Talk:Past teachings of Prem Rawat

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Excuses vs Explanations

I have tried to follow the edits and counter edits and to substantiate the comments by Andreis about "Some of the Problems with the Article". It is clear that most of the counter-charges here are "opinionated" ones. While we can all have our opinions, trying to argue facts based on them is very weak. For example Andries, your statement, "Having an excuse for everything instead of just stating facts and let the reader decide." is an extraordinarily opinionated one. I do not see too many excuses in the article. Personally, I think the article is well done and very balanced. Certainly a great deal of work was put into it. I also think the reason to "explain" some of the past teachings is because they did change and morph... whenever there is change and evolution, there is a need for explanation in context. Let us not confuse explanations with excuses, unless by doing so you intend to demean the writer's integrity. Chuck 19:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chuck, I will think about what you wrote but to me all the "explanations" sound like excuses to explain away embarassing beliefs, claims and practices in hindsight. I would appreciate references from the early phase for those explanations. Andries 19:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andries, please clarify what do you mean by "embarrassing". I am not embarrased about anything, quite the contrary if fact. Don't you understand that by just reading the ex-premie propaganda your view of Maharaji and his work will always be skewed? So much so that you have started even talking like them (!) No one is making any excuses in this article, just read it with an open mind.

You have demonstrated again and again that the only thing that will satisfy you will be an article in which your opinion of Maharaji is expressed. I do not see any attempts by you to accept information and facts unless these support that opinion. Worst of all is the fact that all what you know about Maharaji is either from hearsay, third party accounts or from a couple of books you have read. These are pretty poor credentials IMO, in particular given the tone of voice you have maintained in these pages, as if you were an expert in this matter. You are not, Andries. The fact that you dislike gurus, does not make you an expert on Maharaji. Please be honest with yourself and accept that the weight of your opinion is much less encyclopedic than anyting that has been written in this article. I find your attitude pedantic and arrogant in that that you believe yourself to be above scrutinity and thinking that you have the right pass judgement on the content of this article as if you were an expert. I grant you the right to disagree wityh my POV, but I would appreciate it if you reflect on what I have said. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:28, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

jossi, interpretation is a wide field. Like with the bible and other scriptures one can interpret certain meaning out of a text as well as the opposite. If you explain that "surrender" means merely a feeling of peace by letting go, then isn't it a bit strange that we have had a person that was shouting to us "Surrender the reigns of your life"? which can be proven. I still have satsangs from rawat where everybody can hear what and how he said it. Wouldn't it be straightforward if you'd request at Elan Vital to release these old satsangs from copyright protection so that everybody can make up his own mind? On the other hand, i do not know how much of this material can be used in the sense of "fair use" anyway, but this can be clarified i guess. Thomas h 07:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can read a good selection of quotes about surrender at wikiquote:Maharaji. . ≈ jossi ≈ 14:12, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Article for deletion because of unverifiability

I think this article should be deleted because There is no way of knowing what Prem Rawat's real teachings were. There were very few scholarly works on this issue, in contrast to the beliefs and practices of the DLM. There are only highly polarized diverging viewpoints. In other words, the contents lack wikipedia:verifiability. Andries 10:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small changes

I've changed the format of the decades from "'70s" to "1970s". This follows normal Chicago style. Not a major change. **Armeisen 00:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many off-topic comments, unsourced generalizations

I could tag litter this article with {{fact}}, but I hereby request references for nearly every statement in the article. Please note that unsourced generalizations about what Prem Rawat said are not allowed as per wikipedia:No original research. Normally of course this is not such a big problem, but in this case for a heavily disputed subject about a person who made many contradictory statements this is a problem. I will remove most of them, unless references are provided within two weeks. I will also move most quotes should go to Wikiquote. I will also remove off topic comments about what other people said etc or move them to other articles, like Divine Light Mission In other words, very little will stay unless references are provided. Andries 19:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, the article will need to be paired, sources provided and unattributed commentary removed. As for the quotes, I disagree as Prem Rawat's teachings are delivered exclusively through his words. I will be busy from most of next week, but will have a revised version before the two week period you requested.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding quotes, one can write e.g. say "Rawat said on 19 April 1975 Peace needs to be everywhere", but you cannot say even if it is based on mulitiple quotes by Rawat that Rawat's main message was peace. Generalizations based on quotes are not supposed to be made by editors. Andries 07:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I won't object to generalizations that I cannot seriously doubt, such as "Maharaji frequently talked about peace", but at the momement there are many generalizations that seem implausible, apologetic, or one-sided to me and I will remove all of them, unless they are referenced by a reputable source. Andries 07:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Past teachings of Prem Rawat really had little to do with Indian trappings except maybe in the very early 70s. It certainly was a small part of it, and there were some trappings, but that mustn't be the main focus of the article. The focus of M's teachings were K and himself, but it's the presentation that was quite different than today. That's what I think the article should focus upon.

Also, M's agya was quite different in how he stated it to premies during the decade. Many western premies paid little attention to to the Indian trappings, by 1975-76, except as they responded to how M used Hindi terms and expressions himself. For example, his wearing of Krishna outfits, his agya, the Holi, Hans Jayanti, and Guru Puja festivals, even the renaming of his wife to Durja Ji, all were part of how M presented K. I think in order to give the reader a clearer idea of how M taught and presented K in the 70s, it it's also important to describe what Maharaji required of an aspirant, such as the community aspirant program, including about a five month period of attending satsang (in the mid to late 70s), the knowledge selection, etc., as well as the K packet that was issued to each new premie by DLM at their K session. As the article stands, it doesn't say much about the teachings or how Maharaji presented K to both the public, aspirants and premies of the 70s. Also important is to emphasize the resurgence of ashrams in the last half of the 70s decade. That was based upon what M wanted of premies during that time. There are plenty of quotes that cover all the above-mentioned aspects and decade, so it shouldn't be a difficult at all to find source quotes. Sylviecyn 12:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic style

So, as this survived AfD (again?), let's work together to to make it resemble an encyclopedic article.

Starting at the beginning:

As Rawat matured from boyhood to adulthood,..

That would be exactly (or approximately) when? I'm not that firm in idiomatic English, in German that would be described as "blumige Sprache" (literally: floral speech). Encyclopedic style would mean

In 19xx Rawat..."

But perhaps the entire intro sentence can be scrapped.

Jumping somewhere further down:

In essence, in the 1970s and 1980s, the emphasis was less on message and more on experience and practice.
There was less distinction between the message and the teachings in the 1970s and 1980s than there is now.

Is it only me, or is this a plain duplication material. And is there any secondary source for this assessment?

Conditions for the practice of Knowledge to bear fruit

This is involuntarily funny. It's reads like an old Catholic Encyclopedia. If nobody can offer a better heading, were better off without one.

...only a very quick scan so far --Pjacobi 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. This aticle needs serious NPOVing, sourcing and overall cleanup as per the AfD. One possibility would be to summarize the section at Prem Rawat: The 1970's in the main article, and use the content there as the basis, as there is already a request to split due to size of this sextion there. We can then attempt to salvage whatever material is good from this article and include that as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main trouble with this article is that is doesn't correctly reflect the past teachings of Prem Rawat as per my statement above and more. That would include what Prem Rawat prescribed to his followers about how to practice Knowledge, how to live their lives, for example, even in 1979 (an audio is available) he was telling premies that they shouldn't have relationships, family or children (he referred to children as "tinker toys"), because that would constitute "secondary love" and premies' love for Rawat should be primary in their lives. That's a significant gap in the information here. That's why there is so much repetition of material here from other articles -- there's much missing about the past teachings. I don't see any purpose for the inclusion of quotes from the 1990s and 2000s, when this article isn't about the last 10 to 15 years of Rawat's teachings and there are ample quotes from those years in Wikiquote and other articles. Sylviecyn 09:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post 2000 speeches are off-topic and should be removed

This article is called past teachings. It is a different matter if post 2000 speeches by Rawat try to summarize his earlier teachings, though I personally distrust such speeches because that opens the door for one-sided re-interpretations and revisionisms. Andries 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chop away, Andries. I will come back and restore text for which I find sources. There are plety of these as you alreday know. As for post 2000, speeches, if these are pertinent to the text, they shpuld not be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to edit, Andries, edit. But removing text and leaving unconnected pieces of text is terrible. 15:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted most of the text, with the intention of comiong back and re-add it as soon as I find cites to support the additions. There are several scholarly books that describe this period, and I will use these as references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edit summary

Jossi, I wrote that I would that I would not delete unsourced statements that I did not seriously doubt: I would only delete unsourced statements and generalizations that I found doubtful. So I think that your edit summary "(if you want to playt the game, lets play" does not assume my good faith and is inappropriate. Andries 15:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You left only these texts that support your POV even if these were unsourced. So, don't tell me to talke your edits in good faith. Now take a rest.l The article is a stub now. I will work on it over the next months. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement falsely suggest that my editing behavior and my stated intentions contradict each other: of course, I do not seriously doubt my own POV. That is why it is my POV. Andries 16:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Unless there are objections, I will merge any non-dupmaterial from this article onto Divine Light Mission in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]