|
|
|
Here's the quotes from EPO for reference: "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)
Daniella says this: I really don't have much time to answer your request for "proof" that the quote you copied is a collection of quotes from different sat-sangs, some of which not by Maharaj ji, but I will do my best. That "quote" (yes, it has quotes at the beginning and at the end, purportedly said in sequence in the same sat-sang and assigned to the guru) includes out of context portions from the so-called "peace bomb" sat-sang, interspersed with portions of a sat-sang by her mother Mata Ji, given in 1972 In Switzerland ( "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" page 294 to 298). It also includes the Guru Purnima mantra "Guru Brahma Guru Vishnu Gurudeva Maheshwara//Guru Sakshat Para Brahman//Tasmay Sri Guruve Namah". FYI, the term "Supreme Master" was mostly used by her mother and one of his brothers, but never by Maharaj ji himself.
It seems that she may be right about the last part of the quote. According to what you've posted down below, that seems to be a quote of Mata Ji's, not Rawat's. In which case it shouldn't be in a section of Rawat quotes. I'm sure whoever put that page up, likely John or Jean Michel, didn't mean to mislead but it does have that effect. But where does the first part come from? Can you find that please? I don't think she's right at all about it just being a quote from some mantra. Mind you, even if it is and Rawat said it in satsang it wouldn't make any difference. But it would still be nice to know where it came from. Daniella's other point, after she wrote the above, was this: OTOH, at the beginning of the section "The Questions" (a question and answer session;page 83 to page 99 of the same book), there are various very straightforward statements made by the guru: Page 83 - Question: "Guru Maharaj Ji: Who are you? Answer: "Who am I?" I'm just an ordinary humble servant of God, preaching the gospel of peace in the world, preaching the Knowledge of peace. Am I anything else? You are seeing my body, but I am not my body. What I am is something else inside of me. What are you? You are not your body, you are something else." Page 84 - Question: "Do you regard yourself as being a teacher of a new religion, or do you regard yourself as God or the Son of God? Answer: "A rose does not say "I am a rose." People who see it say it is a rose. This is the question I always get on television and on all the news programs, "Why people say you are God?" And I say, "I don't say I am God. People see something in me and they think I am God" Right? On page 18 there is another statement about the subject: Question: "Guru Maharaj Ji, are you God?" Answer: "No, My Knowledge is God" What is very revealing is that in the narratives of the ex-premies, you will never find these quotes. I will respond to your other questions next weekend. --Daniella 05:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Modified by Mike Finch-Admin at Sat, Mar 04, 2006, 01:38:08
|
|
|
|
This is pretty clear -- exact quote from Rawat in a cult publication. "The Lord all powerful."
Modified by Joe at Mon, Feb 27, 2006, 14:53:31
|
|
|
|
Here's a perfect example of Rawat's little game and yes, it's also on EPO in the quotes section. In other words, it's all there, part of the ex-premie "narrative", as Daniella would say. It's part of the Alta Loma Q&A session: You can see how Rawat plays this out, teasing his audience with the "truth" of who he really is: Who is Satguru? Gu means darkness and Ru means Light. One who brings us away from darkness into Light is called Guru. You were going to tell us who the Satguru was? The thing is: how much love you have for the Satguru. Who is Satguru? [Four people ask] Satguru is one who brings us away from darkness into Light, Light of Truth. I have a question. Yesterday you said that we know what Knowledge is at initiation, but we don't know who Satguru is. What did you mean by that? Because when a man knows who Satguru is, he dedicates his whole life. How do we find out who Satguru is? How do you find out that what you are drinking is water and not something else? Then you will say that 'Yes, what I am drinking is something else instead of water.' But no, it is water. You know the effects. You know that it is not poison -- it is water. It is very easy to know that. It is very easy, because where Satguru will come, He will give that Knowledge to people. Wherever Light will go, darkness will be buried there. Then and there. Is there a living Satguru? Always. The living one is called Satguru. Manifest? That we can talk to? Yes. Who is He? I won't tell you that (laughter). First of all you want hints from the master. Then after hint you want answer paper from master. After answer paper, you even want question paper. You won't get that. And even if you have question paper, you want answer paper also. Can you do that in school? I thought that the Knowledge was all that we needed, and now I think that people are expecting you to do something. Knowledge is! Knowledge is what you should have. But if you want to know about Satguru, who is He, then I should tell you. Otherwise, no. Yes! Yes! Yes! Why do you want to know about Satguru? Why do you want that: Who is Satguru? To increase our devotion. To replace faith with certainty. To jump off the wheel of birth and death. I've heard that the Satguru is necessary if one wants liberation from the wheel of birth and death. One needs the Grace of the Satguru. Okay. So no more questions? No more questions? Because I will tell you about Satguru, and if you have any questions or doubts in your mind, then you will repel what I have said to you. Yes? Shouldn't we give our devotion to God? What is God? Well, Guru is a personification of God in the Earth, right? I told you yesterday: 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? I want that the general should sign some papers. I need not go to his office when he is sitting in my home. Is it necessary to go in his office when his is sitting in my home? When God has come here, then what is the need to give devotion to God there? Why didn't Jesus say -- or does it say in the Bible anywhere -- that He would manifest Himself again? For future generations, so they could have a living God? He has said, He has given you a hint, but you want everything in a perfect state. He has given you a hint -- you don't recognize that hint. In Mark, Chapter 13, he says that One would come after him, not the son, not an agent, not a messenger, but the Father. I think in Srimad Bhagavat Gita, it is written that He will come full, He Himself will come. That first when He came, particularly to some places He saved; but now because He will come to save the whole world, He will Himself come, full. Why so puzzled? It is a very fortunate thing for the people of this age that He Himself, full, will come. Or has come. Yes? Doesn't it say He will come with a shout through the clouds? Not at all. Not at all. I came by airplane! (laughter) When I came there were clouds, many, many clouds. But the whole world would hear the shout in the clouds. Yes, when a plane comes it makes too much noise. That's not a shout. How many people will see Him? How many people will see Him? People don't have time even to see airplane. And somebody is driving in highway and he is seeing up that God is coming in the helicopter? He won't come like that. Are you saying that you're Jesus then? No, I am not saying I am Jesus. Now, come on! Rawat's playing such an obvious game and a classic one for him. We exes know this game inside out. the premies know it too but they won't be honest about it. As for Daniella, either she's very ignorant of her subject matter and should be better educated before she pontificates another word more or she's as diningenuous as the premies. So you're saying He will come like that ... You see, if I write that God will come from Earth, break the Earth, so many people will believe it. So many people will believe me. When He clearly says that 'I am the son of God,' and 'I and my Father are one,' people never believe. If He comes, then people will say that 'No, he is a magician.' And if suppose He comes, then what will he give you? A plane is going in the sky -- catches fire. People are forced to take parachutes down. They are coming down. While there are midway, plane bursts. Loud noise comes. And then they see that people are coming down. All people die, except one is coming down. So you believe that he is Christ? There was a shout also, there is a coming also ... Yes! It is written here. Are you seeing if it is the same soul because there will be a mark on his head? That soul -- his name will be on his head? 'Yes, soul of that man is this, this, this and from there, transmitting from this, from this in this, in this ...' So the name will be carved in his head? That's right? How will you know who he is? Who were you before? Do you know? Before you were born. Before body. Can you know that? Then how can other man also know that you were that? Otherwise they would have easily known where the Frankenstein's soul had gone. And then they would have caught him: 'What was your condition? How did you come to an accident? What is the matter?' But they couldn't know. They were not able to know that. Nobody knows who he was before, who was he before, who was he before. Because the name is not carved out. Your soul has got no name. So you can't know who you were before. What would happen to a person who has realized this Knowledge that you have given to them? Is he still your disciple? Or one with you? When he will get this Knowledge, he will have permanent Peace all that life. Understood? First of all, that devotion is such a thing -- if you are a devotee, and your devotion is actual, real, wherever Guru goes in the world, South Pole or North, America or India, it follows Him. Devotion will follow Him. If you are not a real devotee, you can't have a real devotion, and your devotion can't follow Him. You must follow Him? Or your devotion must follow Him? No, your devotion will follow Him. You see, you can't see devotion. When real devotee calls me, from real heart, then it comes. The torch should light always? But, no. Until the button won't be on, the torch won't light. Everything is there. Any more questions? Is it true that if for some reason the disciple leaves the Master, that the Guru will never desert the disciple? If he is a disciple. And you don't become a disciple just by taking Knowledge. You become a disciple when you do meditation on it. If you are doing meditation, you can't be away. Dog's chain -- dog wants to go there, he is free to go there. When he sees him there, master does like that (pulls on chain). So you can be -- that is just if you are doing meditation regularly. See, dog thinks that 'Yes, I am free. Now I can run.' He runs, but chain is there; master pulls. Yes? Is it not true that the Satguru is within us all, within our hearts? God is within your heart. Guru is outside. God is within us all, but His highest manifestation takes place outside. Then He opens this medium to see, look, inside. He says that what you are seeing -- Krishna says that 'What you are seeing is nothing, is only the body like you have, and I. So if you want to see me, look inside, who I am.' Then he gave him that technique. Yes. Is there in reality anything other than God? This maya. But maya is illusion, right? Created by? Ignorance. It has been created by God, not ignorance. It is looked at with ignorance, through ignorance. This has been created by God. We look at it through ignorance. But that still sounds as though it were a dualistic thing, God created maya. What is maya? What is maya? The illusion -- the attachment and attraction to the illusion. This is the thing: Bend your desires in which are going outside and this whole world will become okay. This whole maya -- you will realize what this maya is. Krishna says that 'People believe that I am this maya. I am in this maya, but never believe that I am maya. I am away from maya; realize me. You can't realize me, who I am, if you are in this maya. Take your mind away from maya; then you will realize who I am.' How do you define maya actually? What do you actually think maya is? Rupee? Money? No, the attachment to what you see ... Attachment was created through you. You were the medium of attachment. Break that attachment. Then when the attachment is broken, there is nothing other than God? That was the question I had. Yes, Shore is left; then sea comes. 'Maya is chaya' Charanand Ji says, 'Maya is chaya.' Maya is shadow. And when sun rises, then shadow goes. Light comes; shadow goes. Light comes, maya goes. God comes, God is Light; maya goes. Till then, maya is completely with you. Yes? Is there a way that you can change the vibrations of this into pure energy, so that one becomes energy? You see, the source of creating imperfect energy, vibration, is mind. If mind is converted into pure vibration, everything will be converted into pure vibration. Mind is the leak in the pipe; people are just sometimes opening it fat, or sometimes closing it, or sometimes opening to the source when the water has stopped coming. Look in the middle, the leak is there. water is leaking from there. So if you want to change vibration, you have to change your source of vibration. Any more questions? Yes? When we remember the Name, are we devoting ourselves to you? Actually, everything will include telling about Satguru: What is devotion? Who is He? How should we give devotion to Him? What is service to Him? Service to Him is service to humanity. Why does He come into this world? And who is He? Every important question. There is even very important question of the world. Any more questions? Yes? What's the difference between service to God and service to Satguru? You know what is God and what is Satguru? Do you know? First know the definition of God, and then know the definition of Satguru. And then make out the difference. Any more questions? Does Satguru forgive sins? Yes. Any more questions. Can you give the definition of God and the definition of Satguru? I can give it; it will include what I want to tell you. But you don't want to listen. Maybe you want to listen to it, but there are many here who don't want to. Any more questions? Every question -- time is delay. I am marking a date: 1978. I will come in 1978 then. Maybe 1978, 1979, 1980, I will come to Los Angeles.
Related link: http://ex-premie.org/papers/altaloma.htm
|
|
|
|
While her ad hominems are as unreliable as anybody elses. On the other hand, ex-premies know that Prem did claim to be an incarnation of God and naturally enough only quote those passages that show this. It is the premie's role to provide those quotes that show the opposite.
It is interesting to me that Daniella would also demand to see a quote from Prem stating he is the Perfect Master. Any outside observer looking at the evidence would see that of course he is the "Perfect Master". If everybody else who had any connection (as a believer) with DLM believed it and the organisation's publications accepted it and even stated it openly why would there be any controversy? The whole shebang would have been completely ridiculous if he wasn't. In retrospect, it is also interesting that apparently he only ever said it directly on TV. Someone has said he said it on US TV and I'm pretty sure he answered a question on Australian TV about being the Perfect Master with the shtick about a Maths master, etc. It's not as if he ever said "I am not the Perfect Master. They've all got it wrong. Really the real Perfect Master is alive and well back in India and I'm just pretending for the free ice cream". He definitely said there can only ever be one live Perfect Master at a time and that he was the one. And he gave the details of how he became SatGuru which was the synonym for Perfect Master.
"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.
That (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 all the mahatmas
present, prostrated at the feet of the Perfect Master and
received his blessings. Who could possibly say he didn't claim to be the Perfect Master, Satguru, Lord of the Universe, etc after reading that. Unless he was suffering early onset schizophrenia with voices in his head telling him he was God.
|
|
|
|
Daniella's analysis is all off and, as I showed with the Alta Loma satsang on EPO, she doesn't understand the game Rawat played with his identity and only makes a fool of herself by accusing us of distorting that part of the story. But I wonder where she's getting her ideas from. Here's the first time she told Andries that the quotes weren't Rawat's: You have been mislead. Maharaji did not wrote the above, as you say... This is a good example of the strenuous efforts made by the publisher of that website to attempt to prove that point. What you quote above is not one continuous excerpt from Prem Rawat from that book, but a potpourri of quotes strung together, some of which are not from Prem Rawat at all. Some portions are from a sat-sang by his mother, some others by the editor of the book, some others from Brahmananda, and some others by Prem Rawat. In my study of these ex-followers, this is a recurring theme: their passionate holding to certain beliefs related to their interpretation of their past, as a way to rationalize their antagonism and as a way of constructing specific narratives that support these beliefs. The person that put together that "quote" had a very specific purpose in mind: to mislead people like you into thinking that Rawat actually said that, and he has obviously succeeded. This is a very interesting development that is being studied in Sociology of Religion: the ease in which these narratives can be constructed (and replicated!) thanks to the self-publishing empowerment facilitated by the Internet. --Daniella 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, she got the Mata Ji part right but the rest? I don't see where the "editors of the book" come in, let alone "Brahamananda". Do you? Also, by discounting the quotes as a "potpourri of quotes strung together" she's implying that they're either taken out of context or otherwise misleading. There's no more basis for that complaint than there is for her silly "reductio ad absurdum" one. But I would like to know where the whole first paragraph comes from.
|
|
|
|
>You have been mislead. Maharaji did not wrote the above, as you say... Setting aside that grammar and spelling may be undervalued these days in the wacky world of critical discourse, what planet is Daniella coming from? A neutral student of 'the Sociology of Religion', apparently. So what gives her the confidence or authority to pronounce from on high about us or our motivations when she clearly hasn't spoken directly to any ex-premie who was around during the Glory Days. From my own dealings with sociologists, eye-witness / ear-witness, 'vox-pop' evidence is often treated as the most valid - especially when there’s a lot of it. (As it would be, say, for a historian stumbling on long-lost diaries of a servant at the court of Henry VIII) Sociology doesn’t aspire to rocket science. It's about cultural trends, ideas, power structures and, mostly, people and their experiences. If cults are your focus, then any first-hand authority is an essential data source if comments are referenced and sources traceable. Sociologists usually love padding out their research papers with the stuff... [‘Prem Rawat promised to deliver me from darkness to light, death to immortality – and you can quote me on that’, Nigel Longhurst, 2006, reporting the ‘Knowledge Vows’ he took in 1978.] Never mind how we 'construct our narratives' (choke!), how the effing hell is Daniella constructing hers – from Jossi’s patent 'Eezy-Assembly, Prem Rawat Understanding Kit - no experience necessary!' ? It makes me wonder whether Daniella hasn't herself been touched by the dragon's breath somewhere along the way.
Modified by Nigel at Mon, Feb 27, 2006, 12:36:48
|
|
|
|
It's really hard for me to buy that anyone without a vested interest would pour over old GMJ satsangs. Either she is a premie, possibly even a long term one, or s/he is romantically involved with one would be my guess. No one with an unbiased perspective would proccess the information the way she is. I wouldn't waste to much time on her.
Modified by Susan at Mon, Feb 27, 2006, 11:23:14
|
|
|
|
>No one with an unbiased perspective would proccess the information the way she is. I wouldn't waste to much time on her.
You're probably right on this last point, too, Susan. I guess it depends on how important Wikipedia is in the bigger picture - but I know there are schoolkids (my own included) who treat it as gospel, use it for research and homework etc. I also suspect Daniella is a premie - maybe a premie with a sociology degree? But I'm sure no disinterested outsider could be so assertive or defensive on M's behalf.
|
|
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, Daniella's fake until proven otherwise. She's certainly ignorant and offensive. But that's beside the narrow point that concerns me which is that she seems to be right about at least some of that one extraction from WIGMJ? on the quotes page not being Rawat's own words but rather Mata Ji's. Obviously a mistake but a bit embarrassing, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
....as a second language the standard is good. IMO she is a premie who has been sent to Wiki to do "service" ( or has sent herself!).
|
|
|
|
A bit embarrassing, maybe, Jim. But how embarrassing? Maybe Prem should be equally embarrassed by having such a dysfunctionally proud mother. He could have denounced her, the rest of them, after the family split, if he didn't concur with the Hans clan's earlier perspective that God's love did indeed shine out of his own backside... Daniella's not vaguely interested in thinking properly about any of this. Susan's right - we're probably wasting our time, but I'm troubled by the way sensible people seem to regard Wikipedia as a reputable source. What hope for education or common sense?
Modified by Nigel at Mon, Feb 27, 2006, 13:43:30
|
|
|
|
Surely you agree that all quotes on EPO should be accurately attributed, don't you? That's all. In fact, in a way, it's got to be seen as a good thing that this error's come to light as I'm sure 1) it was unintentional and 2) it's a unique, isolated mistake. John and JM have done a fantastic job on EPO and they have compiled a record there that's scrupulously accurate and beyond reproach. They've also invited any and all to point out any errors if and when noted. Well, it appears that one's finally come to light. This doesn't in any way validate the rest of Daniella's accusations (i.e. that Charles Cameron or other editors of WIGMJ? wrote some of that one quote in question or that it includes some part of a mantra from some guy named Bhramanand or that our every mention of Rawat claiming to be Lord of the Universe, etc. is a meaningless "Reductio ad Absurdum" or that ex-premies avoid mentioning the many times Rawat claimed to be just a human being in our ex-premie "narrative" . Indeed, I agree that she's probably fake and I don't take her at face value as Andries seems to do. But still ...
|
|
|
|
Am I confusing issues unnecessarily? I guess it depends on what is the common cause. If the broad truth is the common cause, then I see no confusion. But in terms of accredited sources, etc., you're probably right, Jim, and I agree John and JM have done a fantastic job in getting this stuff online. More power to their Franco-Latvian elbows, I say! But does this mean that EPO has to get more Wiki-savvy and self-censoring over every quote and sub-quote in future? I hope not. We were there. We are the living evidence with stories to tell.
Modified by Nigel at Mon, Feb 27, 2006, 14:31:23
|
|
|
|
If that was something Mata Ji said then its a valid point. Totally agree bad to attribute the wrong quote.
|
|
|
|
Ocker, I agree with you that there are all sorts of things that were done and said by Rawat and the secondary and tertiary supporting actors in his show to further the notion that he was God. But there is a specific issue in that subject about what exactly Rawat himself said. In particular, did he say this as is quoted and attributed to him on EPO: "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." [1] I was home earlier and looked but couldn't find my copy of the book but if you've checked as you indicate below and some of these lines are really Mata Ji's, not Rawat's, then that seems like an error on EPO because the quotes are in the section of Rawat's quotes, no one elses. I'm sure John or JM didn't mean to mislead anyone, of course, but that's got to be corrected. Daniella also says: I really don't have much time to answer your request for "proof" that the quote you copied is a collection of quotes from different sat-sangs, some of which not by Maharaj ji, but I will do my best. That "quote" (yes, it has quotes at the beginning and at the end, purportedly said in sequence in the same sat-sang and assigned to the guru) includes out of context portions from the so-called "peace bomb" sat-sang, interspersed with portions of a sat-sang by her mother Mata Ji, given in 1972 In Switzerland ( "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" page 294 to 298). It also includes the Guru Purnima mantra "Guru Brahma Guru Vishnu Gurudeva Maheshwara//Guru Sakshat Para Brahman//Tasmay Sri Guruve Namah". FYI, the term "Supreme Master" was mostly used by her mother and one of his brothers, but never by Maharaj ji himself.
Related link: The Alta Loma Q&A session
|
|
|
|
Part of that stuff is in Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji as quotes from the 'Peace Bomb' Satsang, part of it is quotes from Mata Ji's satsang which is pretty well the last thin gin the book bar Cameron's last word and I don't know where the rest comes from.
It seems that the direct quote comes from an open letter from Kahn to Prem Rawat in which he joined various quotes.
|
|
|
|
Can I add a bit here. I really do appreciate the scholarship that is going down here, but it all looks like a re-enactment of something that went down in Christianity 17 hundred years ago between the Arians and the Athenasians. Personally I came down on the side of the Arians for the simple reason that it is too easy for Authority to force dogma using a mind bending abstraction like "well actually jesus is two things at the same time, but only one really"-the Athanasian viewpoint. Arians I'm told wanted it clearly understood that what Jesus said was what he said and no messing with abstractions.Of course this is a controversial rendering in some quarters. Apparantly the two sides slaughtered each other regularly. And also apparantly both sides thought they were supporting orthodoxy. The Athanasians "won" though. In us brought up christian types such conflicts might linger. Perhaps we are all eincarnated third century monks finnishing of unfinished business. It really is infuriating that the door of reason is always open for use by the opposition. Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
>I really do appreciate the scholarship that is going down here< Sadly it really doesn't matter how much scholarship is done when the context is the 'everything is relative' environment of Wikipedia where 'sophistry' is treated as the equivalent of intellectual inquiry. Arianism - and lets not forget good old Pelasgius - was simply too demanding a philosophy, after all what is the point of a religion if you can't give up personal responsibility to some monocentric theo-arch who will run your life for you ? Nik
|
|
|
|
Yes yes! Give me one of those immediately! And one each for all my friends.Great stuff Nigel. Actually my slapdash scholarship makes me genuinely admiring of the real thorough people-I have to say this. Ron geaves,I know and have emailed with, and he makes the pretence (imo) of being thoroughly interested in finding the best methodology for the study of religion. The fact that the arians slaughtered the athanasians by the thousand reminds my of just how tough you have to be to make an enduring point in these issues. I am not tough. The communication situation seems heavily loaded on the side of the charismatic one-Jesus in this case. I mean he must have know that he was being ambiguous at the time, and all the rest then follows on to his advantage. Mind you getting youself crucified must be considered a bit of a new direction in the study of the technique of making your point! Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
Hi Bryn, Wee correction: it was Nik, not me, you were replying to. I wouldn't know what a 'Monocentric Theo-Arch' was even if I was consummating my marriage beneath one... (Which reminds me, thanks to the Guardian freebie, I've got the Wicker Man to watch on DVD tonight - Hmm, how sad, sick and joyful!) Nige, the willingly irredeemable
Modified by Nigel at Mon, Feb 27, 2006, 12:24:00
|
|
|
|
Jim, there's a big clue in the mis-spelling of his name: "Maharjai" - try a Google search on that and see what you get.The earliest reference that I could find to the passage, as quoted, is from the Forum 3, dated Fri, Apr 10, 1998, here:
http://www.ex-premie3.org/archives/archive.cgi?arch=f3a2e#P00U9 but make sure you're sitting down before you read it!
Related link: http://www.ex-premie3.org/archives/archive.cgi?arch=f3a2e#P00U9
Modified by cq at Mon, Feb 27, 2006, 12:08:37
|
|
|
|
Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:31:08 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: NV
Subject: Repost to NV ('don't brag') from below
Message:
[All you have to do is leave out one little thing and you're italicized forever. That would have been more than enough of an excuse to launch into satsang back when. Yechh!] Pathetically lame? Seething anger and dull sense of humor? Nah, it's in fact an example of raw sarcasm resulting from such a presumtuous question being asked by someone who seems to think they've got it all figured out, but who really hasn't. Which by the way seems to be a common trait of the principle contributors of this forum. Come on Jim, be fair. Maharaji has told some pretty funny jokes over the years. As for an answer, I'm standing on my own experience of life as filtered through the subjective doors of my perception. How about you, you standing on anything that's not built of selectively filtered perceptions? Would you know if they were? Come on, honestly with no bravado please. Really, NV, there's no point going on about your 'raw sarcasm'. Everyone knows that's what it was. You have to admit, though, it fell a little flat. Look, I'm a funny guy myself. But even I blow it sometimes. Don't feel bad. Go inside. So, NV, just when I thought I'd ruined it with all my premie friends, you come along and want to talk. Grace? Who can say? But, yes, I'll talk with you. I'll start by answering your questions to me, as an act of arguably gratuitous good faith, in the hopes that finally the Lord almighty may have sent me a premie unafraid of discussion. This is exciting. Has Maharaji told some pretty funny jokes over the years? Well, let's see. I've got to admit I don't have all his videos. My time frame really lasts only as far as the early 80s with some subsequent spot checks. Did Maharaji make me laugh? Yes, Maharaji made me laugh. When I first heard him speak, I chuckled a lot. Why? I think it was the obvious and fantastic juxtaposition of this breezy, faux-Yankee slang coming out of the mouth of a 14-year old Indian who was, by the way, God. 'Holy cow,' we all thought (I know 'cause we told each other again and again and again),'who'd ahve thought the Lord would come like this?' (In retrospect, what amazes me about all that was how quickly we fell into thinking that the 'Lord' would come at all but, alas, we did.) So anything he said was both startlingly fresh (for the Lord that is), profound and mind-shattering. If humour's whatever mixes up your expectations and confronts your worldview and laughter's an evolved reaction to that shakeup, just believing in Maharaji was, quite literally, funny. It shocked our mind. We were into it for that reason. We were into shocking our mind. Remember how the mahatmas used to say-- I think it was my old tennis partner (okay, everyone's old tennis partner), Gurucharanand -- remember how they used to say that we are all 'women' to the Lord? Well, he might also have said we're all slaves, sycophants, hotel clerks and Ed McMahan's (sp?). We sat there through his many, many 'extemporaneous discourses' searching for anything, just any small thing to set our minds on. Tell me, after you'd heard the Superman comic story eight or ten times, what did you think about when he told it? 'When, oh Lord, will this end?' 'Come on, Maharaji, I love you so much, please take away this mind of mine that even now, even now, Lord, in this obviously special moment, finds you boring as hell?' 'I'm so glad I don't have to go back to that fucking xxxx community and that I'm finally being transferred to a town where there's a decent chance I'll get full-time service and won't have to get a job.' What did you think about? Oh, I know, the real devotees, unlike assholes like me, didn't think anything. They just sat there and soaked up the grace. Or, if they thought anything it was a very quiet purring 'Yes, Maharaji, Yes! I'm with you, My Lord, tell it like it is. Yes, I'll shut up even these thoughts so I can feel you here, with me now. Oh yes!' Sometimes, when he cracked a lame joke, it gave all our minds a chance to actually latch on to something. For a brief moment, becuase he'd made afunny and wanted us all to enjoy it, we could relax and, yes, for that briefest moment, it WAS the words after all. So, surprise, surprise, we laughed. But, NV, I'll tell you something. Those jokes weren't that funny. Didn't you ever have the experience of taking someone new to satsang and briefly watching the movie or video or even the Lord himself, if that's where you were, through their eyes? Didn't you then see something a little funny going on? Didn't you notice the premies laughing a bit too hard? Couldn't you then tell, if you hadn't noticed already, that they were laughing a little too earnestly? You know, since then, I've noticed that all closed-authoritarian groups I've ever had a chance to observe (a few, nothing special, just a few) have demonstrated the same symptom. I'm really trying to be fair and I kind of think that there might have been one or two times when Maharaji really said something funny. I kind of remember REALLY laughing. But even that may be wishful thinking on my part. Please, NV, could you give us just a couple of Maharaji's great jokes over time? (Here's a joke I heard yesterday that I thought really funny. Mabe you've heard it. If not, tkae your shoes off, unplug the phone and get the wife. Pour yourself a diet drink and check this out: what happens when you play a country music record backwards? [Answer at end of post]) Next, N, if I can call you that, you aksed me about growing up black in a white man's world. (No, I'm kidding. It's just that I keep typing 'aksed' instead of 'asked'. Hey, where's that token black premie, Marshall what-his-name?) No, seriously you asked me if I could ever say I'm standing on anything that's not built of selectively filtered perceptions? And, how would I know anyway? My answer's simple. I didn't invent logic. I didn't invent rationality. Maybe that too is simply a false presumption of the dominant running-dog capitalist patriarchal 'old' way of thinking but, guess what? I don't think so. I think there's a lot of evidence for a world that's independent of our cultural vagaries, a world that does indeed call for rationality (e.g. if it's raining, take your umbrella) and rewards logic. I think there's ample evidence that we've evolved to be rational beings and, that logic, accordingly, is essentially hard-wired. SOOOOOO, relying on logic, I look at Maharaji and ask myself a whole lot of questions. I ask him a whole lot of questions, too, and can't help but note that he generally won't anser and, perhaps more importantly, when he HAS ansewred, his answers have stunk of deception and embarrassment. Then I consider the stories of those who have known him better than I ever did. I DO put some serious weight on the Mishler interview. Ain't it a pity, you must ask yourself, that Misher didn't live longer than he did? Well, I know what you mean. I feel that way too. I then consider the entire lineage of Ride-my-pony gurus which you, too, can read about on David Lane's web page and which unceremoniously describes the history of the guru business in modern India. It's like reading about the garment industry. (Did you know that so-and-so once was a designer for so-and-so before they started their own now-'legendary' company?). And then I talk with premies like you. I realize thorugh these dialogues just what kind of sacrifice your continued faith costs you in terms of honesty, depth and common sense and, I tell you, form where I'm sitting, it don't look pretty. If I'm 'in my mind' as we used to say (and you likely stil do), I'm also in my body. They're both integral parts of me. Maharaji tried, at one time, to cut me off from both. Please, don't quibble. There's no denying it. He never expected to let me enjoy any of the fruits of this world. I had to wrestle my freedom away from him. From where I'm looking, he's just a despicable snake in the grass. Make that snake on the dias. Snake on the podium. Snake at the mike. Maybe, if you see him for what he really is next time you go to pay your deepest respects and seek a little direction is this tricky, tricky world. Maybe, then, you'll find a whole new vein of humour you'd never expected. As for my questions -- would you please explain the following quotes of Maharaji's:
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 Maharj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destoryer 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? Yes, I guess you could say he can be funny at times. [Oh yeah -- Answer: your wife doesn't leave you, you don't lose your house and your dog comes home. I thought it was funny]
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
|
|
|
|
What happened in 1975 was that Mishler tried to help make Rawat brave enough to step off the Perfect Master bandwagon and present himself as something sort of like what he presents himself as today. We all saw that change begin to happen in 1976. Rawat got his award as a humanitarian leader from Strom Thurmond. The recieving line instead of darshan line, the focus on the premies making more of their own lives, and helping other people, instead of just service to the guru. It stopped, and stopped abruptly. Someone could date the change back to devotion better than I could but I believe it was Rawats birthday in 1976. Atlantic City? And he began to berate us for our LACK of devotion and being pulled away from all that. The idea that Rawat was somehow forced to but on the crown and mala and start giving those guilt inducing satsangs is just completely at odds with the facts of what happened and enfuriating. According to Mishler, Rawat got scared. He saw that when premies didn't believe he was "divine" the donations fell off and Rawat had a wife and new baby and expensive habits. He said that it was Rawat and only Rawat that moved DLM back into the mega devotional cult it was. What is also interesting is that Michael Dettmers came to a similar crossroads eventually with Rawat. He also encouraged him to take steps toward evolving his message to be less devotion focused. I think that was in the early eighties. At least two men who became very close to Rawat as a person, and confidants, both had to part ways with him because Rawat refused to do the very thing he is saying is what he wanted all along.
|
|
|
|
Hi Susan, You're right, it was Christmas 1976 in Atlantic City, New Jersey that he began the demand for devotion. I remember it very clearly. That was the beginning of his demand for total surrender and devotion to him, and when premies started going back into ashrams all over the place. 1977 was the year he stated having many, many programs, and darshan $$$$$$ lines. He never stopped that until he had his Boeing 707 finished, which was 1981 or so, at least. Hope you're well,  Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Mon, Feb 27, 2006, 13:15:19
|
|
|
|
Ocker, thanks for your humorous portrayal of the various opinions I think that you cannot lump the opinions of Rawat apologists and Daniella together. Hereunder I try to summarize them. Please do not shoot the messenger and please correct me if I have misrepresented their opinions. Rawat apologists try to deny or to minimize the wrongdoing by Rawat and try to put all the blame for claims of divinity and other things that went wrong on the culture, the youth of Rawat etc. At least apologists argue that some things that went wrong are greatly outweighed by the correction by Rawat in the 1980s of mistakes made in the past and that there is a core of authenticity in his teachings, though previously somewhat obscured by the Indian trappings. Or apologists try to deem the possible wrongdoing, such as his luxurious lifestyle as irrelevant. Part of the apologist stance is of course is that the claims of divinity were not made by Rawat or if they were made then it was only because of the heavy influence of his family and tradition upon the youthful Rawat. Daniella has, I believe, as she wrote, a sociological attitude to the matter. She argues that the stories about Maharaji and his claims were put into a hagiographic and messianic framework. Her reasoning is that the stories about Maharaji and about Maharaji's claims of divinity and messianic claims were (sometimes perhaps unwittingly) distorted and selectively copied and disseminated because there was a need among his family, the Mahatmas, and followers to fit them into this framework. Part of this theory is that the stories about the claims of Maharaji were greatly exaggerated by the community to fulfil this need. She argues that the claims made by Maharaji about himself were not so strong as presented by the DLM publications due to these distortions and this selective copying. It will be clear that in this respect her opinion is somewhat similar to Rawat apologists. Her theory sounds somewhat similar to the urban legends that are disseminated and selectively copied not because there is truth in these stories, but because there is a need in society for them. If I understand Daniella correctly then she believes that more or less the same phenomenon is going on among ex-premies here and now. She argues that ex-premies distort and selectively copy Maharaji's claims of divinity because it fulfils a need and fits into their framework and agenda of discrediting Maharaji. It is all part of The Politics of Religious Apostasy which is the title of a book edited by David G. Bromley that I have at home.
Of course, I have my own opinions about the arguments of Rawat apologists and the theories of Daniella and if time permits I will comment on them later. Andries (amended for grammar)
Modified by Andries at Sat, Mar 04, 2006, 05:20:58
|
|
|
|
Andries I sincerely hope you do not view apostasy in the same light as Bromley, Melton, Barker et al? That is in the light drawn through the experiences of many in the 70s and 80s when a lot of harm was done through the likes of Patrick and the deprogramming 'movement'. One of the problems with the likes of Bromley et al is that they paint things in extreme terms, as things were painted a long time ago. You know when terms such as brainwashing was used, but really when terms such as coercive persuasion is more appropriate. I think things have moved on quite a lot. T
|
|
|
|
"Brainwashing" might well be a term that can be considered inappropriate, considering that the techniques employed on those who fought in the Korean war (when the term was first coined, I believe) are far more extreme than anything any premie went through. But the various forms of "conditioning" (for want of a better term) that premies, past and present, have subjected themselves to - well, I would have said that to call that simply "coercive persuasion" would be a bit lame. That was until I looked up the dictionary definition of "COERCIVE". In which case, I've learnt something. The OCD defines the word "coerce" as a verb meaning to: "Forcibly constrain or impel (person) into quiet, obedience or any course; to use force, secure by force". Apparently it's derived from the Latin words "co" (with) and "arcere" (to shut up).
Personally, I'd use a phrase like "thought reform" to describe what we early premies experienced from the propaganda machine that promoted Guru Maharaj Ji. (With his approval? - who could deny it!)
Modified by cq at Sat, Mar 04, 2006, 09:06:37
|
|
|
|
T., I have so much to write and tell about this subject that I do not know where to start. But I agree with your statement that Bromley's recent writings are extreme, probably because they are mainly based on the past, though I admire his lucid writing style. I have not seen writings by Barker, in contrast to Melton and Bromley, that unfairly and inaccurately lump apostates together and make a caricature out of them and make untrue generalizations about their motivations. I am outraged by the writings about apostates by Melton (1998), Bromley (1998), and Bryan Wilson: they oppose making negative generalizations about cults and new religious movements and making a caricature of them, but they seem to have no qualms of doing exactly the same thing that they oppose about apostates, not just about organizations and groups, but about people. And that is extra unfair, because you can disaffiliate yourself from an organization, but I do not know how you can become an ex-apostate. To what writings by Barker are you referring to? Andries References - Melton "Finding Englightenment:Ramtha's School of ancient Wisdom" (1998)
- Bromley "Politics of religious apostasy" (1998)
Modified by Andries at Sat, Mar 04, 2006, 09:29:45
|
|
|
|
Then I think it would help a great deal to look at the video archives of that period. There is one that is especially helpful in seeing that the idea was somehow tricked, coerced or a patsy being forced to play the Supreme Being is just not credible. It is under the title Marolyn Foot Kissing on the video links and if anything could give you a feel for how he presented himself then in the mid and late 1970s its that. http://www.gurumaharaji.info/video/ Another thing Daniella would do if she is serious about researching the Ex Premie phenomenon would be to meet some of us. I think it would be also helpful to her to ask for the video that were shown to premies during that period ( Family of Love, Power of Love etc ) and the magazines of the period ( Elan Vital, And it is Divine, Divine Times ) and see them in their unedited context for herself. She could verify for herself if there was a widespread destruction of the evidence and ask the public relations at Elan Vital about that. I would be thrilled if Daniella really was an outsider. I still doubt it. But I would love to be wrong. If you can ask her to look at that video though Andries and then tell us how his mother or anyone manipulated him into "Guru Maharaj Ji is and always has been that supreme power" in the tone of voice that I find almost threatening. It is followed by M being crowned with the Krishna crown by his wife. He is obviously being worshipped( and encouraging the worship). It is quite clear and unmistakable. It would be a good test of her objectivity.
|
|
|
|
The simple fact that Rawat voluntarily wore the Krishna crown and encouraged premies to worship him well into the late 1970s (beyond too? - anyone know?) puts the lie to the suggestion that he was duped or forced into "playing" the role. He went along with it all the way, even after the family split into two factions in the mid 1970s.Here's a quote from Mataji: "First you enter primary school, and then the next, until finally you rise to the top. In the spiritual life too, there are many knowledges that you pick up, but they are all there to help you climb up still higher. And when you reach the top, the highest Knowledge, you find the Lord, the Perfect Master. He is the topmost teacher in the whole of spiritual education, and His teaching is the most divine, the most supreme. You cannot find it in these other things. He's the unique one, the principal, the head, the perfect. He can give you that Knowledge. So when you finish all your other classes, you come to the head and say, "Here I am, now I'm ready for you." Those other teachings all help you to climb, but they cannot bring you up to the height where Maharaj Ji is standing". Mata Ji, Mother of Guru Maharaj ji, on the 19th of May, 1972, at Concord, Massachusetts.
Related link: http://gallery.forum8.org/who_is_gmj.htm#lovers
Modified by cq at Sun, Mar 05, 2006, 03:32:27
|
|
|
|
"The simple fact that Rawat voluntarily wore the Krishna crown and encouraged premies to worship him well into the late 1970s (beyond too? - anyone know?) " At the Amaroo program in September 2002 Arti was sung. The words were projected onto the big screen next to the stage. Kabir
|
|
|
|
Kind of puts a different angle on all the EV/premie spin.Trouble is - for it to be included in Wikipedia, it's got to be documented. Did anyone take a photo?
|
|
|
|
Daniella writes that all gurus accept the devotion of followers. That may be true for most gurus, but I think the following must be kept in mind - The degree of devotion, like the Krishna crown, is more than shown to enlightened masters like Andrew Cohen or to missionary gurus from like Prabhupada
- Rawat was not merely a passive subject, but clearly and willingly encouraged it as can be seen by the setting
- It is okay to say that some actions of Rawat are sanctioned by tradition, as Daniella does, but associated with the guru rule are also duties, such a leading a lifestyle of modesty and asceticism as written down in the Bhagavad Gita to which Rawat refers in his teachings. So if you defend some of his actions by referring to tradition then you have to be consistent and accept that other aspects are to be condemned by tradition.
Andries
|
|
|
|
And all circus type revival preachers accept donations. They are all charlatans. I guess I really don't get Daniella's point.
|
|
|
|
On second thoughts I think that she is not the person who she claims to be for the following reasons - I read that the right way to do social research is presenting yourself to the people whom you want to investigate and asking people to fill in a questionnaire without revealing the underlying research question. Revealing it is not allowed because it may influence the results. She broke all these rules
- She has not been forthcoming about her background.
- I can't find the name "Daniella Samantha" with google
Andries
|
|
|
|
Hi Andries,
I missed your reply before.
Your summary of the "apologists" is fine.
My problem with Daniella is this: where did she get the evidence for her thesis that the claims of divinity and messianism of the family and the followers exceeded any such claims by Prem himself? If she came to her "study" of DLM with the thesis already settled in her mind then she is guilty of selective quoting of the sources to validate that theory.
If she had come with an open mind to study the question: "Did the family and followers of Prem Rawat make claims of divinity and messianism that exceeded any such claims by Prem himself due to their needs?" and then examine the source material (virtually all of which is published by "ex-premies" and most of which was destroyed on the orders of Prem Rawat) then she would have found that the thesis was false.
Prem's religious education came from his family as is the case with most people. Specifically he was taught, formally or informally and I suspect the latter, the tradition espoused by his father which is available in some form in the books and magazines of the Indian DLM some of which are available on ex-premie.org. Obviously the earlier western DLM sources, which are magazines and "Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji", will adhere more closely to his father's theology.
As his father died when he was still very young this education was superficial but he certainly didn't in any way contradict his father's teachings up until 1982 when he dissolved DLM and the ashrams. To this day Prem's "teachings" still agree with his father's in their essentials - only the language has changed and those aspects of his divinity and the required worship of the Satguru or Perfect Master which Shri Hans was very overt in demanding as was Prem until 1982 are no longer publicly stated though they still exist in reality. As they must if the "Knowledge" is to have any reality. The four meditation techniques by themselves are simple and as a method for the realisation might be considered risible (the breath technique is the one of the most widely used introductory methods of meditation and the 4th technique is frankly laughable) unless they actually are accompanied by the Divine Grace of Guru Maharaji or as it might be termed today Maharaji's inspiration.
Her argument re the ex-premies selective distortion only has validity if the selective quotations they are publishing did not reflect that actual reality of DLM. The complete discourses of Prem Rawat would fill libraries but only two types of quotations are relevant to the question at hand. PPrem's pre-1982 statements about his divinity and post-1982 statements denying he ever made claims of divinity. You have undoubtedly noticed that 99% of the selected quotes are statements re the divine powers of Guru Maharaji, Perfect Master, etc. The quotes selected by Jossi are those where Prem says he isn't God and unless one understands the theology of DLM and Shri Hans in which God is the underlying power/energy of the universe and Guru Maharaji is the incarnation in human form then these quotes will appear paradoxical. There are no quotes in which Prem says he isn't the Guru Maharaji. Sorry no more time at the moment. Jossi would try the patience of a saint and I wish to thank you again for your efforts in this area. I think that the overwhelming evidence for Rawat's divine claims will soon be collated thanks to your persistence and Jossi's insanity.
|
|
|
