|
|
|
I don't know if anyone downloaded Rawat's first site but then I remembered that some cult members have quoted him from there on Wikipedia: 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.[14]
However, if you follow that end-note/link it takes you to Rawat's current page instead. As far as I can tell, that's a false attribution, therefore, and not Wikikosher. So either the premies have to come up with the original site or they have to give up this quote. I'll ask. 
|
|
|
|
The appearance and dis-appearance of this page on www.maharaji.org/net seems to be just part of the ongoing Rawatian leap before you look, whoops, another bungle, modus operandi. And the internet does forget as it no longer seems possible to retrieve that page from the Google cache so the Rawatians must have gone to some trouble to ensure it's disappearance.
It seems impossible to understand the tortuous path of the public face of Rawatianity without accepting there is a huge amount of incompetence and thoughtlessness at the top. For a brief period either Rawat or the people writing www.maharaji.org thought it would be a good idea to show Prem's spiritual "parampara" and thereby his spiritual cred and then he changed his mind and didn't want to be associated with any Sant tradition. Just don't think there should be a reasonable explanation for it's appearance and disappearance. Maybe it was meant as something that would only remain in the minds of the dedicated followers of Rawatism who lived through the devotional, not-so-devotional, re-devotional and super-devotional periods but shouldn't be left for critics of Rawatism-Lite.
|
|
|
|
I didn't know about the Way-back Machine - that's great! I'll ask if this original Maharaji-org.net site or at least the lineage page or the link can be saved for posterity somewhere on the various sites, but I'll have to go back and actually read the disclaimer page - it looks ridiculously prohibitive. But since the site doesn't really exist anymore except by virtue of this time machine . . .
Modified by Dr.wow at Sun, Mar 05, 2006, 23:21:39
|
|
|
|
It's a hoot all right. Also, a working example of rampant paranoia.
|
|
|
|
http://web.archive.org/web/19991013065949/http://maharaji.org/
|
|
|
|
HRH Yogiraj Param Hans Sadgurudev Sri Hans Ji Maharaj (1900-1966)"
What's with the green glow?
Don't know about the green, but what about the HRH? What the fook izzat sposed to mean?
As far as I know HRH is universally understood in the English speaking world to mean His/Her Royal Highness, & nothing else .
|
|
|
|
I don't know how to do a Wikifootnote so I didn't but I think the edit's otherwise fair. It's the bold at the bottom: "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.[14] However, on that same personal website, Rawat stated that he was the latest in a line of "Masters" going back to Sri Totapuri Ji Maharaj (1780 - 1886).
I can't imagine how Jossi et al. could possibly object. After all, on the one hand Rawat, in his own words, on his own website, says that he's no figurehead or leader. On the other, he purports to be the latest in a line of Masters and even names them. Right?
|
|
|
|
But Jim, I'm sure Jossi would say it was the web site creators who wrote that stuff about the lineage, not Prem Rawat. Just because it was called www.maharaji.org and was about Prem Rawat doesn't mean he wrote it. That''s just another case of Prem's followers putting their Indian ideas and millenial expectations on Prem as Daniella would say.
|
|
|
|
If you click on the "credits" button you get the blurb: "This website is dedicated to my Father, mother, stepmother, to my family and all those who seek the best in life". The use of the word "my" implies a personal ownership by Rawat. Unless of course Jossi were to say that "my Father, mother, stepmother, to my family and all those who seek the best in life" could be sentiments of any ol' author. However Rawat has capitalized the F in father which would seem to make plain that it is indeed he, Prem Pal Singh Rawat, making the statement and denoting his reverence for his father. But I guess Jossi could just claim that was a typo . . . Wait, the credits page does say that the artwork, photographs and composition are by Maharaji. Does that seal the deal or does the word "composition" leave some wiggle room?
Modified by Dr.wow at Mon, Mar 06, 2006, 01:18:33
|
|
|
|
Whatever DLM, EV and TPRF have said about Rawat is relevant, since they were the vehicle he commissioned to propagate his message.Jossi might not like it, but that says more about the inappropriateness of him (one of Rawat's webmasters - and spin-meister) having so much influence on the Wiki article. NPOV indeed! Harummph.
|
|
|
|
Jossi refuses to acknowledge that there's an obvious contradiction between Rawat saying on one page on his initial website: 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.
and then, on that very same website, under the heading "Masters", posting this: Isn't that something?
|
|
|
|
Him and Mary Wishard. They did all the converting to web format of Maharaji's outpourings. See: http://web.archive.org/web/20000919103407/www.maharaji.org/credits/webconversion.htm My understanding is that Jossi Fresco is still involved in helping out with the maharaji site as well as TPRF. I don't know what Jossi Fresco is now saying on Wiki about what Maharaji claimed or did not claim in the past. However Jossi can not now say that Maharaji did not claim that he was one in a long line of Perfect Masters - as recently as 1999/2000. T
Modified by T at Mon, Mar 06, 2006, 01:08:30
|
|
|
|
(see the content of the previous post) isn't this grounds for his removal as a Wicki editor regarding Rawat material. Is there some kind of Wick-Board to appeal to? I mean he's hardly coming from a NPOV - he's Rawat's webmaster for chrissake. If there aren't some ground rules covering this kind of obvious vested interest then there should be. Especially when we are talking about cult leaders or more politely, controversial leaders of NRMs.
Modified by Dr.wow at Mon, Mar 06, 2006, 01:44:37
|
|
|
|
Dr. Wow, I was not aware, but I am not surprized. No, there is no such rule that a webmaster of a certain person cannot edit the article about the person. Spamming Wikipedia with your website is generally considered not done. I am affiliated with the website http://www.exbaba.com , but I can still edit the article about Sathya Sai Baba.Andries
Modified by Andries at Mon, Mar 06, 2006, 11:25:06
|
|
|
|
Andries, Jossi asked me to ask you so I will. If you're following at all, I added to the article, Jossi then deleted "However" as well as making other changes. I then went back in and editted again, changing "however" to "nonetheless" (although any similiar word or phrase will do) and Jossi now accuses me of violating Wikipedia's rule against three reverts in a 24-hr period. The way I see it, he's the serial reverter here, isn't he?
|
|
|
|
This is what's known as a "Lose/Lose" situation.Jim always loses and Jossi always wins. Wiki sucks IMO. Totally unfair application of the rules.
|
|
|
|
Hi Andre. I was doing a google search today and I stumbled across a very large cache of e-mails from a group of senior Wikipedantics - including e-mails from the grand poo-bah himself Jimbo Wales. Let's just say that discussion about the NPOV and issues of propoganda and trolls are very much au courant amongst these muckety-mucks. Many sincere and dedicated editors - those that volunteer to oversee dozens if not hundreds of sites - have thrown in the towel rather than have to continue to do battle with clever propogandists who have learned to use or bend the Wiki rules to their distinct advantage.
|
|
|
|
- 24.69.14.159 will you please be more accurate when quoting Prem Rawat. Prem Rawat did not say he is not a guru, he is said "When I was very young, people were looking for the "old silver-haired Guru with flowing white robes." I was only eight". He is making the distinction based on age.Momento 21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ah but, Momento, my NPOV role model, I think you need to look at the larger picture. Rawat said:
- 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.
- which suggests that 1) his trip isn't particularly Indian; 2) he doesn't offer nirvana; 3) he doesn't quote scriptures; and 4) his qualifications are only found in what he offers.
- This flies in the face of his claiming to be the latest in a lineage of Indian gurus. --24.69.14.159 22:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- You say that "he claims to be the latest in a lineage of gurus", when in reality he only says that "Even though references to the technique of Knowledge are made earlier than 1700, this is the traceable story so far". Your interpretation is consistent with your bias. Mine with mine, Momento's with his/her. That is why we do not include these types of asessments in WP articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you actually saying that this isn't a purported lineage of "masters"? What is it then? --24.69.14.159 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Jossi, who do I complain to about your editting of this article? I think your regular refusal to discuss and seek consensus about the fair meaning of words makes your editting like what one would expect from a Holocaust denier editting an article on Hitler. I'd like to show the powers that be what you've done here, starting with this latest example. I think that any fair-minded person would be rather bemused by your attempt to deny that Rawat was claiming that he was part of this guru lineage. The link on his website didn't say "Masters" for nothing! So, because you're so familiar with this turf here, and because you obviously feel you have nothing to be ashamed of and further, because you're so quick yourself to call foul on any procedural transgression you can imagine, I'm asking you to please direct me to the proper complaint box. Thanks, --24.69.14.159 18:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Over here in pedantland, if the stress is on the first syllable of a verb, eg, edited or targeted as opposed to, say, forgetting, you don't double the last letter of the root form when constructing participles and other tenses. I wouldn't want you to fall foul of another Wiki byelaw - Jossi knows them all. Also, check out Rule 43, sub-paragraph 1a, clause 7, about 'not talking to Mr Fresco in a disrespectful tone of voice'.
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Mar 07, 2006, 16:25:26
|
|
|
|
Over here in pedantland, if the stress is on the first syllable of a verb, eg, edited or targeted as opposed to, say, forgetting, you don't double the last letter of the root form when constructing participles and other tenses. So that's how that works! It did look a little funny but I thought there was no geting around it. Also, check out Rule 43, sub-paragraph 1a, clause 7, about 'not talking to Mr Fresco in a disrespectful tone of voice'.
|
|
|
|
(take a deep breath now)
Modified by cq at Tue, Mar 07, 2006, 17:42:47
|
|
|
|
In the e-mail cache that I discovered senior editors form a discussion group whereby all issues pertaining to Wikipedia are discussed in a kind of electronic roundtable. A number of the e-mails are pointing out the frustration of some senior editors dealing with revisionist and propaganda bent editors riding shotgun over their (proprietary) sites. Many of these sites are political in nature - Lyndon LaRouche is a specific example. The e-mails do include the addies of the writers (including Jimbo Wales) so it is possible to communicate directly with them to add our voice of disgruntlement - for what its worth. You've certainly proven yourself an effective letter writer and have your own specific concerns so if you want the link to this cache I will send it to you. Since this link is already in the public domain I don't have a problem doing that but it shouldn't be posted on this forum to protect their privacy.
|
|
|
|
Apparently, I'm going to be blocked again!: I changed your edit a bit. It's important and only fair to include some word reflecting the contrast between Rawat saying, on the one hand, that he didn't want to be seen as some "silver-haired Guru in long flowing robes" and then, on the other, citing a centuries-long lineage of guys just like that. It's such a weird inconsistency that it deserves to be introduced by a word like "strangely", "surprisingly" or "amazingly" but I'll settle for "nonetheless". --24.69.14.159 01:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC) - In Wikipedia and as per the WP:NPOV, verifiability, no original research and what Wikipedia is not content policies we do not make value judgements or editorialize facts. Wikipedia is based on the understanding that readers are intelligent enough to make the their own conclusions about the material presented. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Don't lecture me. The article has many such words and phrases. Do I need to point them all out to you? This isn't a matter about making value judgements or editorializing facts, it's simply a conventional way to acknowledge the contrast. Avoiding any sort of term like that frankly looks weird. For example:
- "On the other hand, in an interview given to a journalist of the Boston Globe a year later, he confirmed the view that there has been steady succession of Perfect Masters and that will be another one after him..."
- or:
- "In contrast these and other declarations, Reender Kranenborg, a Dutch religious scholar and minister..."
- Even the very paragraph in question begins with such a lead-in:
"In the preface to his personal website on January 1999, Prem Rawat writes about this apparent contradiction.." - Sorry, but the whole relevance of the edit is to set out the conflicting statements Rawat was making then about being seen as a steretypical guru. The edit stays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) .
- I am not lecturing you, just pointing out the applicable policies, that you may not be aware of. The reason why your edit cannot stay, is because this is your opinion that there is a "contrast" between two statements made on that website, while in the other cases we are stating the opinions of notable people. Your opinion may be that these two sentence contradict each other, and my opinion that these don't. But neither my opinion nor yours are notable enough to be stated as such. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Jossi, come now. Certainly you can see that it's downright hilarious to have Rawat, on the one hand, try to disabuse the notion that he's anything like the "silver-haired guru with the flowing robes" and then assert a position in a legacy of nothing but silver-haired gurus with flowing robes! Is this going to be another go-round like when you tried to say that Rawat didn't call himself "Perfect Master"? Please, explain to me and anyone else reading here how these two sentences do not contradict one another? If you can make a rational case, I'll listen. Otherwise, I won't relent.
- For your edification, here are a few pictures of the "Masters" Rawat claims preceded him:
[10]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.14.159 (talk • contribs) . - Please note that you can be blocked for violation the [[WP:3RR|three revert rule}}. I have placed a warning in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 08:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. I edit the article by adding something to it. You then edit my edit by, amongst other things, taking out any words that signify the contradiction between Rawat's two positions (I'm no stereotypical guru/I'm proudly the latest of a long line of stereotypical gurus). That then becomes the status quo that I have to respect? What if I say that you're the one who keeps "revertting"? Couldn't I have alleged that with even more justification than you? Sorry, I'm putting it back in and you can do what you want. Show some other Wiki editors how "bad" I am(?!) Let's bring this madness to a head, shall we? "Nonetheless" is going back. By the way, is there such a thing as a "conflict of interest" here? I note that you yourself were the webmaster for Rawat's old site! Funny, you never mentioned that. ]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.14.159 (talk • contribs) .
|
|
|
|
Modified by Dr.wow at Mon, Mar 06, 2006, 11:47:30
|
|
|
|
The contradictory nature of Rawat claiming that he has been unfairly conceptualized by others and at the same time creating a Masters' lineage page is important. This also illustrates the nudge-nudge, wink-wink, self-referencing that he is well-known for (comparisons to Jesus/Krishna/Kabir for instance). This is especially true when viewed in context of the Hans Yog Prakash - the bhakti perspective of the so-called master listed here that we actually know something about. It is also a fact that would-be gurus or masters rely on lineages to project an air of ["divinely ordained"] legitimacy surrounding their inherited mantle.
|
|
|
|
Hi Dr. Wow, I was looking at Satpal's website the other day and was wondering why Andries or anyone else hasn't added a link to it in the Wiki article after Satpal's name in the article. It's a legit link. But, as I've said, I don't do Wiki anymore for a couple of reasons, 1) how Jossi reacts to exes who write on the talk page (nastily), and his reaction to any edits of the article that he clearly perceives as his own personal gift to the Lord Incarnate. Anyway, while looking at the Satpal site, I had to laugh at the similarity of claims about him to his bro, Prem's. Both claim they were child prodigies and both claim their father bequeathed the mantle of Master to them. For instance: "...By the age of two and half he was already sitting for long periods of meditation and he encouraged others to do likewise. His father once remarked that his consciousness was naturally directed inwards but was to be drawn out for the benefit of others...." and "...When he was three years old, his father arranged a large procession through the main streets of Delhi in his honor. Thousands of devotees and interested people participated. At one point, a gigantic traffic jam halted the procession. At this age, he himself stood up and directed the traffic so that the way was cleared. So, even at a tender age, his innate leadership and organizational abilities were evident." http://www.manavdharam.org/ssjm/1_brief_into.html
Modified by Cynthia at Mon, Mar 06, 2006, 10:02:47
|
|
|
|
and his reaction to any edits of the article that he clearly perceives as his own personal gift to the Lord Incarnate
I liked that especially. Yes, to try to fix Wikipedia seems like jumping into some big black hole. If someone wants to Google Rawat they get this site darn fast. It is a shame that Wikipedia is percieved as a safe resource apparently by a lot of people. But to fight with Jossi over his pet project appears to be futile. He simply is going to have way more influence there than at least I would ever have never mind the energy to stay guarding it as he does.
|
|
|
|
. At this age, he himself stood up and directed the traffic so that the way was cleared. So, even at a tender age, his innate leadership and organizational abilities were evident LOL! Actually, at that age he probably stood up 'cuz he wanted to take a pee or a look-see. But, yeah, I wonder just how many so-called gurus/masters have strategically dropped these kinds of stories in order to promote some other-worldly view of their "divinely-sanctioned" selves. When I get a chance I'll see if I can wade into the sticky-wicki with those links to Sat Pal - both on the Rawat and Shri Hans pages.
Modified by Dr.wow at Mon, Mar 06, 2006, 11:18:59
|
|
|
|
Hey Andries, thank god it isn't only the English who go in for that subtle ironic type humour......it's nice to know that the Dutch/English merger of 1688 wasn't solely a stitch up job between previously competing elites, but had 'resonances' amongst the peasantry too.
So, did we get it from you, or did you get it from us?
|
|
|
|
Obviously, doing a Wiki page on Satpal would take a little more than a few seconds. (??!!!) But if someone started one, that might be enough to encourage Satpal's people to come in and take over. I'm not gonna do it because I'm still undecided if Bal Bhagwan Ji's Jesus or not but perhaps someone here's so inclined.
|
|
|
|
Thanks Andries, for showing (?) how easy it is to create one's own reality within Wikipedia!As it happens, the article you created isn't really going to help much, because Prem Rawat's brother (once known as Bal Bhagwan Ji) now calls himself "Satpal Maharaj". Satyapal's a nice enough name though!
|
|
|
|
Entries in Wikipedia have to be created under the most common name in English, but in this case the most common name is an Indian religious name, possibly leading to confusion. I think the official name i.e. Satya Pal Singh Rawat would be better in this case. Andrues
Modified by Andries at Tue, Mar 07, 2006, 23:29:28
|
|
|
|
On his website, he calls himself 'Shri Satpal Ji Maharaj'; in his political life he is usually refered to as 'Satpal Maharaj'; and īn the Wiki Prem Rawat article (and all offshoots) he is refered to as 'Satpal Rawat', which seems reasonable as 'Rawat' is his surname. So whereas a case can be made for using all of these three names, I can't see much value in using the name you have come up with. Where did you get it from?
John.
Modified by JHB at Wed, Mar 08, 2006, 03:58:14
|
|
|
|
If the general idea is to put the cat among the pigeons, the target readship ought to be premies and others who might be unaware of Satpal's rival claims to the Rawat lineage. This is most likely to happen via the Prem Rawat Wiki article, with direct links added, if possible. The Wiki search engine doesn't find approximate matches, so an entry for 'Satya Pal Singh Rawat' is unlikely to be found by anyone - not even Bubble-gum's own followers.
|
|
|
|
wasn't it? ....and please can I join your cult?
Modified by Lexy at Wed, Mar 08, 2006, 09:11:30
|
|
|
|
In response to Cynthia's suggestion (above) I inserted the link to Satpal's website in both the Prem Rawat and Shri Hans Wikipedia entries. This site gives Satpal the honorific Shri Satpal Ji Maharaj which is how I referred to him on the associated reference pages on both Rawat's and Hans' Wiki sites. The important thing is that readers are referred to this site whereby they can learn of their competing claims. Ironically and comically when this honorific is googled the sponsored links are to Prem Rawat.
Related link: http://manavdharam.org/ssjm/1_brief_into.html
Modified by Dr.wow at Wed, Mar 08, 2006, 11:31:09
|
|
|
|
When I view the current Wiki Prem Rawat article this is the case. So presumably Jossi has some reason - but feel free to edit  After that name Satpal is in brackets.
|
|
|
|
I got the name from a court document. (I don't know if it was me who found it and inserted in the Wikipedia article Hans Ji Maharaj) "In the matter of C. L. Tandon v. Prem Pal Singh Rawat, AIR 1978 Delhi 221, the same test that the decision in the earlier suit must operate as res judicata to attract the rigours of section 10 was reiterated in the following words (page 226) :
"One valuable touchstone for determining whether the matters in issue are directly and substantially the same is whether the decision in the prior suit will bring the principle of res judicata into operation in the subsequent suit. Because the removal of Prem Pal Singh Rawat by Mataji and the nomination in his place of Satya Pal Singh Rawat and the competence of Mataji to do the same, issues of utmost importance, are alien to the Patna suit, the disposal of the suit at Patna will not stand in the way of the trial of the said issues by the appropriate courts." "
Related link: http://www.vakilno1.com/judgements/companiesact/2000-099compcas0285ph.htm
Modified by Andries at Thu, Mar 09, 2006, 02:12:30
|
|
|
|
Prem Pal Prem Rawatt Satya Pal Satpal, Bal Bagawan Dharma Pal Raja ????????? Bhole Ji
|
|
|
|
...as you already know, Andries. Good joke, though. I noticed that Wikipedia has changed the Child Love article to "Pediophile Activism." It's still an advertisement for NAMBLA and other pedophiles. Ugh.
|
|
|
|
Send Jossi the link to Arti below and tell him that we sang this to a picture of Prem Rawat twice a day - some of us for years. Do you think that would work or is he too far gone?
Related link: http://ex-premie.org/pages/arti.htm
|
|
|
|
Do you think that would work or is he too far gone? Tough one.
|
|
|
|
I don't know what possessed me but I wasted my money on a copy of Geaves' article. It's all fluffy academic-speak nonsense. What he says of us is this: In addition, [Maharaji] now faces the added difficulties of the cultural suspicion of new movements in the face of over twenty-five years of anti-cult publicity from the Western media. Although not attracting media coverage himself, a small but vociferous minority of ex-followers, unable to accomodate change and showing signs of considerable cognitive dissonance, has cornered the market as Maharaji's opposition, determined to destroy his reputation through public denunciation on their website. I would think that if we were really out on such thin intellectual ice Geaves would be happy to engage us a put us straight. Instead, he runs from us and every entreaty to discuss the issues. Gr...
|
|
|
|
In this one passage alone, he makes the following mistakes: In addition, [Maharaji] now faces the added difficulties of the cultural suspicion mixed singular and plural (i.e. should read "difficulty" , of new movements in the face of over twenty-five years of anti-cult publicity from should be "in", not "from" the Western media. Although not attracting media coverage himself, a small but vociferous minority of ex-followers, mixed subjects (i.e. if he's going to change subjects this way, he has to spell them out. So it should read "Although Maharaji is not attracting media coverage himself, ...) unable to accomodate change and showing signs of considerable cognitive dissonance, has cornered the market as Maharaji's opposition, determined to destroy his reputation through public denunciation on their website. I'm very impressed!
|
|
|
|
What about "A small minority of ex-followers" ?..IMO the verb following should be "have" not "has" ; this is because the phrase must be taken as a whole and not split into[a small minority] [of ex-followers]. The pronoun for this subject as a whole would be "they" and not "it" therefore the verb should be plural ie. "have" and not "has"
Modified by Lexy at Mon, Mar 06, 2006, 12:05:00
|
|
|
|
Geaves writes: In 1966 Shri Maharaji died and was succeeded by his youngest son, Prem Pal Singh Rawat, at the remarkable age of eight. I say remarkable because this was by no means a dynastic succession; the young Maharaji had three elder brothers who would have expected to inherit a dynasty ahead of him. So the argument is that, just because there were three elder brothers, Rawat's taking over from daddy doesn't amount to a "dynastic succession". That's so funny. What else was it, if not an inherited position? No, Geaves is confusing some idea of primogeniture with the notion of family dynasty. Stupid, really.From an early age, the young child had exhibited an extraordinary enthusiasm for his father’s work and had spoken at several large public gatherings. A number of insider stories tell of his apparent precocious spirituality, and are highly significant in legitimating the young Prem Rawat’s succession. However, I have refrained from including them because it is impossible to ascertain the degree to which they belong to a developing hagiography. Isn't this a bit odd too? How can these stories be both "highly significant in legitimating" the succession and yet also suspect as described? Isn't Geaves talking out of both sides of his mouth here?
Modified by Jim at Mon, Mar 06, 2006, 13:50:07
|
|
|
|
I found this while googling Geaves
|
|
|
|
Steve, Anyone that knows Ron Geaves knows that it is him who suffers from severe cognitive dissonence. He is not known as prem rawat's Goeballs for no reason, and I have no doubt he loves it all. Regards Jethro
Modified by Jethro at Mon, Mar 06, 2006, 01:21:47
|
|
|
|
I thought that just meant that you were good at dissing someone. As in, "Prem, with a neck like that, it's no wonder your head wobbles from side to side".
|
|
|
|
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/29/diss_songs_go_back_t.html http://www.vimeo.com/clip=6178 http://snltranscripts.jt.org/01/01gdissing.phtml
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=diss
Modified by aunt bea at Mon, Mar 06, 2006, 05:47:30
|
|
|
|
Steve, Anyone that knows Ron Geaves knows that it is him who suffers from severe cognitive dissonence. He is not known as prem rawat's Goeballs for no reason, and I have no doubt he loves it all. Jethro, it is not just Ron Greaves who has "considerable cognitive dissonance". Have you talked to any premies lately? It is as if they are in The Twilight Zone.
|
|
|
|
" Have you talked to any premies lately? It is as if they are in The Twilight Zone." I did last year meet a few premies and was very saddened. However not all of them tried to white wash Rawat. One premie told me that it is impossible to escape , he said he had tried. Maybe he is out by now. Another premie, who I knew from ashram days, told me that even if he is the devil he will follow him to hell.( I used to say that too.) And one or two other things were said that I'd rather not repeat again. Still many of them have no idea about Rawat's deception and many that do know couldn't care less about what he does or did because, like him, they have no values. A twilight zone? Yes
|
|
|
|
Is "Goeballs" a misspelling or did you intend it as a pun? Kabir
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link, Jeth, I'm puzzled why in all these variants of the rhyme, they keep talking about 'G?g' in the second line as if they don't know the name, when as every skoolboy kno, the words go: Hitler has only got one ball Goering, he's got two but small Himmler is very simmler But poor old Goebels has noe-balls at all.. - Well that's how we sang it marching round my junior school playground.
|
|
|
|
The whole song http://ingeb.org/songs/hitlerha.html and of course there were variations using Freetrade hall or Albert hall in the 2nd line. Anyway, I don't mind how anyone spells geaves, Goebbels or Goeballs, he still has no balls. Did you know that when I last saw Ron Geaves , he told me that he never belived rawat was god. He must have been telling the truth as he was staring me straight at my left shoe at the time. I don't why he turned rouge...it must have been a hot room. all the best Jethro
|
|
|
