|
|
|
I have had no choice but to block you from editing for a period of 48 hours. I understand that it's easy to get passionate about a topic that you care deeply about, but editors are still expected to show some self-restraint. Please, use this time to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. – ClockworkSoul 02:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Modified by Jim at Sat, Feb 18, 2006, 20:58:00
|
|
|
|
Jim, you deserved to be blocked and I have an additional question for you. You have repeatedly argued against assuming bad faith and conspiracy theories in e.g. the case of Gubler and MacGregor. Why don't you apply the same principle here too and assume that you have a sincere but huge difference of opinion with other Wikipedians? Okay, I realize that you were to some extent just playing and having fun (at the expense of another person), but still I disagree with your attitude of assuming bad faith. Thanks. Andries Penny Arcade comic from December 16, 2005. Skeletor edits He-Man's Wikipedia page. 
Modified by Andries at Sun, Feb 19, 2006, 09:52:13
|
|
|
|
I can't agree with anything you are saying here Andries. As Jim pointed out somewhere, Jossi started out the so called attacks by his absurd ad hominem criticism toward Jim about his reading and thinking ability.
That is one of the big jokes about Wiki. Jossi, Zappaz and the bunch of them have continually attacked their critics, but they do it in Wiki-correct speech. I believe that you have been the victim of this more than anyone. How many times have you been accused of acting in bad faith or whatever they want to call it simply for trying to state the obvious truth on the subject?
You have a knee-jerk defense reaction of Wiki which defies my and probably everyone else's comprehension here. But I like you anyway and keep up the good work. 
As for Jim calling Jossi a liar, well there is no other way to look at that. Okay, maybe using that special premie logic, one can somehow make a distinction between lord and god or whatever. Trying to pretend that Rawat was talking about his father in these critical moments is such a load of bull though. Okay, but let's even ignore that for the moment. To now take the next step and try to pretend that Rawat never claimed to be Perfect Master is just way beyond the pale. He said it in front of millions of people on the Merv Griffin show for chrissakes. Jossi is definitely lying about that. Even practicing premies who were around in the seventies and had a grain of integrity left in them would agree to that. How can one assume anything but bad faith in this context? This is the equivalent of saying that Sai Baba never pulled that weird sacred cow poop dust out of bowls.
But this gives me a thought. If Jossi and co. want to pretend that Rawat was talking about his father any time he did the divine, then it should be no problem to state in the article that Prem Rawat saw his father as God. I can live with that. Rawat claimed to be the son of God. That works for me.
|
|
|
|
Dan/Aunt, Most of the times I agree with what you write, so I will think very seriously whether I am wrong or not. With lying I mean writing things that you know to be untrue. But look at yourself when you were a follower of Maharaji. Did you sincerely believe his implausible, contradictory confusing, devoid-of-content teachings? The answer is most probably yes. So why not assume the same of others? To give an example of extreme self-deception of a friend of mine. SSB gave him a ring during a private interview and said that the stones were made of diamonds and when he had them tested by a Dutch jeweller they turned out to be glass. My friend believed that SSB had given him a genuine diamonds but had changed them supernaturally from diamond to glass because of his lack of faith. If people can deceive themselves to such a degree then why assume that people are lying when they defend their faith in an illogical and unreasonable way? It scares me that I engaged in similar degrees of self-deception, because I always believed that this would happen to other people. Andries (amended for grammar)
Modified by Andries at Sun, Feb 19, 2006, 16:06:37
|
|
|
|
Good points Andries, and I agree with you. Self-deception is a powerful force, as you showed in your example. But how does that justify banning Jim and calling him a liar and not doing the same to Jossi? It's almost as if you're saying it's excusable behaviour, if you are in a cult. But not allowable if you're cult-free.Just because Jossi is stuck in a cult and deceiving himself, does that justify excusing his lies, but not Jim's, who isn't in a cult? Using the example you gave, Jim's possible self-deception is just as valid as Jossi's. Why wasn't Jossi banned rather Jim, and who decides? Looks like double standards to me.
|
|
|
|
Anna, Really, you can't possibly think that Jossi is sincere when he says that Rawat never called himself "Perfect Master", can you? Self-deception only goes so far. This is just a lie, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Hi JimOf course Jossi knows that he is lying, the self-deception part is that he's lying in the name of the LOTU. So that makes lying OK, in Jossi's mind, that justifies the lies. And if it's M's agya to Jossi to put across the revisionist view point, I'm sure Jossi (and I can think of many other premies too) will think it's 'a wonderful opportunity to serve the perfect master of our time'. No matter what lies are told. Who cares? He's lying for the Lord! I disagree with Andrie's point. I just turned it around and asked Andries why the same criteria was not applied to you too. That is: Jim's lying, BUT he's self-deceived (so that makes it ok), so Jim's points should stand too. What Andries has said is that lying is okay, if you're self-decieved enough and sincere enough, and in a cult or religion. But tell the truth, and no way will that get onto Wikipaedia.
|
|
|
|
It takes some time to explain Wikipedia's policy to people here, but one of the rules is that you should assume good faith of other contributors, a rule that Jim broke.
Modified by Andries at Sun, Feb 19, 2006, 19:15:00
|
|
|
|
Andries, An assumption of good faith is an excellent starting point. But that's all it is. When there's evidence that good faith has been abandoned, it'd be stupid to continue to pretend you're still assuming it in the other. Besides, was Jossi assuming good faith when he resorted to an ad hominem attack against exes (in that case, me) via MacGregor's affidavit? Here's the exchange: First me: Hi Bishonen, Thanks for your comments which come like a blast of fresh air. You're absolutely right, the article does read like a hagiography, albeit with a cursory nod to the outside world which views Rawat decidedly different than Jossi and other followers suggest. But what's to be done? You will likely take off, Jossi and his dedicated crew, who are serving their "Master", let's not forget, won't, and the article will stay misleading and, to be honest, a blight on Wikipedia. If you are the least bit interested in a little background on Rawat, take a look at www.ex-premie.org or this site for a fast look at Rawat in his own words: http://gallery.forum8.org/ --24.69.14.159 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
And then Jossi: - And when you are at it, Bishonen, see what one ex-member of the group that anon is a prominent member of, had to say in a affidavit filed with the Supreme Court of Queensland about the activities of his group in which he says "the goals [of the ex-premie group] are ofnet obsessive, malicious, and destructuve in nature". You can read the rest if you have the stomach at [[7]. Nevertheless, and as stated before, my interest is in making this article the best it can be. You help is much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Why didn't he get banned?
|
|
|
|
Hi Andries,
I'm willing to bend over backwards to give people the benefit of the doubt. I usually do that when premies post on these forums for example. Usually they end up being fakers, but not always in my opinion. I understand the distinction between willfully trying to fool others and fooling yourself. People like GOK, Eileen and even Jonx I think were at least trying.
I think the situation with Jossi is different. For example his digital art pieces I think prove that he is full of it. He doesn't give two divine cow poos about Wiki. But let's just focus on one particular item. Jossi is now trying to say that Prem never claimed to be Perfect Master. This is just outrageous. You weren't there, but that was the whole schtick in the 70's. I don't know how to say it any other way than I and Jim already have. Maybe someone has a copy of the Merv Griffin show. But really he must have said it 100 times. He did play the coy vacillation game with his god claims, sometimes saying he was and then sometimes giving a slippery answer. But this is not the case about being Perfect Master. That was basically his title and function. There was nothing vague about it. It came along with this mythology that there is always a perfect master and the mantle gets passed on from generation to generation. We all bought into it.
Your example of Sai Baba is not a good one, though it is an amazing story. A better comparison would be if someone claimed he never gave people rings that he claimed to manifest. I tried to say that in my first post, but maybe you didn't get it, what with all the double dutch and my oh so subtle sarcasm.
The only possible defense for Jossi's integrity at this point would be if he wasn't a premie in the 70's. But if he wasn't, he has no right making such statements with such authority. In that case he is a fool. I can't imagine it so difficult to prove the point about Rawat claiming perfect mastership.
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure where I heard that, or even if my memory is correct, but it does leave open the possibility that he believes what he is writing. If true, it also means he cannot speak from experience about the 70s.
John.
|
|
|
|
John, I was still around in '81. Rawat was definitely the "Perfect Master" then. In fact, I wonder, when did he ever start to deny that claim? It must have been recently. Like so many other things, Rawat had different ways of interpreting the word. His coy version was simply that he was a master in the sense of teacher and his subject just happened to be perfection, much as some other teachers teach French. So he was a "perfection teacher" or "perfect teacher" or "perfect master". Indeed, that was a very, very regular bit of his pitch. Surely, someone's got a copy. Point being, I cannot for the life of me believe that Jossi never heard it.
|
|
|
|
As late as 2005 Rawat still referred to himself as "Master". Kabir
|
|
|
|
Andries, Even if Jossi only joined the cult in '86, he still knows full well that Rawat called himself Perfect Master. I mean, what else did he call himself, if not that? Satguru was out, Lord was a no-no. Even if he started with the absurdly vague "Speaker" it was no substitute for Perfect Master. No, that was who he was and Jossi knows it. Jossi also knows beyond all doubt that Rawat regularly talks about himself in the third person. That's one of his most regular rhetorical devices. Ad naseum, even. So when Jossi started playing that little game with me where I showed him the quote but it's Rawat talking that way, sorry, he was absolutely lying when he denied that that was Rawat talking about himself. Now, do you agree with me about this or is there even the slightest question in your mind? So, if you do agree, you must then admit that Jossi was lying. Yes? No? Also, please talk with me about the conspiracy stuff you're accusing me of getting wrong. Danke Jim
|
|
|
|
From what I have seen is the following way of reasoning The full responsibility of accepting Maharaji's words and suggestions is on the followers. Maharaji offered something and did not make any claims, but reluctantly and with humility accepted his father's command to follow him in his footsteps. It was the followers who accepted Maharaji's offer and put Maharaji on the pedestal of the Perfect Master, not Maharaji.
Do not blame me. I am only the messenger. Andries
|
|
|
|
From what I have seen is the following way of reasoning The full responsibility of accepting Maharaji's words and suggestions is on the followers. Maharaji offered something and did not make any claims, but reluctantly and with humility accepted his father's command to follow him in his footsteps. It was the followers who accepted Maharaji's offer and put Maharaji on the pedestal of the Perfect Master, not Maharaji.
Andries, I know the drill. I know that premies spout this about the most outrageous parts of Rawat's claims to be divine etc. It's entirely bullshit, of course. They don't really believe it but I know that they say it at least. But -- listen -- they do not say this about Rawat calling himself "Perfect Master". I know Jossi tried to do that the other day but that was something new and I don't believe for a moment that he was serious. Like I've said before, Perfect Master was the "safe" title Rawat had. Lord, God in Human Form, Saviour of Mankind -- they were more contentious. But he hid behind Perfect Master and used it all the time. That's all the time, Andries. Jossi's a liar.
|
|
|
|
The full responsibility of accepting Sai Baba's words and suggestions is on the followers. ..... It was the followers who accepted Sai Baba's offer and put SB on the pedestal of the Perfect Master, not SB.To be honest Andries, I don't know enough about SB and how he viewed himself, and portrayed himself to his followers, like yourself. Did you view him as the Perfect Master? Hopefully you'll get the drift of what I'm saying. If SB followers were changing the historical facts in order to help project SB in a different light now, would you think that that was okay and acceptable?
|
|
|
|
hi Anna, SSB's claims of personal divinity, such as avatar are unambigous and undisputed. (I do not know what the term Perfect Master means, because it is not part of a religious or philosophical framework or tradition that I am very familiar with.) I would be outraged if important fact of SSB or the SSB movement that was an important part of my life would be denied by followers. And I do not mean the denial of negative controversial things, like the sexual abuse, which is understandable , but the denial of things that were one seen as uncontroversial facts. For example, if followers now denied that we sang bhajans (Indian religious songs) to SSB with texts that worship him as a deity then I would be quite angry. Singing bhajans was something I did often and liked. I read in a book by Reender Kranenborg and Mikael Rothstein that such intentional or unintentional historical revisionism is quite common in new religious movements. One of the most blatant examples discussed in the book that I already mentioned on forum 8 is the fact that current adherents of the Osho movement deny that Rajneesh/Bhagwan/Osho was a guru. Andries
Modified by Andries at Mon, Feb 20, 2006, 06:20:49
|
|
|
|
Hi Andries ! You say: " (I do not know what the term Perfect Master means, because it is not part of a religious or philosophical framework or tradition that I am very familiar with.)" Throughout the eighties and into the nineties Maharaji repeated AGAIN and AGAIN (as he does ) what "Perfect Master" means.He said (again and again) that the word Master means teacher and just as a French Master teaches french and a Maths Master teaches maths , in the same way a Perfect Master teaches perfection. It's ridiculous that Jossi is denying this.I am pretty sure that if I search amongst my tapes,videos and publications I can find M. saying this.He said it sooooo often....a very boring mantra. If it's true that Jossi got "knowledge" in 1986 then one could surmise that he has been hand-picked to guard the Wiki article.As he wasn't around during the earlier period which has been targetted for revisionism, he can lie for his master convincingly, sometimes not even knowing he is lying as the incidents referred to precede his experience of the cult. You also say: "For example, if followers now denied that we sang bhajans (Indian religious songs) to SSB with texts that worship him as a deity then I would be quite angry. Singing bhajans was something I did often and liked. " Of course this is exactly what Elan Vital do in their FAQs.They deny that Arti was a devotional song which we sang ONLY to the "Lord".They try to demote it's importance and relegate it to insignificance. Well, I can assure you that we sang it again and again, for years, religiously.....facing the guru or a picture of the guru.Sometimes we sang it in the ashram or small rooms at community satsang, and sometimes in huge halls, with hundreds of us attending (for example at the weekly programmes in London ). We sang it at the end of the programme like a sacred ceremony.....it was really important,like saying "the Creed" ( "I believe in God,maker of heaven and earth" etc) in the protestant church ! I read the to-ing and fro-ing between Jossi and Jim.Absolutely NO WAY should Jim have been banned.At best Jossi didn't check the facts, at worst he blatantly lied because that is part of his job (I don't know if he is paid to do it by the cult). Anyhow, best wishes to you,Andries. Lexy.
Modified by Lexy at Mon, Feb 20, 2006, 07:13:04
|
|
|
|
Hi Lexy and all, The Wikipedia article contains since a few days the statement that Maharaji claimed to be a Perfect Master. I inserted this, but had expected a revert based on previous discussions in which this was denied and reverted, but it did not happen. Do you have a reference for Maharaji's explanation of the term Perfect Master (date, place, speech)? Then I can edit it in. Of course you can edit it in the article yourself too if you are a masochist. This may be tedious. As the Wikipedian Bishonen wrote, it is "a well-policed, clamped-down, always-bouncing-back piece". It does not matter if you are speaking the truth on the discussion page of the article as long as you are polite. Personal attacks and not assuming good faith as Jim did are against the rules and reasons for banning. I guess the same rules apply on this forum too. Arti is normally sung to deities. I checked two encyclopedias and they both say the same. Andries
|
|
|
|
Hi Andries,The clip below is from "Newsweek" March 8, 1976, page 14. Surely the point is that "Perfect Master" was the one of the main titles Rawat was known as, during at least a decade of his mission. That is historical fact. So why does Wikipedia have such difficulty in stating it? (PS, please also see my three other posts below in this thread, giving further evidence) Best wishes,
Chris And here's one more for luck: Press cuts from the 70's, 80's and 2000's Seventies New Delhi, India, judge tells Guru Maharaj Ji and Bal Bhagwan Ji, his 24-yr...
By LAURIE JOHNSTON
24 May 1975
New York Times Abstracts
Pg. 14, Col. 2
c. 1975 New York Times Company
New Delhi, India, judge tells Guru Maharaj Ji and Bal Bhagwan Ji, his 24-yr-old brother and rival, that they must settle their dispute over who is 'perfect master' of Divine Light Mission out of ct. US Divine Light Mission pres Robert Mishler says guru may return to US in 2 wks
(S).
http://ex-premie.org/pages/presscutscoll.htm
Modified by cq at Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 06:49:47
|
|
|
|
Chris, It doesn't matter how many other people called him "Perfect Master", according to Jossi. He didn't call himself that, so he says. On ther other hand, I think the quotes where he clearly says Guru Maharaj Ji is the Perfect Master proves Jossi wrong even on his own ridiculous terms.
|
|
|
|
I can't imagine how the editors there let this one through:
Related link: Sun King
|
|
|
|
That's where Jossi's drawn a line. Yes, we all called Rawat Perfect Master, yes the press did too. Yes he didn't necessarily object but still, it wasn't him saying it. What a crock, eh? Anyway, like I said, Jossi would have a hard time still fighting this Alice-in-Wonderland argument in the face of this: In one sense, "Guru Maharaj Ji" is just a Hindi name that became very popular. But you can also call him "Perfect Master", unless, of course, he's now going to say that he didn't call himself Guru Maharaj Ji either.
|
|
|
|
"Throughout the eighties and into the nineties Maharaji repeated AGAIN and AGAIN (as he does ) what "Perfect Master" means." oops! I think I've got the dates wrong.I just looked through some mid to late eighties literature and can't see "Perfect Master" mentioned.....it seems that the term "PM" had already been disposed of by then. However....I've just made myself listen to the beginning of the 1980 Christmas satsang on tape....and Guru Maharaj Ji ( as he still was then ) launches straight into the Jesus/Perfect Master stuff.......and repeats the term several times. The thing is...he was careful not to say it about himself....but he made it clear by ,for example drawing parallels with Jesus. He must have had a strategy for dispensing with the labels he used...maybe "Perfect Master" was thrown off the train along with malas,crowns and dressing up ? Everybody from the seventies must remember the Perfect Master posters....something like: " Guru Maharaj Ji 15 year old Perfect Master" ( with a black and white pic ) I didn't notice that "The Perfect Master" had been shelved.... I was the Perfect Stooge and barely noticed the revisionism,or if I did I just accepted it.
Modified by Lexy at Mon, Feb 20, 2006, 19:36:43
|
|
|
|
If you concluded that a fellow Wiki editor was lying and there was no room left for assuming they're acting in good faith, what would you do? Because Jossi's that man, now. He lied about Rawat not calling himself Perfect Master. Every bit as if a former Sai Baba devotee lied as you've postulated they might. When do you get to drop the good faith presumption, Andries?
|
|
|
|
I do not think that you can ever call another Wikipedian a liar. Andries
|
|
|
|
Andries, 1) Do you not agree that it's possible to conclude with certainty that someone is lying? 2) If so, and it happens in Wikipedia, what would you say to them? That they are "apparently mistaken"?
|
|
|
|
>I do not think that you can ever call another Wikipedian a liar. Well you certainly can do that, because Jim just has, and so would most of us here. So how would you deal with a fellow 'Wikipedian', who was clearly a liar, Andries? Personally, I would resign from the whole thing if there is no acceptable form of words you can use to say that so-and-so is deliberately hiding or distorting the truth. Is there an acceptable form of words?
|
|
|
|
"Personally, I would resign from the whole thing if there is no acceptable form of words you can use to say that so-and-so is deliberately hiding or distorting the truth".Surely that would leave the said deliberate hider/distorter of the truth free to promulgate (I would have said 'propagate', but that smacks of 'propaganda') their own agenda. These people need standing up to, according to Edmund Burke. No doubt premies of Jossi's era (mid 1980s?) would see us exes as the evil ones, despite the fact that Jossi is the main person who is censoring the facts of Rawat's history according to his own sensitivities. He wasn't a premie when Rawat claimed to be Perfect Master, though he has the conceit to censor the accounts of those who were there at the time. His preference is for the revisionist version that Elan Vital invented. And that's not what encyclopedias are all about. Or is it?
Modified by cq at Mon, Feb 20, 2006, 15:00:06
|
|
|
|
Nige, This has come up before I think, and, if memory serves me correctly, good luck trying to get a straight answer from him. He'll stall, when pestered he'll say something. It will be terse and oblique. You will not have the satisfaction of being fully joined on the issue. Andries is a great guy. Laurie and I just loved meeting him in Amsterdam. But he's adapted to survive in the Wikiworld without tearing his hair out. In fact, Andries himself regularly gets scolded by Wikijerks like Jossi for being too vituperative and that's for saying things far less disrespectful than calling someone a liar. Yet he hangs in there. ??
Modified by Jim at Mon, Feb 20, 2006, 18:06:45
|
|
|
|
Come on, Andries, let's work this out. You came out swinging (in a friendly enough way, of course) on behalf of my being banned on Wikipedia and now you've been challenged on that. When is it okay to call someone a liar there? Never? Then what can you say to liars? You're sorry?
|
|
|
|
I think one would say, "your latest behavior makes it difficult for me to assume good faith." Andries
|
|
|
|
I think one would say, "your latest behavior makes it difficult for me to assume good faith." First, thank you for finally replying but no thank you for being so terse about it. But anyway ... Isn't this statement of yours just a transitional one? Isn't it what you say to someone when you still have that one glimmer of hope that they are acting in good faith and, civil and courteous person that you are, you're willing to give them the benefit of that doubt? But what happens when you pass that point and you now are certain that they're not acting in good faith? Let's get practical about this. Say that after I've served my brief exile, which is probably up already seeing as it was only 48 hours (the first time!), and I now go back and do two things: edit the article to specifically read that Rawat claimed to be Perfect Master and go back to the talk page and explain my edit with the proof as demonstrated here on this forum. Say Jossi continues to say that I'm wrong/stupid/can't read/apostate-like obsessive etc. Say he reverts for whatever reason. When can I give up the assumption that he's acting in good faith and, when I do, what does Wiki allow me to say about it? I mean, is it considered abusive to go that far, not use the word "liar" necessarily but simply accuse them of not acting in good faith? Will that get me reported? And why, by the way, didn't Jossi get penalized for using MacGregor's affidavit to call me "obsessive, malicious, and destructuve in nature". You can read the rest if you have the stomach" ? These are fair questions, Andries.
|
|
|
|
Just look at the cover to the book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" - the lines at the foot of the page say:"with illustrations of the Perfect Master and his followers". Here's an excerpt that's entirely relevant: 'On July 19, 1966, after a lifetime devoted to bringing the Knowledge of God to his followers, Guru Maharaj Ji's father left his mortal body in perfect peace. "I didn't want to be Satguru. I didn't understand why it is me. I would have been satisfied to be the humblest servant of the Satguru and not to be one myself. It was not my desire. But my father sent his love to his oldest three sons and complete prostrations to his youngest. So they crowned me with the crown of Rama and Krishna and put the tilak on my forehead, and again the voice came: ' You are he. You must take this Knowledge out to the world.'" This is the way Satguru Maharaj Ji describes the experience of realizing the task that was before him at the age of eight.
On the day Shri Maharaj Ji left his body, a disciple tearfully begged to speak once more with his master. The young Guru Maharaj Ji had replied, "Shri Maharaj Ji has only left his body, but his spiritual body is still here, and he will appear again after a few days." At the time, he did not fully realize that this power was within him. "I went home (from school) and everyone was weeping. I was just sitting there not weeping and something began to happen to me. I began to feel that I am not this body, that I could not move these lips. I always thought that the soul would leave by the mouth, but my mouth was shut. Still I felt like I was leaving my body and my soul was everywhere going out. And this voice came to me saying, 'You are he, you are the one to continue.'
Then I puzzled over the voice. Thirteen days later, I was doing pranam to my Father's ashes and bones. You know, in India they burn the bodies and thirteen days later you go and collect the ashes. I bent down to touch the ashes, the voice came: 'You are he. You are the one to go and give this to the world.' " On August 1st, Guru Maharaj Ji eight years old, stood in front of the thousands of devotees present at his father's funeral. The voice came again saying: "This is the last I will tell you. You are he. You must take this Knowledge out to the world." " For the first time," says Guru Maharaj Ji, "I did not give satsang. The satsang just came and I began to speak: "Dear children of God, why are you weeping? Haven't you learned the lesson that your master taught you ? The Perfect Master never dies. Maharaj Ji is here, amongst you now. " Immediately his mother, three elder brothers and the mahatmas present, prostrated at the feet of the Perfect Master and received his blessings. From the paperback "Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji" - Pages 12-13 .
.
. In fact Rawat claimed to be Perfect Master as recently as 1992: (from "Grace and Gratitude" : Maharaji, Shri Sant Yogashram, New Delhi - Vaishakhi Celebrations - 13th April, 1992 - (Public Program). "As has been said…'A devotee does not worry about anything, except the experience of Knowledge.'...'When the perfect Master is there to take care of you, you have nothing to worry about. All the powers of prosperity and success are ready to serve you and you are free from all bondages.'..
This is such a world in which there is darkness everywhere. And that darkness devours a man. It runs after man to eat him up. And man loses his wits. He becomes heartless.... But if you have trust within you and really the Master is there - the Perfect Master - to take care of you, and if you actually have trust and faith in your heart then there is absolutely nothing to worry about."
Modified by cq at Mon, Feb 20, 2006, 06:30:24
|
|
|
|
noone except for you ever believed prem was , perfect master, satguru, balyogeshwar(born lord of Yogis), sri sri 1089million, Paramhansa, God, greater than god.....don't be silly..you imagined it all. ps next you'll be telling us that the european holocaust DID happen !!!
|
|
|
|
From the Introduction to a booklet called:"The Living Master"
Quotes from Guru Maharaj Ji
Published in 1978,
by Divine Light Mission Inc.
P.O. Box 532
Denver, Colorado 80201 "This book is a compilation of excerpts from discourses, known as satsangs, of Guru Maharaj Ji. Guru Maharaj Ji was born on December 10, 1957, in Hardwar, India, the youngest of four sons. He was declared Perfect Master at the age of eight by his father, Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, the living Perfect Master of his time. Guru Maharaj Ji left India in 1971, at the age of thirteen, to begin his first tour of the West, and has since traveled world wide."
Related link: http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/the_living_m.htm
Modified by cq at Mon, Feb 20, 2006, 11:58:53
|
|
|
|
In terms of my discussion with Jossi, they have to be quotes where he says "I am the Perfect Master". Jossi's already ridiculed me showing him one where he even says stuff like "That's why they call me the Perfect Master". No, they don't mean anything. It's got to be the first kind.
|
|
|
|
Here's incontrovertible proof that Rawat called himself Perfect Master. Do you still say Jossi's not a liar? But there is something very, very important in this life. We come into this world just so that we can realize this life, so that we can learn to lead it properly. And Guru Maharaj Ji comes, but who is Guru Maharaj Ji? Guru Maharaj Ji is a person, because he comes in a body and what he does is show us the way, the path to salvation, so that this life doesn't just end six feet under the ground or in the holy River Ganges or lit up by fire. He shows us the meaning to this life, so that this precious life is not jut wasted; that is why Guru Maharaj Ji comes. In one sense, "Guru Maharaj Ji" is just a Hindi name that became very popular. But you can also call him "Perfect Master", because he has perfected perfectness, he can teach us perfectness, and he can guide us along those lines. We call the person who teaches us a "master" and if he teaches us perfectness, we can call him "Perfect Master." And that's what he is. He comes into this world to help us find the meaning of life. (Guru Maharaj Ji, Argentina, January 7, 1976 And it is Divine, June 1976) (Italics in original)
Modified by Jim at Mon, Feb 20, 2006, 14:47:32
|
|
|
|
Yes, bless you Jim. Otherwise I wouldn't have known which thread to post the following on. It's what the young Prem Pal said just ten days after the death of his father:
QUOTE Our Treasure Increases July 29, 1966, Prem Nagar, India O my brothers, this is not a day of merry-making because the night of the 19th, at three o'clock, Guru Maharaj Ji left his body. But I feel that Guru Maharaj Ji is alive and always will remain alive. So many times, Guru Maharaj Ji has come to this world. There have been many, many Perfect Masters and each one has revealed the very same Knowledge. You have not understood. Each Divine Incarnation has gone away and still you have not realized the Knowledge He brought. Now, if you want to know the Truth, then get that Supreme Knowledge soon, because this body will be destroyed one day. You have got to get Knowledge as soon as possible, otherwise the shop will be closed. This Knowledge will grow more and more expensive; it will not remain cheap. Today you people think that Guru Maharaj Ji is not here. Again you have not understood His true form, but I will explain everything to you. If you do not realize God within, then Guru Maharaj Ji, the Perfect Master, will manifest again and again in this world and you will see Him in the form you like. When a Perfect Master comes, he cannot be bound by the rule of government, but we know that if we have to explain this to the world people will not understand. Even when people of this world see a true saint, they do not recognize him. Every time the Perfect Master comes, some people think that he is true, some think that he is false. If a man sends his son to steal, that man wants to benefit himself and harm another. If a person thinks that his own nation and government are good and others are evil, he will kill people for that nation. That is why saints are not ruled by this world or by its governments. He who wants pleasure will give pain to others; he who wants profit will think of giving loss to someone else. Who is there who can give happiness to all? There may be people here who have not received Knowledge. What does Guru Maharaj Ji give when He gives you the Knowledge? Who can tell me the meaning of the Word? He who cannot tell me its meaning, I do not consider him to be learned.
... "I have got the same soul as Guru Maharaj Ji. Guru Maharaj Ji is within me. He is in everyone. He is present in everyone and also in me. So realize that Guru Maharaj Ji is himself speaking. Do not look only at my body." - "I will unite all religions. I only need the grace of Guru Maharaj Ji. We will become such a multitude that we will fill every hall and every temple." -"It is said, 'Who sows thorns for you, sow for him flowers; you will have flowers upon flowers in return but he will have only thorns.'" http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/DlightSant.htm
Related link: http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/DlightSant.htm
Modified by cq at Mon, Feb 20, 2006, 14:39:22
|
|
|
|
Jossi might say that there's no proof that he's actually saying that he's the Perfect Master there. See the problem?
|
|
|
|
I tested the waters over on the Wiki "encyclopedia" site last week. It was a simple minor edit that was historically accurate, but got deleted nonetheless.OK, I now know not to waste time there, even when my edits are watertight. The problem is that, even when I consider that they are watertight, I know that any part of any article can be censored by anyone who simply says, "I don't agree". And if they've got enough time at their disposal, they can keep deleting and censoring until the article reflects nothing but their own personal bias. And that's meant to be a recipe for an encylopedia? What's needed is a way of bringing the likes of Jossi to account. But who's to account for Wikipedia? Until such time as this kind of problem is resolved, I'll wait.
Modified by cq at Mon, Feb 20, 2006, 15:21:12
|
|
|
|
Chris, you have to mention references for statements, as John already wrote. Then it will be unlikely that your edits get reverted in normal articles, not of course in hotly disputed articles such as Prem Rawat. Andries
|
|
|
|
These are from EPO's quotations page. There are no ambiguities in M's repeated usages of 'I' and 'Me'. >>>"Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ......
When human beings forget this one way, then our Lord, who is the Lord of the whole universe, comes in human body to give us practical Knowlege, ....But, most ironically, we don't appreciate the Lord when He comes in His human body on this earth. Similarly, a Satguru, a Perfect Master, a Supreme Lord who is existing in the present time, can give you the practical Knowledge of the real thing... So God Himself comes to give practical Knowledge of His divinity, of His inner self, which is self-effulgent light, eternal light, all-pervading light. And the Supreme Master, the Satguru, gives practical Knowledge of that light, irrespective of caste, creed, color, religion or sex, to those human individuals who bow before him with reverence, with love and with faith."
>>>
(Various excerpts - Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji)
Modified by nigel at Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 12:38:10
|
|
|
|
The only thing that makes this work, Nigel, is the set of "I" statements in the first paragraph. Otherwise, I'm sure Jossi would be happy to point out how Rawat's talking about the Supreme Lord interchangeably with Perfect Master means nothing. He could have been talking about anyone, after all. As it is, I'm just a bit worried that he still might argue that the "Supreme Lord" of your first paragraph isn't necessarily the "Supreme Lord" of the second. Besides, there are those very troublesome dots ... You know, we here at Wikipedia just want to keep things accurate and balanced that's all. May I take a moment and show you John MacGregor's affidavit? That should put things in perspective. LOL!
|
|
|
|
...make sure the Wickermen take good note!
|
|
|
|
Did Charles Cameron write this? Or Maharaji? Andries
|
|
|
|
Jim Dont forget that Mr Rawat does refer to himself as the Perfect Master, Saviour and Guru Maharaj Ji when speaking in Miami in 1981. See: http://gallery.forum8.org/devotion.htm Listen for yourself to the MP3 file on that page. Gallery
|
|
|
|
As I mentioned before,I still have a copy of "Guru Maharaj Ji's Satsang" December 25th,Miami,Florida 1980. Unfortunately the 26 year old tape just scrubbled up and snapped while I was listening to it, but it is jam-packed with Perfect Master and Saviour references ( some with scarcely any wriggle room). Here are just a few....there are some better ones,but as I said , the tape broke before I could write them down: " What is the meaning Of Christmas? There is a specific meaning but the meaning revolves around the Perfect Master himself........ "What was the meaning to the devotees of that time of the Perfect Master; what was the meaning to them?.....And it was incredible 'cos there was this point where Peter got up and said to Jesus " You are the Son of God, You are the Saviour" and Jesus turned to Peter and said" You are really lucky,you're really fortunate; obviously no mortal man has told you this....it's very fortunate for you to understand that...." " Time after time the Master comes to point the way. To give us the keys." Here we are just in a mood or maybe an atmosphere.Thinking about Christmas and thinking about Jesus. Yet Perfect Master comes every time to help us and to save us.It's incredible.......we don't have to read Peter's or John's or Paul's experience second-hand....we can get it the first hand ourselves....the same show he watched, we can watch it too.No but, that's the way it is.We can also make it happen.That beautiful experience........"
Modified by Lexy at Wed, Feb 22, 2006, 07:10:22
|
|
|
|
Lexy, If that's all you got, you got nothin', girl! I mean, where in any of that does Rawat say that he's the Perfect Master? See, he doesn't, does he? But don't feel too bad. I used to think like you until Jossi set me straight. Here, I know I posted it before but I'll make it smaller this time. Perhaps you'd like to print it, cut it out and keep it in your wallet. It's time we stopped making these stupid ex-premie mistakes, again and again and again .... - The major criticism against Rawat is that, for decades, he openly declared himself to be the Lord. He called himself the Saviour of Mankind and promised to bring peace to the world. To this day he had done nothing to disabuse his earlier followers of thinking that way. In short, the major criticism against him is that he is a deceitful cult leader. All these other criticisms are the second tier.--24.69.14.159 22:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would kindly requeet that you stop wielding the "cult" peyorative as a weapon and that you lower your rethoric, unless your intention is provocation, that is. As for your assertions above, Prem Rawat never called himself "Saviour of Mankind", and you know it. Yes, he made claims of bringing peace to the world, and indeed has brough peace to hundreds of thousands of individuals around the world. And as far as I know, he still relentelssly pursues that dream. I do not see him abating any soon in that effort. Thank God for that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- What do you call this then:
- The greatest problem all around the world today, whether in America, Japan,China, Russia, India or anywhere else in the world, is that people are not in peace. People want peace. Today, if two people fight, the government is supposed to settle them down. But when governments fight, who is going to settle them down? The only one who can settle the governments down is the Perfect Master, the incarnation of God Himself, who comes to Earth to save mankind. Tokyo, Japan, October 3, 1972 (And it is Divine, July 1973)::::--24.69.14.159 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- And where exactly he says that he is that "Perfect Master"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- "People say, people say... actually the most common thing they say about me is that I am a Perfect Master. And what they mean by Perfect Master is the one who can reveal perfectness. Like one who teaches you math, you call him a math master, one who teaches you science, you call him a science master, one who can teach you perfectness, you call him a Perfect Master. And I can teach them what is perfectness, so they call me Perfect Master." (And It Is Divine ~ Dec. 1973, Volume 2. Issue 2.)
--24.69.14.159 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Face it, Jossi, the proof is overwhelming. Rawat called himself "Perfect Master" all the time and, in the first quote I posted just above, he explained that that meant that he was the saviour of mankind (not to mention "incarnation of God Himself" . --24.69.14.159 01:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC) - What about you facing it. Can you read basic English? "people call me", "they call me". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- How about this:
"Our body is finite. Something within this body is infinite. And if we join those two things, if we make that one connection ... Because that we are trying to reach, what we are trying get to, is that most spectacular experience. And that experience is always there because it's infinite! And we can always achieve it. We can always be there, by going to Guru Maharaj Ji, by going to the Perfect Master. Because Perfect Master not only teaches us perfectness - and that is why he is Perfect Master- but he has the key. And not only does he have the key, but that answer, that solution, that experience, lies within him. Because he is that experience."(Malibu, May 8, 1978,Printed in 'Divine Times',Volume 7, Number 4, June/July,1978,"Guru Puja Special"} Jossi, unless you're going to now say that Rawat didn't call himself "Guru Maharaj Ji" you must admit that the case is overwhelming.--24.69.14.159 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC) - This is my last response. Do you really know how to read? I am starting to doubt that. Can you read the unequivocal he and him. Do you know the difference between 'me and I and he or him? As you seem to be so knowledgeable on Maharaji's satsang from the early days, you would remember by whom the 12 year old Maharaji swears that he will bring peace to the world? I will tell you: I swear by Guru Maharaj Ji, I swear by the one who has given me birth". Can you read that? Good, Now leave me alone. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Related link: Why do I even go there?
Modified by Jim at Wed, Feb 22, 2006, 13:54:12
|
|
|
|
Yeah,I can read and know that those refs. aren't incontrovertible. However I did explain that there were some more explicit quotes that I didn't have time to transcribe before the tape self destructed. It was quite spooky 'cos I heard the brilliant quote,got quite excited (thinking "gotcha", rewound the tape and pressed play with my pen poised.....and heard the magnetic strip being munched up noisily by my player. I thought DAMN..that pesky omnipresent Rawat has cast a spell! I couldn't even open the tape deck,it was so jammed up.In the end I forced it open with a knife , extracted the evidence, and sent it off to the "sick" (ha ha) bay of "The Gallery".I fear the best bit ,though, was torn into little tiny irreparable shreds. Anyhow,we'll see.Hope it doesn't disappear in the post!
Modified by Lexy at Wed, Feb 22, 2006, 14:46:11
|
|
|
|
Andries, When Canadians start throwing "eh" at you watch out. If their ears pin back they're getting ready to attack. No, seriously, the more you admit the proof's overwhelming the more you must agree Jossi's good faith is suspect. Hm?
|
|
|
|
I do not think that he reads the ex-premie website, because he believes it all consists of lies, baseless apostate paranoia, or otherwise disinformation. Andries
|
|
|
|
I do not think that he reads the ex-premie website, because he believes it all consists of lies, baseless apostate paranoia, or otherwise disinformation. I'm asking what you think one should do on Wiki once one has decided the other person is not acting in good faith. Do you have an answer or not?
|
|
|
|
Basically it does not matter for Wikipedia that some contributors lie on the talk page of an article. What matters are the edits on the article. If you think that they are repeatedly made in bad faith then you can start a request for comments at this person, but this has to be done together with other complainants The rules and procedures of Wikipedia are somewhat complicated and also subject to change. Andries
|
|
|
|
Thank you Andries for listening to the evidence. I've only just started reading some of the discussions over on Wiki about the Rawat article, and it's evident that you have put a great deal of time into challenging the attempts of Rawat's "students" at making it a walking advertisement for their "master". You're not alone in challenging them, but I think I'm correct in saying that no other non-premie (if you don't mind being described as such) has taken up the gauntlet with Rawat's promoters so tenaciously before. Jim asked you about how to challenge editors who (whether consciously or unconsciously) deceive. I found the following, which does the job without (I believe) leading to the author being banned: QUOTE Bill McCarthy the administrator of the 60th anniversary committee is a premie!! I feel like throwing up. Thomas h 21:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC) >A temporary nausea sounds alright to me as a minor penalty. Maybe you should try a new start. --Rainer P. 12:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC) >>A penalty for what? For uncovering the mendacity your kind produces? Thomas h 13:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC) ENDQUOTE One last point, if I may: how can I contribute to the discussion pages? There seems to be no "reply" field on the page.
Modified by cq at Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 17:17:29
|
|
|
|
When I am defending Wikipedia here with great intellectual dishonesty then I am like a cultist liar who denies that Rawat made claims of personal divinity, because a reasonable and logical person cannot possibly sincerely believe in such a wacky system as Wikipedia.
I hope that readers see the similarity in reasoning. Andries
|
|
|
|
and who said it?
No I don't see the similarity. You and most of the editors that I have read are not unwilling to discuss Wiki critically. Get a premie to say something critical about Rawat though. As I already said in this thread, Wiki certainly has some problems, what organisation doesn't, but there are amazing things about it too. What I said is that it shouldn't call itself an encyclopedia because that is misleading. I'll go even further to say that if it was organised just a little bit differently it would be a lot better. The founding mothers want to believe in a perfect self-correcting system that practically doesn't work. In that sense it reminds me of Marxism. Just give the people the right political system and they will automatically become better people. But it is people who created the uglier systems in the first place and these same people will continue to corrupt any utopia that doesn't account for the inherent anti-social qualities we all possess.
Wow, I can't believe I just said that. Kind of philosophical in a way. Scarey.
|
|
|
|
Andries, Aunt Bea said it so well but I'll just say it too. Jossi started the ad hominem attacks immediately by invoking and quoting from John MacGregor's affidavit which said far worse stuff than simply calling someone a liar. Considering the circumstances under which that affidavit was sworn, just doing that alone was disgusting and profane. The cult forced him to write those words with his own blood and spinal fluid. I'm sorry but that was one hell of a way for Jossi to raise the ante. Second, even if he hadn't done any of that, he was indeed a gross, bald-faced liar over what Rawat said and what he meant. To deny that Rawat called himself the Perfect Master is as scandalous as denying that he's from India. Jossi deserved to be called a liar then. In fact, if there was any common sense or justice in Wikipedia, he deserved to be thrown off that article forever. Third, even when I tried to simply "play the ball", despite the fact that Jossi kept wilfully hitting it off the court and into the bushes, he provoked, ridiculed and insulted my ability to read, my ability to think. I guess that's okay though, huh? At a certain point in a discussion, if someone's playing you for a fool, which is just what he was doing to me, to not call the person on it is to be their patsy, their sucker. Can't you appreciate that? As for "conspiracy theories", I'm not sure what you're talking about. That other goofball, Errol, kept saying that "people [he] trusts", who he refuses to name or even describe, tell him that Mishler's interview was not originally presented on EPO as authentic. What am I supposed to think other than that he's either a premie or in bed with them? His allegation's baseless but what's most telling is his refusal to say who he's getting his infro from and why he trusts them. What's YOUR theory about that?
Modified by Jim at Sun, Feb 19, 2006, 14:29:37
|
|
|
|
Most of what you wrote on the talk page has been edited in by me with the references that you gave. And guess what? It has stayed.
You could have written on the talk page without being abusive something like The following should be in the article. - Rawat claimed to be a Perfect Master (Wood interview Boston Globe)
- Rawat said that a Perfect Master is an incarnation of God (Tokyo 1972)
In such a way you can improve the article and follow etiquette without getting banned. Andries
Modified by Andries at Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 13:41:59
|
|
|
|
Andries, After being ridiculed by Jossi as I was (referred to above), told I couldn't think or read straight, for instance, would it be fair for me to now demand a Wikapology from him, given the edits you've made that have stayed as you mention? Would that be abusive? The point is, Jossi should suffer some consequence for his rude, deceitful sophistry, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
Most of what you wrote on the talk page has been edited in by me with the references that you gave. And guess what? It has stayed. Andries, Here's the current version of the opening paragraph: Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born December 10, 1957 in Dehradun in India),[1] reportedly started addressing audiences at the age of three and gave his first published address when he was only four. He suceeded his father and teacher Hans Ji Maharaj when he passed away in 1966, and was accepted by his father's followers as a satguru (Sanskrit: true teacher) and "Perfect Master". He became the recognized leader of the Divine Light Mission, and started taking his message to people throughout the Indian subcontinent[2] [3]. At thirteen, he was invited to speak in London and Los Angeles. At that time he attracted substantial media attention as the young Guru Maharaj Ji, a title he dropped later on. During the 1980s, Prem Rawat began the slow dissolution of the Divine Light Mission, and eventually stepped away from the image of himself as a "Perfect Master."[4] He continued to appear to audiences as Maharaji, a teacher. At that time a minimal organization was established in several countries called Elan Vital with the main purpose of organizing events to which he is invited to speak. (my emphasis) Given the cult's bullshit revisionism to the effect that all these titles and claims were imposed on Rawat and eventually he cast them off, it's critical that the article states not that Rawat "was accepted" as Perfect Master but rather that he claimed to be such. The quotes prove it.
|
|
|
|
it does further downwards. The lead section should be a summary of the whole article. May be the claim should go in the summary, I dunno. Andries
|
|
|
|
Andries, Given the fact that premies make such a big deal about how this title and others were foisted on Rawat, the article should clearly state right up front that Rawat called himself the Perfect Master. No wiggle room, in other words.
|
|
|
