|
|
|
At least I think it was you, come to think of it! 
|
|
|
|
Hi, he said yes I'm. I have it somewhere in my basement, it is printed in that Guru Puja book. I still have it. Maybe I should seek it and trade it at Ebay, maby Elan Vital is interested. wolfie
Modified by wolfie at Wed, Mar 01, 2006, 02:11:04
|
|
|
|
Hi wolfie Please could you find some time and send me a scan of this. The Gallery email address is on the Gallery homepage. Many thanks
Gallery
|
|
|
|
Hi, okay I give it a try and find it and then I have to learn how to scan it and sent it. It's true I never had scaned something before, so this is the main problem. I even have some old papers from some workshops in the times of Divine Light Mission but they are all in german, but with very intersting statemnents, what devotion is and what we can do to have more and more devotion and so on.
I personnally never believed that Rawat is God, that was too stupid for me. But I believed that he is a realized soul, what ever this might be, I believed that he is the Buddha or so of this century, but I wondered always why this super huper tuper tibetan monks don't get the vibe of the super tupper Maha. please give me some time to do that scanning.........ciao wolfie
Modified by wolfie at Wed, Mar 01, 2006, 04:27:26
|
|
|
|
This is really quite incredible as Rawat was as old as 25 or 26 when his organization published this. He had been in the west a full decade already. And he was free of his mother's "powerful influence" at least a full five years when he: - Refused to deny that he was divine when it was pointed out to him that some people actually made that claim. Instead, saying "You yourself must realize the truth" in the context of everything else he had to say, was tantamount to saying that yes, he actually was divine. There is no escaping the implication of that part of the interview.
And said that: - A Master (like himself, that was obvious too, that he was talking about himself -- completely undeniable) was the only "medium" by which one could know God.
- The reason Jesus cured people and he doesn't is because we have lots of doctors these days.
- Knowledge cures all disease.
- Knowledge eliminates karma.
- Knowledge makes one one with God.
- Knowledge saves us from rebirth.
- Knowledge takes us to heaven. (But careful now -- you can go but you can't come back!)
- He is like Krishna.
- He is the Perfect Saviour.
- He has come to save [premies? the world? us?] from nuclear bombs.
- He was in permanent God consciousness.
- He had merged with everything, become everything.
This completely flies in the face of the entire theme of the Wiki articles and other EV revisionist bullshit. Rawat was a grown adult running his own show when his one and only organization published this document with nothing in it but this one interview. It wasn't buried behind other "more important" articles, it was purposely printed to expressly communicate the various points above. Too much, eh?
Modified by Jim at Wed, Mar 01, 2006, 09:53:30
|
|
|
|
This is from the Wiki article on Prem Rawat: In an article named Journey that he published in his personal website on January 1999, Prem Rawat writes about this apparent contradiction: People through the years have tried to place me in a mold, and from the very early years I have not been able to oblige them. When I was very young, people were looking for the "old silver-haired Guru with flowing white robes." I was only eight. When people were flocking to India for their search, I was in the West. When people were looking for sophisticated discourses, I spoke of simple things. When people wanted nirvana, I said, "You need peace." When people said, "Tell us of the scriptures," I said, "Look within you." When people asked, "What is your qualification?" I said, "Judge me by what I offer." To this day, some people see me the way they want to. After all, I guess it is rather inconvenient to see things as they really are. I have evolved, but my message stays the same. Externally, I have changed but within me, something stays the same.
In that same article Rawat states that people wanted to see him as a figurehead and as a leader but that he does not want to be one or the other, and that all he wanted to do is speak to those who wanted to hear him, and impart the Knowledge to those that sought it. He also said that if people like what is given, to practice it and if not, to leave it.[13]
|
|
|
|
In fact that is just brilliant. Are you sure that Laurie didn't help you with that just a teensy bit?
|
|
|
|
I don't know what I was thinking but, of course, Rawat was "just 21" and 22 in '79, not 25 as I'd said. And he'd been in the west for six or seven years, not 10 either. But he was still an adult, no doubt about it. And he was still a good five or six years past the family split. There are no convenient scapegoats here. Rawat must wear it. All of it. Again, he: - Refused to deny that he was divine when it was pointed out to him that some people actually made that claim. Instead, saying "You yourself must realize the truth" in the context of everything else he had to say, was tantamount to saying that yes, he actually was divine. There is no escaping the implication of that part of the interview.
And said that: - A Master (like himself, that was obvious too, that he was talking about himself -- completely undeniable) was the only "medium" by which one could know God.
- The reason Jesus cured people and he doesn't is because we have lots of doctors these days.
- Knowledge cures all disease.
- Knowledge eliminates karma.
- Knowledge makes one one with God.
- Knowledge saves us from rebirth.
- Knowledge takes us to heaven. (But careful now -- you can go but you can't come back!)
- He is like Krishna.
- He is the Perfect Saviour.
- He has come to save [premies? the world? us?] from nuclear bombs.
- He was in permanent God consciousness.
- He had merged with everything, become everything.
|
|
|
|
Seriously, Jim well done. You know, there has been a lot of really good stuff on this forum recently, mostly just restating what we all know to be true, but in ways that make it clear to ANY idiot, and with actual proof. Proof and logic, however, do not matter in cult-land, but that may not be the important audience.
Modified by Joe at Wed, Mar 01, 2006, 16:52:26
|
|
|
|
Newly Discovered Documentary Evidence That Affects this Article's AccuracyI have recently found a 1979 booklet of questions and answers with Rawat printed and distributed by Divine Light Mission, Inc. which bears heavily on some of the issues central to this article. This document was published at least five years after the family split, seven or eight years after Rawat came to the west and when he was either 21 or 22 years old. In other words, at the time he uttered these statements, he was an adult who was long familiar with western culture, spoke good English and was very much his own man. Here are a few of the questions and answers: Some people say you are a divine incarnation, and some people say other things about you. What's the truth? You yourself must realize what is the truth. So God cannot teach anything, except through a Master? What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light. God is Power. God cannot talk. Electricity cannot give light, only the bulb gives light, but electricity has to be put through the wire for the bulb to give light. It's power. Power cannto do anything. It has to be put through a medium. Why does a Perfect Master have to have a living body to give Knowledge? Why is he necesssary? Are you feeling thirsty? Can you see that photo of Lord Shiva? You see the water coming out from the top of his head? Drink that water. Drink, drink. Can you? You can't drink that water. It is a picture. You need everything living. If you have doubts, you cannot ask Lord Krishna questions. What's why you need a living Master for the circumstances of this world today. When Jesus was here there were no nuclear bombs. But now there are nuclear bombs, and the Perfect Master, the Perfect Savior [sic], has come to save you from nuclear bombs. Is the living Master able to reveal Knowledge? Yes, that's why you call him a living Master. Guru Maharaj Ji, Jesus Christ performed many cures. Can you do the same? At His time there were not so many doctors, that's why he did that. But I am curing mental sickness. If you have got mental sickness, come to me. And when you do meditation, you become so natural that any other diseases you have are automatically cured. That's why I tell you this Knowledge is very practical. It makes people natural. They stop being plastic. They become natural and the best way of ending disease is by nature. What happens to a person's karma when they receive Knowledge? It starts choking up. It starts finishing up, because when you realize Knowledge, you've got to go and be one with God. Will this Knowledge save us from rebirth? Yes. Once we have this Knowledge we reach the heaven from where we cannot return. Guru Maharaj Ji, are you permanently in God consciousness? ......[torn page] ...permanently in God consciousness. The lower part of the last page in the book is intact and it's a quote that reads: "I have found that missing link. As soon as I found that missing link, I became one with everything. And therefore I became everything. Not as an individual but by merging into that infinite thing which has no beginning, which has no end, which cannot be destroyed. And I have that for you to experience." He signs this last quote: "Guru Maharaj Ji" I maintain that there are several aspects of the article that need to be corrected or, at minimum, balanced by this evidence. For instance, it flies in the face of the 1999 quotation from Rawat's then-website wherein he said: People through the years have tried to place me in a mold, and from the very early years I have not been able to oblige them. When I was very young, people were looking for the "old silver-haired Guru with flowing white robes." I was only eight. When people were flocking to India for their search, I was in the West. When people were looking for sophisticated discourses, I spoke of simple things. When people wanted nirvana, I said, "You need peace." When people said, "Tell us of the scriptures," I said, "Look within you." When people asked, "What is your qualification?" I said, "Judge me by what I offer." To this day, some people see me the way they want to. After all, I guess it is rather inconvenient to see things as they really are. I have evolved, but my message stays the same. Externally, I have changed but within me, something stays the same. Long after Rawat was "only eight" he was playing games about whether or not he was God, he was saying that the reason he doesn't cure people like Jesus did is because we have lots of doctors today, that Knowledge cures all disease, eliminates karma, makes one one with God and takes us to heaven. Moreover, about himself he is found saying that his is like Krishna, he is the "perfect saviour", he is in permanent God consciousness and he has merged with everything. Most amazingly, perhaps, he says that he has come to save us from nuclear bombs. Any suggestions how we should proceed with this? --24.69.14.159 00:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
That's the sound of Jossi Frecso's blood pressure rising rapidly, his gastric juices burning, and his sphincter compressing so hard it would take the "jaws of life" to open it.
|
|
|
|
Yes, Ocker, I will as soon as I get a chance to get to a scanner. It's funny, my printer's got a scanner in it but I can't find the software and I've never used it. But I'll get someone to do it over the next few days for sure.
|
|
|
|
Hey Jim, the bombs didn't fall did they? Maybe he did save us! Let's see what he can do about global warming now - ah, but doing something about that would entail cutting back on air travel, and EV depends on that. A miracle then?
|
|
|
|
Deconstruction of the "Newly Discovered Documentary Evidence" and other analysisPre-empting the comments I wanted to make over the weekend, after seeing the post about this "evidence" I see the need to warn that the former followers were caught already once assigning some controversial statements to the guru, when actually these were from his mother. You can see my deconstruction and proof in my page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dsmi After what I wrote, this poster (24.69.14.159 aka Jim) went on to say many nasty things about me in the former followers public forum, such as that I am an a***hole, stupid, pompous, a fake, ignorant, offensive, and that I need to be slapped in the face, after I alerted Andries that he was being misled by the too obvious subterfuge of quoting out of context and mixing-in words from the guru's mother from another sat-sang and assigning these to the guru. Most probably was an honest mistake by someone long ago (although I doubt it) but was surely perpetuated in the former followers' narrative for many, many years until this week. I also know that after reading this I will be the recipient of more ad hominems, but hey!, I guess that is the price a girl has to pay when crossing a person with his type of MO. Even though I have a thick skin, I hope it does not get any nastier. Now, having said all of that, now it is time to deconstruct this "Newly Discovered Documentary Evidence". Ready? This is clearly is a selection of answers to questions from many different interviews that took place in different years, from 1972 to 1973. Some of these are included in the book "Who is Gruru Maharaj Ji" pages 84 to 99. Others Q&As are from London 1972, and LA in 1973. The giveaway was the use of "Savior" as this term was how his mother used to describe him (she used "savior of love" and "savior of humanity" in her sat-sangs), and what the publishers of these booklets wanted people to believe. My estimation is that this "booklet" was either published much earlier than 1979 or it was not published by the mission. Also note that the statement made by 24.69.14.159 aka Jim that "He signs his last quote Guru Maharaj Ji" is misleading as well. He did not "sign" these quotes: That was the name his followers used, and of course it will be added at the bottom of these and any other published quotes. Further deconstruction: See this question that did not make it to that booklet, or any of the former followers websites for very obvious reasons as you will probably gather. The highlight is mine: Question: Guru, you’ve said that it’s the presumption of the press among others that claim has been made on your behalf that you are the Messiah, and that is not your statement. I understand this is not your statement. I have read on several occasions that you have disavowed any such claim. The question I am interested in is, since the presumption and the confusion seems to arise because your followers, especially those who are involved in the publication of the magazines, have made this claim on your behalf, are there any plans that you have to put an end to this confusion and these presumptions by directing them to quit making such claims?
Answer: Only thing I can do is pass my comments about it, pass my statements about it, which I am as a matter of fact doing. (Houston, Texas, November 9, 1973)
Let me attempt to make some points here, to clarify why I'm brining this up: Look at this, for example. This time the guilty party is the editor of the book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji" (1973) and not the former followers. Page 13 of the book presents a quote from the "Peace Bomb" sat-sang: "These tears are not because I am remembering my Father, but because I am feeling so much power in me. They are tears of strength. 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 savior of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who come to me are already saved. Now it's your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy?
Analysis: Note the term "savior of humanity". That term is not to be found in the "peace bomb" sat-sang published by the Mission a year earlier. The sequence and choice of quotes from that sat-sang published in the book is also misleading as these are carefully selected for effect and not sequentially from the sat-sang. Note that there is no mention of "Whenever the great come, the worldly oppose them", and no mention of "Those who come to me are already saved". This sounds more like the voice of the mother promoting her little boy-guru as the Messiah, or overenthusiastic devotees vested in Judeo-Christian beliefs, rather that the voice of the 12 year old child-guru.
Les us look now at the same quote from the "peace bomb" sat-sang as published by Divine Light Mission in 1972: "And the tears that I am shedding on His anniversary are not because I remember Him, or because I feel sad. They are because of the power I carry with me. Right now, I feel such a power in me, I do not know where it has come from; I feel as if I want to shake the world. Soon I will leave my studies and spread the Holy Word of Guru Maharaj Ji throughout the world. "
You may say YYSSW, but see the difference in wording and tone? IMO, the choice of words used in the book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji" is consistent with the editor's attempt to "embellish" these quotes in order to portray Maharaj ji as a messianic fiigure, even though the child-guru expressed himself quite to the contrary when asked direct questions by journalists and TV hosts. OTOH, as expected, the whole book is hagiographic in nature, and it is filled with a new age, aquarian/messianic emphasis, probably very suitable to the context in which it was published, and consistent with the beliefs held by those that wrote it. I am researching the possibility of obtaining the original transcription of the "peace bomb" sat-sang in Hindilanguage and compare it with the different versions published later on in the West by his early followers under the tutelage of the guru's family. The reason for this interest is that the sat-sang as translated does have several linguistic inconsistencies that are very difficult to explain. For example, I am puzzled by the tension between the first statement below and the other statements excerpted from that same sat-sang, in particular the passages I have highlighted. 1. "Guru Maharaj Ji is such an ocean of Grace, what shall I say of Him? How is it possible to understand Him? No ordinary person can sing about the love within him, about the love of Guru Maharaj Ji; only a true devotee of Guru Maharaj Ji can sing about it. If you do not obey what Maharaj Ji says, what is the use of your living in this world? Rather you should die of shame! Now Guru Maharaj Ji has come. Whenever He came before, you did not accept Him. Now I have come again to reveal the Knowledge, and still you do not understand me. " 2. "I do not feel shy of anyone because I have entrusted the reins of my life to Guru Maharaj Ji." 3. "! I have so much faith in Guru Maharaj Ji and I pray to him, “Oh Guru Maharaj Ji! Increase my faith twofold; and increase it threefold in those who do not love you. Increase it for them fivefold so that they too are blessed." 4. Finally, read the closing statement: "What can I say about Guru Maharaj Ji who has sent me amongst you and has given me this chance to serve you? The name of such a merciful Guru Maharaj Ji is Shri Hans Ji Maharaj. How shall I sing of Him? How shall I express the love He has for you? He has deep love for humanity. I cannot express the great love He has for you. I do not have sufficient words to express how much Guru Maharaj Ji loves you." So, there are too many discrepancies to be taken as a bona-fide translation. IMHO, both versions published by the Mission have been obviously tweaked. I hope I will succeed in getting the original in Hindi to compare notes. I understand that there are many versions of this sat-sang, and the discrepancies very likely to have been introduced by the mother, or the devotees that published them. Unless I get access to the original Hindi transcription, it will be highly improbable to confirm what the 12-year old guru really said in that occasion. Does anyone have a copy? --Daniella 05:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Fact: The booklet that contains these questions and answers was indeed published by Divine Light Mission in 1979. How funny that you have to resort to calling me a liar. Anyway, I'll scan it as soon as I can get near a working scanner which I don't have. Indeed, if anyone's suspect, it's you and the supposed paper you're writing. Fact: Whether Rawat said these things in '79 or earlier does not change the fact that his organization then published them. Unless you're going to argue that Divine Light Mission, Inc. was not acting under Rawat's auspices and authority, you can't avoid that this was indeed his message. Fact: Rawat spoke out of both sides of his mouth all the time. Many have speculated why. Perhaps it was just boredom but no matter. These are specific quotes that say what they say. It's funny to see you sidestep the individual claims he made. For instance, that he, the Perfect Saviour, has come to save us from nuclear bombs. Or that he is merged with everything. Etc. I could go on but my movie's started. - )
24.69.14.159
|
|
|
|
Daniella: Deconstruction of the "Newly Discovered Documentary Evidence" and other analysisPre-empting the comments I wanted to make over the weekend, after seeing the post about this "evidence" I see the need to warn that the former followers were caught already once assigning some controversial statements to the guru, when actually these were from his mother. You can see my deconstruction and proof in my page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dsmi After what I wrote, this poster (24.69.14.159 aka Jim) went on to say many nasty things about me in the former followers public forum, such as that I am an a***hole, stupid, pompous, a fake, ignorant, offensive, and that I need to be slapped in the face, after I alerted Andries that he was being misled by the too obvious subterfuge of quoting out of context and mixing-in words from the guru's mother from another sat-sang and assigning these to the guru. Most probably was an honest mistake by someone long ago (although I doubt it) but was surely perpetuated in the former followers' narrative for many, many years until this week. I also know that after reading this I will be the recipient of more ad hominems, but hey!, I guess that is the price a girl has to pay when crossing a person with his type of MO. Even though I have a thick skin, I hope it does not get any nastier. Me: - It seems that you are right that the words of Rawat's mother were added -- not mixed with, which leaves open the possibility of being obviously and thus deceptively interwoven, but added to some quotes of Rawat's in the quotes section of EPO. But even a cynic like yourself must concede that it was probably an honest mistake. First, there isn't a single other case of false attribution, mistaken or otherwise, that's ever been made out against EPO that I can recall. John and Jean-Michel who've done most, if not all, the work have been meticulous throughout. Plus, they have openly invited corrections if and when any mistakes were noted. This is an opportunity for you, then, to make EPO even better. Congratulations for doing a small part in bringing the truth about Rawat to the general publice.
Also, the Mata Ji quote is in a set of sample quotes from the book, Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?. It is just that. The only error is that the quotes are in the section of Rawat's own quotes and not the more general category of all quotes of interest. In other words a simple mistake just like you said. On the other hand, you also make accusations of quotes "out of context". You have offered no support at all for this accusation. It's time you did or gave up that scurrilous accusation. On that score, you also alleged that the editors of the above book themselves wrote some of the quotes in question. Where's your evidence for that? I say there's none and if you know better now's the time to show your proof. Otherwise, why say it? But what's really funny is how you yourself are so clearly guilty of doing just that, taking quotes out of context. For some reason you felt compelled to drag in comments from an ex-premie forum here. Whatever the wisdom of that, you'd think you, a serious academic with a keen eye for "contextual abuse" would know better than to say that I said you "need to be slapped in the face" when what I really said was: "Her entire thesis is offensive and unsubstantiated by the evidence. She deserves the academic equivalent of a slap in the face." (My emphasis). If you can't tell the difference, you're not fit to do the kind of careful analysis you purport to do. If you can tell the difference, you're being purposely misleading and provocative. Your choice. --24.69.14.159 14:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Modified by Jim at Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 08:35:01
|
|
|
|
Hi Jim I don't think EPO has made a mistake. What DSMI seems to be referring to is the page on epo http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/mastergod.htm Here JM has provided various quotes from 'Who is GMJ' and has attributed it to that book only, not directly to Prem Rawat. However, to be fair, someone just skimming that page on EPO may be left with the impression that Rawat said all those things. DSMI is correct in saying that Mata Ji said some of those things. It is unfortunate that on EPO the full transcripts of 'Who is GMJ' is not held. I will put up a page somewhere soon with the full transcripts of 'Who is GMJ' in respect of what Prem Rawat said and what his family members said. This hopefully will be a proper base on which research can be based. Gallery
Modified by Gallery at Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 08:53:47
|
|
|
|
Here are all the extracts of satsangs that are quoted in 'Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?' http://gallery.forum8.org/who_is_gmj.htm These are split into two, the first are the ones given by Mr Prem Rawat (previously known as the 'Lord of the Universe') and the last lot given by his eldest brother and his mom. I have tried to pick up as many spelling errors and other typos as possible, however if anyone spots any others please let me know. Gallery
|
|
|
|
Great work - Gallery person! I'm intrigued by your identity, as I think some of us know or suspect it. But I'm not a PAG ('People Around Gallery') and probably not qualified and way too humble to even ask.... But fabulous work you've done there on the Gallery site. Excellent page design, formatting, structuring - the real deal... Many eternal blessings, Nige
|
|
|
|
Thanks Nige I'm just a speck of dust on this planet doing some lowly service for mankind.  I would however like to take this opportunity of thanking the various people who have contributed source material recently, scanned things and stuff like that. Really appreciated. Gallery
|
|
|
|
In the early 1970s, this is how the Rawat "Holy Family" promoted its message: QUOTE
(this from Mata Ji, his mother) "So, my children, the Supreme Master does not create a new religion. Rather, He gives us the most ancient religion. This is the religion of humanity. And now the time has come when that realized God who is within us from the beginning of creation is here. The same Lord came as Vishnu, Ram, Krishna, Jesus Christ and Buddha. They preached and gave practical Knowledge of God. They spoke of one way. But, most ironically, we don't appreciate the Lord when He comes in His human body on this earth. If you are a patient, only a living doctor can cure your disease. A photograph or statue of a doctor who is dead, who has passed away, cannot cure your disease. A king who is present and who is pleased with you can give you wealth or any position. A king who is dead, who has passed from this world, can give you nothing. 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, the true Knowledge of God, Knowledge of truth. Because truth is one, truth is eternal, truth is all-pervading, truth is indestructible, and truth is the same for the whole world. So, brothers and sisters, only a living master, only a living Perfect Master, is able to enlighten all human beings". ENDQUOTE http://gallery.forum8.org/who_is_gmj.htm
Related link: http://gallery.forum8.org/who_is_gmj.htm
Modified by cq at Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 16:27:24
|
|
|
|
It appears that Daniella is accusing those premies of the 70's who were directly involved in editing DLM's books and magazines in "embellishing" their quotes from the "Peace Bomb" satsang to make it appear that Prem was a far more messianic figure than the whole speech would show him to be.
But the whole speech when translated by DLM members and printed in it's entirety by DLM is so incredibly messianic and megalomaniac as to boggle the mind: see http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/peaceb.htm
Daniella is making the smallest of selected quotes to bolster her argument while ignoring the whole speech but then she is ignoring the big picture entirely anyway and attempting to support Frossi de Jesto with the narrowest of arguments. Is she really an academic? Does anyone know who she is?
Why would young Prem or old Prem be required to fit these silly old-fashioned Western concepts of logic. He is Guru Maharaj Ji, his father was Guru Maharaj Ji, Swarupanad was Guru Maharaj Ji, Jesus Christ was Guru Maharaj Ji, was and is, eternal and immortal, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.
I look forward to the "revised" translation with a degree of skepticism. Does anybody have a magazine with the original Hindi in it?
|
|
|
|
What Daniella writes in this respect sounds plausible to me. Clearly there was a need of his family, the Mahatmas and followers to fit the speeches of Prem into a messianic and hagiographic framework. So yes, it is likely to have happened at least a bit. And let us face it, the DLM publications do not really look like carefully referenced and annotated publications: the effect of the publications seems more important than the accuracy of the statements. It happened extensively with SSB too. See Brian Steel's website.
Related link: http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/packageapp06.htm
Modified by Andries at Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 15:57:59
|
|
|
|
What Daniella writes in this respect sounds plausible to me. Clearly there was a need of his family, the Mahatmas and followers to fit the speeches of Prem into a messianic and hagiographic framework. So yes, it is likely to have happened at least a bit. And let us face it, the DLM publications do not really look like carefully referenced and annotated publications: the effect of the publications seems more important than the accuracy of the statements. It happened extensively with SSB too. See Brian Steel's website. Unless you have some evidence that premies jazzed up Rawat's claims, sorry, it is not plausible, let alone likely. Possible, sure, but if you're going to speculate like this you need some basis in fact, especially given the obvious purpose of these speculations, at least in the hands of cult members, which, to borrow a phrase from Daniella, is to to minimize and ultimately dismiss everything Rawat said "reductio ad absurdum". I'm also amazed that you think the best place for the new quotes published in 1979 is just on Wikiquotes which, to me, is rather like off-off-off Broadway.
Modified by Jim at Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 18:54:36
|
|
|
|
No, I do not have any proof that this happened and Daniella has provided very little proof, but I find it plausible and asking for proof in this case is like asking for proof that the cat ate the mouse. I think that this idea comes from the sociology of religion and I have seen examples several times, e.g. in the case of Kasturi's hagiography of SSB, but also in the case of C.L. Tandon's writings about Hans Maharaj whose claims Tandon embellished a bit and made a bit stronger, as Jossi wrote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hans_Ji_Maharaj#Quote Andries
|
|
|
|
What proof does Jossi have that these assertions of his are true? Where is a copy of the book? Who did the translation? Does Jossi state that he can accurately translate Hindi into English? What is the source of Jossi's assertions that ""Hans Puran" (1969), written by Mahendra Gupta (who, BTW, was the
shorthand writer that documented most of Hans Ji Maharaj's satsangs)".
At least there are scans of Tandon's book, where are these copies of Jossi's references?
|
|
|
|
Andries, have you read the "Peace Bomb" satsang? It is at http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/peaceb.htm. Once you have read it in it's entirety you will understand how implausible Daniella's ideas are.
Please no more comment on this until you have studied the text.
|
|
|
|
First, it's more than clear that Daniella's a premie. I'll eat my snow boots if she's not. This is not about logic, it's about revisionism, but I've already had a go at the Wiki-scene and believe me, Jossi is the first to attack --visciously -- then he's the first to cy foul when Jim, JHB, Thomas, or myself, has talked back to him, or simply spoken with logic, telling the truth. It appears that Daniella is accusing those premies of the 70's who were directly involved in editing DLM's books and magazines in "embellishing" their quotes from the "Peace Bomb" satsang to make it appear that Prem was a far more messianic figure than the whole speech would show him to be. Daniella really is missing many points, and I also think she a couple of forks shy of a set of flatware. Second, what she's saying is incorrect and seems like an attempt at obfuscation. But, why does she even bring it up, as if it's up to ex-premies to prove her points! She doesn't know how to conduct a rational argument. After all, she's the researcher, so Daniella can 1) contact Charles Cameron and ask him (he's not dead, is he?); or 2) Contact Prem Rawat and ask him if he ever reviewed the book Who is Guru Maharaj Ji, or any other publications that came out of DLM from 1974 through 1976. Why? Because from 1974, when Who is Guru Maharaj Ji was published, until around 1976, when Mike Dettmers took over the legal aspects of the cult, Prem Rawat was the legal Chief Minister of Divine Light Mission -- at least in the U.S. It was Dettmers who said that the DLM lawyers wanted him out of that legal liablity around 1976 or so because donations were a mess and all over the place, and trouble was lurking around the corner with the IRS and an audit. Finally, my point? Prem Rawat is/was personally and legally responsible for all publications that came out of his own non-profit 501(c) corporation, Divine Light Mission from the time around 1974 (the family split) until Dettmers cleaned up DLM's and Prem Rawat's act. This is yet another attempt by premies to revise, obscure, and confuse issues by blaming premiees for everything that happened around Maharaji (and in Daniella's case, didn't happen) instead of taking Prem Rawat to account for things supposedly done wrong. This are quotes about HIM for criminey's sake. And, if Rawat won't talk to her, tough titty. But, that's just my opinion...
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 18:16:20
|
|
|
|
What part of it shows she isn't?
|
|
|
|
Although a source of inspiration for his students, he has attracted controversy including what critics consider a lack of intellectual content in his teachings, leading an sumptuous lifestyle, and making what critics regard as personal claims of divinity.
|
|
|
|
Usually one thing you can't get a premie to do is criticize Rawat in any way at all. So yes, that would make it appear she is probably not a premie I agree. But the rest of how she interpeted things made it look a whole lot like she is. I am less sure. Even to state, in a public forum like Wikipedia, what the controversy is about is unlike most premie behavior. Its just hard to buy she is a disintrested third party when she interpets some of the things the way she has. I hope the mystery will get cleared up. I am sure Cynthia will be happy to eat her boots if and when it becomes obvious Daniella isn't a premie. One thing all of us ex premies have experience with is admitting we were once wrong about something!
|
|
|
|
If you think that one sentence - a pretty lame attempt at a NPOV statement about Rawat's critics (compared to with all the pro-Rawat stuff she's posted) - makes her a non-premie, Andries, I'm really surprised. I didn't think that gullibility was one of your traits! At the very least - if she's not a premie, she's certainly being influenced by premies. Remember how she claimed to know where the disputed quotes from the book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji" came from - even the one from Mataji?
Modified by cq at Sat, Mar 04, 2006, 04:31:42
|
|
|
|
I don't see that as evidence of Daniella not being a premie, plus it's snowing out today, I need the boots. I notice Jossi is kissing up to her, so the jury's still out on what her motives are. I also have to figure out what kind of marinade to use on my boots in case I'm wrong. But, don't worry I can admit when I'm wrong. I guess what concerns me the most about Daniella is that she's said that she is writing a paper on ex-premies specifically. I don't think she is informed enough about the subject of cults in general to do that yet. She's a beginner. Plus, Daniella's not forthcoming about her educational background and she sounds very young and naive to me. I just don't have confidence in her to trust her to write about me. Plus, she can come right out and say if she's a premie or not. Why hasn't she done that? Why does she come across as if she's hiding something? Andries,in the whole picture of my life, I really don't care about Wikipedia and the article about Prem Rawat. But, you already know how I feel about Wiki.
Cynthia
|
|
|
|
Guru Maharaj Ji, Jesus Christ performed many cures. Can you do the same? At His time there were not so many doctors, that's why he did that. But I am curing mental sickness. If you have got mental sickness, come to me. And when you do meditation, you become so natural that any other diseases you have are automatically cured. That's why I tell you this Knowledge is very practical. It makes people natural. They stop being plastic. They become natural and the best way of ending disease is by nature. So where does this fit with The Keys legal agreement where aspirants have to confirm they have no current mental health problems ? Oh I understand curing mental health was just a trapping of Hindu/Sikhi religion which Rawat has consigned to the past imposed upon him by family, mahatmas, followers etc. etc. N
|
|
|
|
In my Knowledge session in May 1972, Mahatma Ashokanand interviewed each candidate at the last minute to ensure their "readiness" to receive the techniques. One young man behaved oddly and the Mahatma told him "You are too crazy. Go and become not crazy - get treatment - then come back and you can have Knowledge." Another candidate revealed that his occupation was "armed robber". He was not joking, or rather we all believed him. Ashokanand asked him to go straight and said that Knowledge would rid him of the urge to crime. I take it from this that the requirement to have no mental health problems goes back a long time. Many premies have committed suicide - I've known four, at any rate.
|
|
|
|
Hello Ian, I remember Mahatma Ashokanand I met him in the palace of peace 1973 and have met many other people who have received Knowledge over the last 33yrs, some refered to as Mahatmas, others refered to as security,managers,usher and this that and the other. i noticed all of these people had their own way of doing things at times, and other times did things the way Maharaji wanted them done! Not very nice to come in contact with a person that wasnt doing things the way Maharaji wants! being around since 1972 Ian im sure like me u must have witnessed lots of badly behaved people who had the wrong attitude. it caused a lot of confusion! Maharaji welcomes everyone and always has done, and always will. Maharajis requirements for anyone to receive Knowledge has never changed. a sincere desire to know,and as u know from ur own experience Ian practise makes perfect! Im practising how to use this computer Ian and am on the other end of perfection and dont know if i will ever make enough effort to perfect this skill in any way! many people do many things as they live in this world including leave it through their own will...Best Wishes Julie
|
|
|
|
Julie, Do you think Maharaji ever behaves badly? If so, how?
|
|
|
|
Hi Julie, do you remember Prakash Bai? She was also helping at my Knowledge session, and administered the light technique to me. But she left Knowledge a few years later and went to live in Miami. I met her there but she did not bother going to see Maharaji when he came to town. As for me, I remained faithful for about 20 years after the defections of those who had initiated me. Practice did not make perfect because like the other premies, I failed to experience the promised bliss, despite all my efforts. I could have stayed on till now, a faithful plodder with low self-esteem who had been thoroughly conditioned, blaming myself for the lack of experience and settling for self-delusion. The issue for me eventually was not any misbehaviour of M, though I'd heard the ugly rumours like everyone else. It was that I did not want to collude in being deceived any more. I had become a premie in order to pursue a spiritual goal which seemed in line with buddhist and vedanta wisdom which I had believed in at the time. It took some courage but I left. Not because I was lazy, not because the attractions of "mind" pulled me away, but because I recognised at last the unworthiness of Maharaji to be a teacher. I saw that he did not care about his premies, and perhaps never had. It took courage because I feared an unnamed horror, like losing my soul. However I found, as you, Julie, will find when you take that step, that leaving was an important stage in my quest. "Leaving those Lotus Feet, Oh where would I go?" the song says, and it resonated somehow. But you have to go beyond it and find your own self. We have to learn to live as adult human beings without the shelter of the guru, scary as it may be. It's a part of growing up. I'm not full of hate. I accept all of my life including the 30 years of premiedom which of course were not all bad. But Julie, it is important to live our own lives and eliminate the evil of "devotion" which f****d up our lives and still does for so many. Very best wishes and I hope you claim back your life - Ian
|
|
|
|
I'm biting my lip not to do a bit of gatecrashing at Wiki while Jim et al are asleep. This new post from Momento is a such classic example of 'spin': >> Momento: 24.69.14.159[Jim] says The first thing to realise about the answers is "who is asking the questions?". If there is a picture of Shiva on the wall, it is almost certainly in India and judging by the questions, the interviewer is an Indian. [Me] Which proves what? The only relevant point here is that the leaftet was published by DLM in 1979 when Maharji was in sole control of his organisation and the way he was portrayed to the public. At this time (because I was there and wasn’t imagining things), on no occasion did he say anything to contradict any previous statements made by him or about him. The first time he requested his followers to stop reading or using past publicity materials was in 1982. It is only through the disobedience of premies at the time, that any of this documentation exists. Momento: 24.69.14.159[Jim] says : "Long after Rawat was "only eight" he was playing games about whether or not he was God", in fact, Prem Rawat says in the very quotes you provide that " You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light. God is Power. God cannot talk." Can he be more straight forward? [Me] Yes, he can be a lot more straightforward. While he sometimes spoke of God in these pure energy terms (which anyway was only some of the time) he would also cast himself in the de facto role of God, and did so in practically every satsang I ever heard him deliver throughout the late seventies / early eighties. Quote: .... To be here as individuals
and yet to be able to be next to
the person who is everything;
in which everything is, and he
is in everything. Guru Maharaj Ji.
The Lord. All-powerful." "The Final Step" from the Shower of Grace, Malibu, California, June 11, 1978. Printed in "The Divine Times" June/July 1978 Volume 7, Number 4 ~ Guru Puga Special ~ Page 36. Momento: 24.69.14.159[Jim] says Prem Rawat "was saying that the reason he doesn't cure people like Jesus did is because we have lots of doctors today", he did not. He said Jesus cured people because there weren't many doctors. [Me] So why was he even allowing the comparison with Jesus? Vanity? To me, the passage reads more as a way of saying ‘here’s why, unlike Jesus, I don’t need to cure diseases (but otherwise you may, of course, think of me and JC as essentially the same)’ Momento: 24.69.14.159[Jim] says that Prem Rawat said " that Knowledge cures all disease", he did not. He said that meditation makes a person more natural and that the best way of ending disease is by nature". This is a fair comment that enjoys a great deal of medical support. [Me] Your own last sentence is nonsense in my view, but let that pass. If the reader isn’t supposed to make the syllogistic connection that ‘Knowledge = Nature = Cure’, then how else are they supposed to read Rawat’s sentence as a whole? I’d say there is a pretty big claim going down, there – though not one that was central to his message. Momento: 24.69.14.159[Jim] says Prem Rawat said "Knowledge eliminates karma", he did not. He was asked what happens to Karma when you receive Knowledge and he said "It starts choking up. It starts finishing up, because when you realize Knowledge, you've got to go and be one with God". It doesn't eliminate karma. "it starts finishing up". This is a common understanding of people who believe in Karma; that a person who believes in Karma should live correctly to reduce creating negative Karma. [Me] If you take the trouble read Rawat’s many claims from that era re. Karma and reincarnation, your interpretation is absurdly skewed. Just one for now: "We have climbed the greatest mountain there ever could be. We have done the most that there ever could be. You - if you have ever experienced Knowledge - have in fact experienced what even in thousands and thousands and thousands of lifetimes can never be experienced. You have climbed mountains more than Mt. Everest could ever be. And all by Guru Maharaj Ji's Grace." - Guru Maharaj Ji
Tucson, Arizona, July 16, 1978 Momento: 24.69.14.159 [Jim] says Prem Rawat said Knowledge "makes one one with God and takes us to heaven". Yes he did. [Me] Well, congratulations, I guess. Would that be a subjective take or an NPOV? Either way, the claim stands on record, and the majority of people who received ‘Knowledge’ (ie. those who no longer practice) might not agree. Momento: 24.69.14.159 [Jim] says Prem Rawat said that "he is like Krishna", he did not. He said that unlike Krishna, he is alive. [Me] And if were to say ‘unlike Beethoven, I am alive’, it would strongly hint that I was at the very least an accomplished composer, if not musical genius, no? Notice, again, Rawat never rejects outright the comparison with the names he elsewhere cites as living incarnations of God. Momento: 24.69.14.159 [Jim] says Prem Rawat said "he is the "perfect saviour", he did but this is part of a longer quote when he talks about the "Perfect Master saving people". Do not confuse a Perfect Master who is a perfect saviour (saver) with the Christian concept of "Saviour". [Me] ‘Saviour’ is not a word Rawat frequently used, but functionally speaking, that is precisely the role he assumed in claiming to be the ‘embodiment of God’. ‘The Perfect Master teases his lovers. He plays hide and seek with us, he hides his love from us until we cry for it, until our defenses are down, our defenses against love. And then he showers us with love, he completely overwhelms us with love. What other lover in this world demands nothing but purity? What other lover can be loved by all mankind without jealousy? What other lover has a glance like an arrow, that pierces only the heart? What other lover is himself the embodiment of God, of perfect and pure love? ‘ - Guru Maharaj Ji (source traceable) Momento: 24.69.14.159 [Jim] says Prem Rawat said "he is in permanently in God consciousness", but this assumption on your part since you say that the page is torn and you can't read it. But even if he did, he is entitled to his opinion and since it is an internal experience it is entirely subjective. [Me] In which case, you’d have no objection to the quote’s inclusion in Wikipedia, then? Momento: 24.69.14.159 [Jim] says Prem Rawat said "he has merged with everything", he did, but it is part of a longer quote in which Prem Rawat said "And I have that for you to experience". [Me] Then – again - I suggest we get the whole thing in the public domain and let the voter decide. Momento: 24.69.14.159 [Jim] says Prem Rawat said "he has come to save us from nuclear bombs", actually he says the "Perfect Master has come to save us from nuclear bombs" but this is clearly in reference to his statement that in Jesus's time there were no nuclear bombs and Perfect Masters must be alive because situations change. In short, there is nothing in those quotes, that contradicts this article. One of the major qualities of a Wiki editor is to adopt a NPOV and that means being true to the source material. Your version of what Prem Rawat said are in stark variance to the quotes you provide. [Me] An disinterested outsider might see things differently, Momento. When it comes to placing convenient interpretations on embarrassing evidence, your own perspective will become ever more difficult to sustain, the more these old quotes keep resurfacing and going online, complete with dates, places and publication details. It’s what they call in cricket, ‘batting on a sticky wicket’. And the more it rains, the stickier it will get. Nigel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_RawatHere's how I would deal with it...
Modified by Nigel at Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 07:58:13
|
|
|
|
Nigel, Come on in! By all means, there's no reason that we can't all jump in now and then as the music moves us. I guess the next question now, though, is how should the article be editted further. But this is kinda fun in its own sick way too. Tell me how these guys are acting any different than Holocaust deniers facing damning death camp evidence. Actually, it's as sick as it is fun. It's sick fun, that's what it is. Oh I dunno ....
|
|
|
|
I've just registered on Wiki, but quickly realised I'll have to spent a bit of time in the sandbox to learn the basic control switches etc. before posting. But, anyway, you're back on duty now, Jim, so I'll maybe join in at a later stage. But, yes, it is kind of fun - especially since to maintain M's blameless reputation premies have to resort to such comic absurdities. Roll up, roll up! - Behold how these debased creatures wriggle and squirm before your very eyes in name of the Lord. >>>> [my previous post has now been tweaked and polished for purposes of putting on Wiki, but can’t get my head round the formatting conventions] Momento: 24.69.14.159[Jim] says The first thing to realise about the answers is "who is asking the questions?". If there is a picture of Shiva on the wall, it is almost certainly in India and judging by the questions, the interviewer is an Indian. [Me] Which proves what? The only relevant point here is that the leaftet was published by DLM in 1979 when Maharji was in sole control of his organisation and his public presentation. At this time (and I was there too and am not imagining things) on no occasion did he say anything to contradict any previous statements made by him or about him. The first time he requested his followers to stop reading or using past publicity materials was in 1982. (Ironically it is only through the disobedience+devotion of premies at the time, that any of this documentation exists.) Momento: 24.69.14.159[Jim] says : "Long after Rawat was "only eight" he was playing games about whether or not he was God", in fact, Prem Rawat says in the very quotes you provide that " You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light. God is Power. God cannot talk." Can he be more straight forward? [Me] Yes, he can be a lot more straightforward. While he sometimes spoke of God in these pure energy terms (which anyway was only some of the time) he would also cast himself in the de facto role of God, or exclusive interface with God, and did so in every satsang through the late seventies / early eighties. Quote picked more-or-less at random: .... To be here as individuals
and yet to be able to be next to
the person who is everything;
in which everything is, and he
is in everything. Guru Maharaj Ji.
The Lord. All-powerful." "The Final Step" from the Shower of Grace, Malibu, California, June 11, 1978. Printed in "The Divine Times" June/July 1978 Volume 7, Number 4 ~ Guru Puga Special ~ Page 36. Momento: 24.69.14.159[Jim] says Prem Rawat "was saying that the reason he doesn't cure people like Jesus did is because we have lots of doctors today", he did not. He said Jesus cured people because there weren't many doctors. [Me] So why was he even tacitly allowing the comparison with Jesus? Vanity? To me, the passage reads more as a way of saying ‘here’s why, unlike Jesus, I don’t need to cure diseases (but otherwise you may, of course, think of me and JC as essentially the same) ’Momento: 24.69.14.159[Jim] says that Prem Rawat said " that Knowledge cures all disease", he did not. He said that meditation makes a person more natural and that the best way of ending disease is by nature". This is a fair comment that enjoys a great deal of medical support. [Me] Your own last sentence is nonsense in my view, but let that pass. If the reader isn’t supposed to make the syllogistic connection that ‘Knowledge = Nature = Cure’, then how else are they supposed to interpret Rawat’s statement? I’d say there is a pretty big claim going down, there – though not one that was central to his message. Momento: 24.69.14.159[Jim] says Prem Rawat said "Knowledge eliminates karma", he did not. He was asked what happens to Karma when you receive Knowledge and he said "It starts choking up. It starts finishing up, because when you realize Knowledge, you've got to go and be one with God". It doesn't eliminate karma. "it starts finishing up". This is a common understanding of people who believe in Karma; that a person who believes in Karma should live correctly to reduce creating negative Karma. [Me] If you take the trouble read Rawat’s many claims from that era re. Karma and reincarnation, your interpretation is absurdly skewed. Just one for now: "We have climbed the greatest mountain there ever could be. We have done the most that there ever could be. You - if you have ever experienced Knowledge - have in fact experienced what even in thousands and thousands and thousands of lifetimes can never be experienced. You have climbed mountains more than Mt. Everest could ever be. And all by Guru Maharaj Ji's Grace." - Guru Maharaj Ji
Tucson, Arizona, July 16, 1978
That sure looks like ‘eliminating karma’ to me. Momento: 24.69.14.159 [Jim] says Prem Rawat said Knowledge "makes one one with God and takes us to heaven". Yes he did. [Me] Well, congratulations, I guess. Would that be a subjective take or an NPOV? Either way, the claim stands on record, and the majority of people who received ‘Knowledge’ (ie. those who no longer practice) might not agree. Momento: 24.69.14.159 [Jim] says Prem Rawat said that "he is like Krishna", he did not. He said that unlike Krishna, he is alive. [Me] And if were to say ‘unlike Beethoven, I am alive’, it would suggest that I too was an accomplished composer and musical genius, no? Notice, again, Rawat never rejects outright the comparison with the names he elsewhere cites as living incarnations of God. Same role, different style. Momento: 24.69.14.159 [Jim] says Prem Rawat said "he is the "perfect saviour", he did but this is part of a longer quote when he talks about the "Perfect Master saving people". Do not confuse a Perfect Master who is a perfect saviour (saver) with the Christian concept of "Saviour". [Me] Higher up this page Jossi argued that Rawat never claimed to be ‘Perfect Master’, yet you seem to have a different understanding. Was Jossi wrong? Anyway, ‘saviour’ is not a word Rawat frequently used, but functionally speaking, that is precisely the role he assumed in claiming to be the intermediary for the Almighty, or ‘embodiment of God’: ‘The Perfect Master teases his lovers. He plays hide and seek with us, he hides his love from us until we cry for it, until our defenses are down, our defenses against love. And then he showers us with love, he completely overwhelms us with love. What other lover in this world demands nothing but purity? What other lover can be loved by all mankind without jealousy? What other lover has a glance like an arrow, that pierces only the heart? What other lover is himself the embodiment of God, of perfect and pure love? ‘ - Guru Maharaj Ji (source traceable) Momento: 24.69.14.159 [Jim] says Prem Rawat said "he is in permanently in God consciousness", but this assumption on your part since you say that the page is torn and you can't read it. But even if he did, he is entitled to his opinion and since it is an internal experience it is entirely subjective. [Me] In which case, you’d have no objection to the inclusion of such quotes in Wikipedia, if fully referenced? Momento: 24.69.14.159 [Jim] says Prem Rawat said "he has merged with everything", he did, but it is part of a longer quote in which Prem Rawat said "And I have that for you to experience". [Me] This extra quote does not negate the former – it merely reinforces the God-interface role mentioned above. Again - I suggest we get the whole thing in the public domain and let the voter decide. Momento: 24.69.14.159 [Jim] says Prem Rawat said "he has come to save us from nuclear bombs", actually he says the "Perfect Master has come to save us from nuclear bombs" but this is clearly in reference to his statement that in Jesus's time there were no nuclear bombs and Perfect Masters must be alive because situations change. In short, there is nothing in those quotes, that contradicts this article. One of the major qualities of a Wiki editor is to adopt a NPOV and that means being true to the source material. Your version of what Prem Rawat said are in stark variance to the quotes you provide. [Me] An disinterested outsider might see things differently, Momento, and a good deal of spin coming from your side. When it comes to placing convenient – even absurd -interpretations on embarrassing evidence, your defence will become more difficult to sustain, the more these old quotes keep resurfacing and going online, complete with dates, places and publication details. It’s what they call in cricket, ‘batting on a sticky wicket’. And the more it rains, the stickier it will get. Nigel
Modified by Nigel at Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 13:57:03
|
|
|
|
(I'm brown) The first thing to realise about the answers is "who is asking the questions?". If there is a picture of Shiva on the wall, it is almost certainly in India and judging by the questions, the interviewer is an Indian. - Actually, the pictures are of Rawat in a suit. Your point's irrelevant anyway. It's what Rawat said that matters.
--24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 24.69.14.159 says : "Long after Rawat was "only eight" he was playing games about whether or not he was God", in fact, Prem Rawat says in the very quotes you provide that " You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light. God is Power. God cannot talk." Can he be more straight forward? - The "games" I was talking about were when he was asked as directly as possible if he was divine and he wouldn't answer yes or no. That's a game.
--24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat "was saying that the reason he doesn't cure people like Jesus did is because we have lots of doctors today", he did not. He said Jesus cured people because there weren't many doctors. - He was asked if he could cure people like Jesus and he answered that Jesus did it because there weren't a lot of doctors then. My paraphrasing is logical and incontrovertible. You're denying the fair meaning of words and, in particular, the fair inferences of statements.
--24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
24.69.14.159 says that Prem Rawat said " that Knowledge cures all disease", he did not. He said that meditation makes a person more natural and that the best way of ending disease is by nature". This is a fair comment that enjoys a great deal of medical support.
- What Rawat said was "And when you do meditation, you become so natural that any other diseases you have are automatically cured." How funny to see you leave out that most salient part only to complain that he never said it!
--24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "Knowledge eliminates karma", he did not. He was asked what happens to Karma when you receive Knowledge and he said "It starts choking up. It starts finishing up, because when you realize Knowledge, you've got to go and be one with God". It doesn't eliminate karma. "it starts finishing up". This is a common understanding of people who believe in Karma; that a person who believes in Karma should live correctly to reduce creating negative Karma. - If you're actually arguing that "eliminating" something and "finishing it up" are significantly different, that's absurd. What you're doing doesn't even amount to sophistry. It's .... it's nothing, really. Just flailing at the evidence with your eyes closed.
--24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said Knowledge "makes one one with God and takes us to heaven". Yes he did. 24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said that "he is like Krishna", he did not. He said that unlike Krishna, he is alive. - Yes, but any fair person would understand that, for him to distinguish himself from Krishna, like he did with Jesus, means that he also sees himself as belonging to some more common, general group as him. Otherwise, there would be no relevance in the comparison.
--24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "he is the "perfect saviour", he did but this is part of a longer quote when he talks about the "Perfect Master saving people". Do not confuse a Perfect Master who is a perfect saviour (saver) with the Christian concept of "Saviour". - What he said was "When Jesus was here there were no nuclear bombs. But now there are nuclear bombs, and the Perfect Master, the Perfect Savior [sic], has come to save you from nuclear bombs." It's quite funny to see you say one shouldn't confuse "saviour" with "saviour" in the Christian sense when again, Rawat himself is making that very comparison. Besides, what other sense is there?
--24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "he is in permanently in God consciousness", but this assumption on your part since you say that the page is torn and you can't read it. But even if he did, he is entitled to his opinion and since it is an internal experience it is entirely subjective.
- So? What's your point? Mine is just that he made these claims and, more particularly, that his organization was publishing them when he was 21 or 22 in 1979 five years at least after he split with his mother, etc.
--24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "he has merged with everything", he did, but it is part of a longer quote in which Prem Rawat said "And I have that for you to experience". - Again, so what? What's important is that he claimed to have accomplished this amazing feat himself and also to offer it to his followers. Agreed?
--24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 24.69.14.159 says Prem Rawat said "he has come to save us from nuclear bombs", actually he says the "Perfect Master has come to save us from nuclear bombs" but this is clearly in reference to his statement that in Jesus's time there were no nuclear bombs and Perfect Masters must be alive because situations change. - I think you forgot that you were supposed to come up with something -- anything -- to rebut or minimize Rawat's statements. Care to try again?
--24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC) In short, there is nothing in those quotes, that contradicts this article. One of the major qualities of a Wiki editor is to adopt a NPOV and that means being true to the source material. Your version of what Prem Rawat said are in stark variance to the quotes you provide.Momento 07:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC) - You know, I do strive to develop that NPOV but, I have to admit, I fall short sometimes. Hell, I'm only human. But you, on the other hand, seem to have the discipline and skill to stay fantastically NPOV and never waver. It's really something to see.
Now, should we move on to discussing how the quotes above might best be incorporated into the article? For one thing, I think that they clearly contradict Rawat's 1999 quote that suggests that a lot of these "big" ideas about him occured when he was "only eight" but that he's done what he could as an adult to disabuse them. What his organization published here in 1979 suggests quite the opposite. --24.69.14.159 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Modified by Jim at Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 09:28:43
|
|
|
