|
|
|
It's nice to know that Drek is still alive and well. I wonder why he hasn't emailed me recently. (hint, hint) I never could figure out that flimsy excuse of a mustache, Mike. But I was successful at doing a rearrangement of my brain-matter in order not to to become critical, and indeed to love it. I never had a chance in that cult! 
|
|
|
|
it seems interesting that GMJ seems uses the term Lord/GMJ/Perfect Master as synonyms. As some of you will be aware, a lot of discussion ad nauseam had been going on at talk:Prem Rawat what GMJ meant when he spoke about the "GMJ." Did GMJ speak about his father, God, the lineage, or himself when he spoke about GMJ? Andries
Related link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzQceABA6V8&mode=user&search=
|
|
|
|
Hi Lexy, Thanks for your answer. I hope that I will not be accused again of "vivisection" on (ex-)premies with this post, but I am interested to know how current premies see this. A probably trivial analysis about the differences between ex-premies and current premies is as follows. Current premies emphasize that there is a kernel of truth of what Rawat has been saying in spite of all the implausible and extraordinary statements voiced in DLM literature and all the mistakes made in the past. They tend to minimize Rawat's responsibilty for all of this and put the blame instead on Rawat's overzealous followers, the holy family, Rawat's youth, and Indian trapping. Current premies are not interested in discussing the more controversial (or even factual) aspects of Prem Rawat, but instead seek inspiration. In contrast, ex-premies tend to treat the more contradictions and extraordinary claims of Rawat as proof that all other statements by Rawat are suspect at best. They tend to highlight these claims to prove their point that the belief system is at best implausible or proven to be untrue, or at worst a conscious fraud perpetrated by Rawat. Andries
Modified by Andries at Fri, Nov 24, 2006, 12:57:01
|
|
|
|
Hi Andries, I hope to be over at Wiki soon, just wrapping up loose ends of newspaper articles.
Current premies say more than there is a kernel of truth in what Rawat has said. You'll be hard pressed to find a premie who contradicts a single thing Rawat says/has said. They do not minimise his responsibility for the "past" they deny he has any like true believers everywhere. They disparage any attempts to look into the past and claim that it shows the unhappiness /maladjustment /nastiness /craziness of the investigator.
Remember though that despite the claims of people on the net the so-called "knowledge" of Prem Rawat has no real benefit above and beyond that of membership in any minor cult and belief in any charlatan guru. You only have to know premies to understand this but you can also realise it through historical evidence. Published figures show that hundreds of thousands of people in the West have "received Knowledge". While current figures on membership are not published (except of figures including Indian devotees which are unverifiable though possibly quite true as there are a lot of Indians and gurus are part of their religious heritage) it is obvious that a maximum of only 10% of people have maintained any connection with the guru or practise of the meditation. If it actually worked as Rawat claims, it would be a vibrant, growing organisation gaining the sort of publicity that it had back in 1971 and 1972 and be universally respected. it's not as if these are beginner meditators, they've had decades to demonstrate the value of Rawatism.
|
|
|
|
What strikes me as unusual when compared to other religious movements is the focus on the present. Yes, mistakes were made in the past, but everything has improved and correct and enjoy it. In contrast, SSB's past is depicted as something glorious by devotees, full of his youthful prankish leelas. I am not aware of any other religious movement for which a major point of criticism is its depiction of its documented recent past. Andries
|
|
|
|
" I hope that I will not be accused again of "vivisection" on (ex-)premies " I love the pun.Vivisection....get it? ( all those different meanings of "get"...there's a whole English lesson Andries...btw that "get it" means "understand the joke" ) On a quick read ,Andries, to me that sums it up.Your english is impeccable.
|
|
|
|
ehhh, the pun was unintended.
|
|
|
|
Andries, Geoffrey Staker, who's now editing Wikipedia is the owner of the website one reality, which is filled with lies and libel. Furthermore, Staker is spinning his own story based on no valid facts. He's just laughably wrong about most of what he says over on Wiki. He's being a bully, as he is on his website towards ex-premies. Someone ought to ask him how he thinks he can get away with claims of "defamation" against Rawat while his own website recently had to retract and remove false information about Marianne Bachers based on a legal settlement! I'm not going to do it because I'm featured on his ugly website. Staker said this on the PR talk page: For Andries' benefit, the following comment should help to clarify the meaning of the term "Lord of the universe" and the way in which the term was used in the 1970s.
The term is meaningless. There was never any generally understood definition. It was a vague term of endearment, perhaps invented by someone who had read too much science fiction. In his 1972 answer to the question you cite above, he appears to equate the expression with the hindi term "satguru" (true guru). You should take the following factors into account: 1. There is no generally accepted definition of the term. 2. A scholarly article or discussion cannot be based on meaningless terms. 3. At the time of the interview, Prem Rawat had been in the West only a short time. His command of English left a lot to be desired. 4. He never announced that he was the Lord of the Universe. GStaker I would argue it doesn't matter if there's no quote where Rawat called himself the "Lord of the Universe." Prem Rawat was the legal Chief Minister of Divine Light Mission until around 1976. The song "Lord of the Universe" was published by DLM, along with other devotional songs in this song book with Rawat's photo on the cover. He was the figurehead of DLM both figuratively and literally because he was legally the spiritual head of DLM. I can't envision a senario in which Rawat would allow his photo (complete with headphones on) to appear on the cover of this DLM publication, without his approval. The Lord of the Universe
The Lord of the Universe
Has come to us this day
The Lord of the Universe
Has come to us this day
And He's come to show us Light
And He's come to show us Love
And He ' s come to show us the Way
Back to our Father.
Open up your heart to the Universe of Love
And He will fill you up.
Open up your heart to the Universe of Love
And He will fill you up.
The Lord of the Universe
Has come to us this day
The Lord of the Universe
Has come to us this day
And He's come to show us Light
And He's come to show us Love
And He ' s come to show us the Way
Back to our Father
Open up your heart to the Universe of Love
And He will fill you up.
Open up your heart to the Universe of Love
And He will fill you up.
The Lord of the Universe
Has come to us this day
The Lord of the Universe
Has come to us this day
And He's come to show us Light
And He's come to show us Love
And He ' s come to show us the Way
Back to our Father
Back to our Father
Back to our Father
Back to our Father
Back to our Father.
Related link: Devotional Songs
|
|
|
|
Jossi's new rule about not badmouthing fellow Wiki eds on other sites, must surely apply to Geffrey Staker, thanks to his One Reality crap...
|
|
|
|
Staker came up with this tyraid last week and Nik responded. Staker's tyraid was moved by Jossi to Staker's talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gstaker There's no fairness on Wikipedia, especially as it relates to Jossi. Jossi has a conflict of interest that he himself stated because he now works for Rawat in one of the organization entities, but that doesn't stop him from backing up Staker.
|
|
|
|
Linking to defamatory websites of other Wikipedians on article talk pages can get you banned very soon. However it depends on the context. For example, the article Michael More can link to his homepage that may contain defamatory statements of George W. Bush, even if Bush were a Wikipedia editor. Andries
Modified by Andries at Fri, Nov 24, 2006, 08:07:30
|
|
|
|
After reading Staker's ranting, raving, and general stomping-of-feet concerning Bob Mishler's comments over on the "Criticism of..." article talk page, I took a look at some of the archives on the PR article talk pages. Here's the link to archive #15, on which Jossi agrees with Scott Perry concerning the validity of the Mishler interview. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_15 It's like deja vu all over again!
|
|
|
|
"The apparently fictitious interview was described in the Washington Post which, like any other tabloid, is a potentially unreliable source. Check out the verifiability page. You will see that I am correct. Andries, thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify that point. We seem to be making progress. --[[User:Gstaker|Gstaker]] 14:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)"
Modified by Andries at Fri, Nov 24, 2006, 08:52:15
|
|
|
|
Now that's too funny for words. There's just no way to respond to such a completely stupid comment. He better not say that to Ben Bradlee, Bob Woodward, or Carl Bernstein. See Andries, that's why I can't do Wikipedia anymore. I just cannot deal with talking to insane people who are also very stupid.
|
|
|
|
That guy Staker must have got his tongue too far up his brain.
|
|
|
