawat, a man who was the son of one guru, the supposed latest in a long, line of gurus, the brother of a competing guru and a westernized India to boot? Prem Rawat, a man who once taught that the mind was poison and the meditation he offers its antidote? A man who once taught that there is such a thing as a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God, and that there is always one such being, no more, no less, alive at any time? A man who taught that he was the Saviour of Mankind? Yes, that was certainly part of his teachings, no getting around it.

And there are so many other interesting things Rawat has taught over time. For instance, that there is such a thing as "realizing Knowledge" which meant transcending the mind and being in perfect God consciousness all the time. Or that a devotee has the choice between reincarnating as a devotee or being liberated upon death if he's able to achieve that "realization. Or that when a premie first receives Knowledge, he should invite the Master to blow into his ear, a practice called receiving "Holy Breath", and that doing so binds the devotee to the Master for all time.

Or that seeds are dead. Or people should be vegetarian if they wanted to progress spiritually. Or that they should be celibate if they were serious about getting somewhere on the path. Or that there was a path in the first place. But then, later, that there isn't a path.

Like I say, this is a fsacinating subject. And all the more interesting because of how Rawat has -- or hasn't, depending on your POV, I guess -- changed his teaching over time. Perhaps it would be worth including some comparison of his current teaching to his father's and even his brother's.

But what I see, instead, is that Rawat's followers and their friends want to post a simple advertisment for Rawat, explaining nothing about the context, history or issues concerning these teachings. Perhaps this should be no surprise. After all, Rawat holds a very tight leash on his followers in terms of their discussing Knowledge at all, let alone publically like this. He doesn't like it. Too bad!

So, question is, how should we proceed?

--24.68.220.3 23:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

No one is afraid to discuss anything. And don't give us the BS about this subject being fascinating. Not acceptablee from you, Jim, anyway. You the most vitrolic of the ex-premies. Be honest: your only interest is to pursue further your agenda.

All the issues you discuss above have been discussed at length in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. This is an article about the teachings of Maharaji as Maharaji presents them. The ridiculous situation here is your and your small, irrelevant, intolerant group of people is trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for peddling their negativity and criticism, and having the chutzpah to call their POV worthy of mentioning beyond what is already on the criticism page. Be happy that that was afforded to you.

In regard to this article. No way you I will let you l taint it. If you have anything new to contribute to this article, do it. I will be checking any addition to this article. If it has already covered in another article, it has no place here.--64.81.88.140 01:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your problem, my friend, is so difficult here. You know as well as I do that Rawat does not want anyone of you describing, let alone analyzing, his teachings.

This is sheer speculationon your part. Here I am discussing with you (a waste of my time, but there you go! someone has to do it, I guess.)

But without some context, history and commentary, all you've got is a ridiculously vague and empty article that says nothing really.

It says a lot. I mean a lot. You are simply blind or you have not read it.

Well, that's not good enough. And no, you don't get to decide this on your own rules. You guys wanted an article about the teachings. That was your idea. You'll be sorry!

Sorry? Why should I be sorry? Add something new to the article, it stays. Something alreday discussed?, it goes. Simple rule.

So perhaps you'd like to take the first shot at putting these teachings in a little context, huh? Maybe you could start off with the concept of "realizing Knowledge". That was the fundamental objective that Rawat kept drumming into our heads for years.

How many years? Why did you follow him? Were you stupid? gullible? demented? silly? what? So if you were so stupid then to follow him for sooooo many years, what makes you less stupid now? uh? that's a good question.

Perhaps you'd like to write a nice little NPOV sentence or two about what that meant.

I thought that you were against NPOV... or is it that you have evolved? Wonderful news.

Don't forget to include the fact that Rawat claimed that he had already accomplished that goal. Don't forget to mention when he withdrew this part of his teaching. Or did he?

Did he? --64.81.88.140 03:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--24.68.220.3 02:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

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