|
|
|
Mike, You write that, not only did you never hear Rawat himself directly claim to be God but you haven't seen any documented evidence that he ever did either. Surely, there are several quotes that cross that line for you, aren't there? I know he didn't hit those high notes all the time but he did sometimes. Don't you agree?
Modified by Jim at Tue, Mar 14, 2006, 14:35:41
|
|
|
|
Can you show me a quote that is of the 'I am God' or 'I am the Lord' variety? But does not fall under one of my category 3?3) Maharaji himself actively supported this belief by (a) seldom denying it, and then only in a specific context, (b) making innuendos and implying on many occasions that he was, (c) using elementary logic about his 'perfect gift' of the 'perfect Knowledge' that could only be given by himself, and (d) talking about himself in the third person such as 'Guru Maharaji is all-powerful' and the like. To my own knowledge he indulged in all of (a) to (d), but I never heard him say 'I am God' or 'I am the Lord' etc. The reason is clear, I think, that he always wanted to claim that he never said 'I am God', which is literally correct, he didn't. But he nevertheless made it clear to us all that he was, or so close that makes no difference. I am told there is no documentary evidence that Hitler ever ordered the killing of the Jews and other 'undesirables'. But based on all the available facts, on convergent evidence, there is no reputable historian (excusing Irving, but is he reputable?) that doubts that he must have given that order. In the same way, Maharaji never said 'I am God/the Lord etc', but convergent evidence surely indicates that he thought it, and certainly caused it to be propagated as a premie's proper belief. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
and possibly playing into Jossi's and the other apologists dishonest hand by allowing the issue to be framed that way? Especially with respect to your "d" (speaking in the third person), how is that different, really, than claiming it directly in the first person? There are numerous examples of Rawat claiming to the the Lord all powerful, the superior power in person, "knowledge" itself, "greater than God," etc., but saying it in the third person. There is no difference in doing this than claiming it directly. If you were to say that "Mike Finch is the Lord all powerful," how is that different from you saying "I am the Lord all powerful?" None, that I can tell. So, those "d" statements ARE claims to be God, no question about it.
Modified by Joe at Tue, Mar 14, 2006, 16:10:53
|
|
|
|
There is absolutely no percentage in the argument that speaking in the third person is not a personal claim.
|
|
|
|
I agree there is no distinction, that is the point. But Jossi et al claim to show that Maharaji never said 'I am the superior power in person.' And he did not. He said 'Guru Maharaji is the superior power in person.'As a matter of fact Jossi is correct. We have to show that the statement 'Guru Maharaji is the superior power in person' is saying the same thing, *means* the same thing, as Maharaji mouthing the words 'I am the superior power in person'. Obvious to you and me, but we still need to show it. In your example, I could claim that saying 'MF is the Lord all powerful' is quite different from me saying 'I am the the Lord all powerful'. I could be referring to a different Mike Finch altogether, I could belong to a religion that calls God 'Mike Finch' which is a pure coincidence that it happens to be my name as well. Welcome to the world of academic nit-picking! Of course those (d) statements are claims to be God, no question about it as you say. But Maharaji still did not say, as far as I know, 'I am God'. I am aiming to show that he did de facto claim it, but not by actually uttering a statement like 'I am God'. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
With all due respect, I suggest a revision to your excellent article, because you start out with this big concession and are only able to counter it with a long explanation. If I were you, I would start out with just saying that those third person statements ARE claims to be God, period. Then make all your excellent points in the other areas, which I agree with. I just think you leave yourself open to the accusation that "Mike Finch admits that Rawat never claimed to be God." Don't give them that, Mike. You know details are not the cult's strong suit.
|
|
|
|
Wikipedia editors assert that "Guru Maharaj ji is God" can refer to his father. Andries
|
|
|
|
Yes Andries they can, which shows that they are prepared to say anything without considering the situation properly. Prem Rawat didn't just become the Guru Maharaji or Perfect Master out of a social and cultural vacuum.
His father was the Guru Maharaji of his time and before he died he passed his mantle onto his youngest son not through inheritance but through incarnation. If Shri Hans had divine powers, which he was very public in stating, then once his son, Prem Rawat, became Guru Maharaji then he too had divine powers. If his father the Guru Maharaji (remember it is a proper noun, a title not a name) was God then the next Guru Maharaji was also and still is God. If past Perfect Masters like Swapuranand and Jesus Christ were God then Prem Rawat is God.
|
|
|
|
As a general principle, I recommend you don't give premies an inch of wiggle room. Good as the article is, I think it could be restructured so that it starts with the illumination and condemnation of M's duplicity and only states the "concession" in the most negative of terms, as an aspect of that duplicity. You're bending over backwards to be balanced, truthful and clear, and the effort is diluting your message. Don't do your opponent's debating for him—cut the ground from beneath his feet before even opens his mouth. Make the certainty that M is wrong and the trickery of his language your starting points, and build from there, taking no prisoners. My gut feeling is the result would be both more powerful and a tighter, more condensed piece of writing. A problem is that you're dealing with two topics, M's evasive claims to divinity and Wikipedia's erroneous philosophy. Perhaps you need two articles. Neville B
|
|
|
|
We also sang Arti to him at events including once at Amaroo as late as the present decade, (whatever it is called, the 2000's ?) as well as had darshan during the same time period. I know this since I was there. This is in contrast to the image Rawat projected towards prospective devotees. Kabir
|
|
|
|
What if I asked you what it felt like to be God and you answered "It feels like [so-and-so]"? Surely, it would be fair to say that the answer assumes the fact that you are indeed God. So when we have an exchange like this: Question: Guru Maharaj Ji, what does it feel like to be Lord of the universe? M: What should I tell you about it? Question: Just what it's like. M: What it's like? Nothing. Because you are not in yourself; somewhere else; one with someone else.
Doesn't that cut it?
Modified by Jim at Tue, Mar 14, 2006, 16:39:10
|
|
|
|
Yes it does cut it, but that's the point. Mike has correctly identified a subtle subterfuge that Rawat has consistently perpetrated. It's true he has never said "I am God" in fact he has consistently gone out of his way to avoid such a statement,which is interesting. It almost reveals a cunning intelligence at work! But there can be no doubt that he has consistently referred to and suggested his Divinity, as evidenced in all the quotes, and there are hundreds, maybe thousands of them. I think Mike's scrupulously honest and accurate approach is the best way to deal with the apologists. Along with the man's own words. Where's Hilltop by the way? Hi Jim, and.... Hi... and thanks to all of you who work so hard to reveal the truth. Karen
|
|
|
|
I used the word consistently three times!!!
|
|
|
|
You say that "there can be no doubt that he has consistently referred to and suggested his Divinity, as evidenced in all the quotes, and there are hundreds, maybe thousands of them".Yes, he has referred to himself as such, and the quotes which survive (despite his efforts to get those quotes destroyed) bear witness to the fact that he DID say that Guru Maharaj Ji - the name that he not only identified with, but the self-same name he signed himself as was "Lord", "Perfect Master" et al. So the logical consequence of that message was that Guru Maharaj Ji WAS indeed claiming to be "Lord", "Perfect Master" et al. The very fact that he denies the claim begs the question: WHO was claiming to be Lord of the Universe then? A question whose answer only leads back to the one who claimed to be "Lord of the Universe". Why else would he be in the dock? !!
Modified by cq at Wed, Mar 15, 2006, 13:53:31
|
|
|
|
Jim, can you give the reference for this quote, where you got it?Thanks -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
Modified by Mike Finch at Thu, Mar 16, 2006, 01:12:10
|
|
|
|
http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/mastergod.htm The following is an extract from an question and answer session given by Guru Maharaj Ji in Portland, Oregon, June 29, 1972.
Printed in 'Elan Vital' magazine Volume II Issue 2, Summer 1978: Question: Guru Maharaj Ji, what does it feel like to be Lord of the universe? M: What should I tell you about it? Question: Just what it's like. M: What it's like? Nothing. Because you are not in yourself; somewhere else; one with someone else. Question: How is it to be like a puppet? M: You don't know.... Do you? When you become Lord of the Universe, you become a puppet, really! Nothing else; not 'you'. Not 'I', not 'you' no egos, no pride, nothing else. One with humbleness; servant. Very, very beautiful. Always in divine bliss. Creating your own environment - wherever you go, doesn't matter. Like my friends used to play and I used to sit right in the corner of my ground and meditate (laughter). She wants to change places with me! I wish I could change places with everyone, and give one hour of experience to everyone! But it's not possible.
Related link: http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/mastergod.htm
|
|
|
|
the real question is: why would anyone give this fool their money if they didn't think/were told that he was GOD?
|
|
|
|
I believe. The fact that back in the 1970's, and for what I know still, Rawat would never say no to ANY gift of any amount from devotees to me proves a lot about what he encouraged us and wanted us to believe about him. What sort of person accepts a young person's college fund as a gift? What sort of person accepts the family home, inheritance, takes everything the person owns until the person is in poverty. A good person would have said "no" to those gifts. The whole argument is absurd to anyone who was there.
|
|
|
|
Modified by cq at Wed, Mar 15, 2006, 14:09:55
|
|
|
|
How true!
And then premies and Rawat say of us ex's that if we don't like it we can just walk away. Is there any record at all of Mr Rawat returning any of those gifts?
Mr Rawat: OK, so you've decided Knowledge isn't for you, and you want to go to college after all. Well, that's OK, because I can give you your college fund back. It was a gift to your guru, and since I am no longer your guru, you had better take your gift back. And you know what? Remember that parable about the talents? Well, I invested your gift, and I have done rather well with it, so here is your gift returned plus the 50% I made on it....
Now that would be a good guru!
|
|
|
|
"What sort of person accepts a young person's college fund as a gift?
What sort of person accepts the family home, inheritance, takes
everything the person owns until the person is in poverty. A good person would have said "no" to those gifts."
I tried this argument with some premies, because it is so simple and truthful. I got the goofiest sort of "Maharaji was honoring the person by accepting the gift; Maharaji NEVER told anybody to give him money; people love Maharaji so much he couldn't keep them from insisting he take their gifts" and like arguments that I was quite astonished and gave it up after a short go at it.
|
|
|
|
And just to prove that Rawat could have said "no that money is not for me, it is for my mission" the following is as explained by Michael Dettmers Aubrey, through me, instructed Maharaji’s lawyer and accountant to re-classify all of the checks that had been made out to Maharaji, but deposited into DLM’s bank account, as Maharaji’s personal funds that were simply being held in trust for his personal use by DLM. When the financial records were re-categorized in this manner, the records clearly showed that Maharaji had more than enough funds to personally pay for the Malibu residence, the cars, and his personal expenses with his own money. During the audit, we acknowledged to the IRS that, after consulting with our lawyers, we realized that it was not a good idea to have had DLM act as a trustee in this manner, and that we were in the process of transferring all of the assets that were rightfully Maharaji’s into a separate structure that properly reflected his beneficial interest in them. The IRS was completely satisfied with this explanation, confirmed the principle that Maharaji and DLM were two distinct entities, and that gifts to Maharaji qualified as such under IRS codes. With that issue settled, we sailed through that audit without difficulty or incident." http://www.ex-premie.org/best/bof10302000222548.htm#P_0VBQ also http://www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info/index.php?id=33
|
|
|
|
Experienced Wikipedia editors are God. Of course, that is not a claim of divinity, because I was referring to editors of Wikipedia who are more experienced than I. Only members of a hate group would say that I claimed to be God. Andries
Modified by Andries at Tue, Mar 14, 2006, 19:49:19
|
|
|
|
... and perhaps you could persuade the likes of Jossi to remember that, though his "Master" currently denies the claims he once made, nonetheless history has recorded his master's words, and SHOULD be allowed to quote them. Any attempt at censoring such history marks Jossi out as a ... what's the correct phrase? ... respected Wiki Editor?
Modified by cq at Wed, Mar 15, 2006, 14:02:31
|
|
|
|
Mike, I love the article and wouldn't change a word. I think it's one of your best essays yet. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Mike, on your website you speak of Rawat/Maharaji thus:QUOTE
"... the fact that he was, if not God, then God-like, was Lord of the Universe, was the one and only unique and special being by whose grace, and only by whose grace, could anyone be saved from their own mind and realise what had to be realised."
ENDQUOTE Ahem, and a f**king great harumph - Is that a fact? tell it to E L Wisty ...! ... and why are those (church-?-) ladies' bottoms following me around the room? Sweet Jesus H Christ on a crutchless dildo - could I be wrong again?
Modified by cq at Tue, Mar 14, 2006, 14:49:42
|
|
|
|
Excellent piece of writing. Mike. And I'm not just saying that 'cos I got a namecheck (I was startled and even blushed for a moment there!). No, seriously, that doesn't need a word changing. And, while I agree with Jim that there were arguably times when M did make pretty defininite references to his absoulte divinity, these were rare, and it was definitely the case (as with the wording he allowed his followers to put on the posters) that the God-trick was mostly done by allusion and association, and the verification of every one of his mahatmas/instructors, with M's knowing consent. His omission became his followers' commission: to get K you must understand that (1) M is God, actually, but (2) you never say that to outsiders who wouldn't understand. That truth will not disappear for as long as there are exes to bear witness. And you've explained it very well Mike. It's good timing for this to appear on your site just after Jim got the Sceptics Dictionary linking to you, because you've probably explained the way that not only Rawat's cult, but a good few others operate in that same 'nudge-nudge, wink, draw your own conclusions' framework: one neutral story for the outside world and another, more enticing hook for interested souls who get trapped in the poisoned honey. Nige
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Mar 14, 2006, 16:24:41
|
|
|
|
While living in a place where I was "forced" to eat it, I couldn't stand it. Of course, maybe our brothers and sisters were cooking it correctly, but be that as it may....I LOVE Indian food, now. I work with folks from India quite a bit and have been invited, on numerous occasions, to join them in a meal in their homes. Their wives (normally the one that cooks, but not always) cook some of the most wonderful foods you could slip into your mouth. Like I said, off topic...... sorry 
|
|
|
|
Mike you state near the beginning of the essay: "Throughout the 1970's and
early 80's the vast majority of premies thought Maharaji was the Lord,
the Perfect Master, the Guru who was greater than God, He who had come
with more power than Jesus, Buddha etc;"
You didn't actually state what these words meant in relation to God according to the Rawatism theology. Rawatism had a theology which was based on the concept that God the underlying energy of the universe - the Brahman - incarnates as a series of avatars or Satgurus or Perfect Masters and that these incarnations of the divine power come to earth ie are born to reveal the divine Knowledge which includes the techniques of meditation and to provide the grace to empower those techniques so the premie can actually experience God by practising satsang, service and meditation and darshan. That is why Prem could unashamedly (was he ever ashamed of anything he did?) say he wasn't God while knowing that all his followers knew he was an incarnation of God and that it was ignorant of the reporter to ask if he was God (the Generator, Operator and Destroyer) and snigger sweetly in their ingroup knowledge. These ideas are certainly not unique to DLM/EV and are still believed by the majority of premies and the current exposition of these beliefs in EVspeak do not contradict the earlier beliefs, they just aren't very straightforward.
As far as I can understand as an outsider it would appear that the earlier ideas that practising Knowledge would lead to liberation or realisation (whatever cosmic idea the premie might have had of those concepts) has been superceded by the idea that the realisation that devotopn to Prem Rawat is the realisation and liberation and in the same way that Guru is Greater than God, Devotion to Prem Rawat is greater then enlightenment.
As this devotion actually is real for a majority of long term premies and as I find Prem Rawat so repellant I almost have to accept that Knowledge is divine to account for the fact that otherwise normal people can be so devoted to him.
|
|
|
|
Mike:I wrote a letter to Prempal in the mid-80s asking him specifically whether or not he was the "messiah,' which his proxie (some secretarial person tasked with responding to these letters) denied with a statement to the effect that he was merely here to keep people from becoming "seasick" and upchucking over the side of the vessel. (This actually invoked in me an image from a Charlie Chaplin movie where he animatedly tossed his cookies during an ocean voyage.) Some such nonsense, anyway. When I got that equivocating letter in response to a straightforward question I just decided that this fellow was a typical scammer, and basically kicked him to the curb. The stark contrast between what we had all been told as premies, and this obfuscating response was a dead giveaway that he was up to no good. Granted, had he claimed to be the messiah I'd have been in a tough spot, but I could at least have compared that claim to his behavior... which would have either been messiahnic or not. As for the manipulation of the post-modern academy, you aren't the first to have noticed that vulnerability. Tolerance without limit (unless against a non-equivocating empirical claim). political correctness, non-diversity of perspective, the "constraints" of hermeneutics, blatant anti-rationality... it's all part of the story of the modern academy. Fortunately, beyond their narrow sphere of influence no one pays them much heed. But it's all pretty unsurprising. Well, you know... Maharaji's the underdog, right? As for the value of the "neutral perspective" reference some of Hannah Arendt's writings on the role of Robespierre as the "monstrous middle" in the factional dispute between the very first "left" and "right" (the indulgents and the enrages). The problem is, if you want to divest yourself of those mirages you're going to have to live with some uncomfortable (but not necessarily ugly) realities. Anyway, I thought it a rather good essay. Good luck, and if I can help let me know.
|
|
|
|
Something like "refusenik". I guess it means someone send to Siberia for being the the Messiah. Neville B
|
|
|
|
It sounds like it would have been a good addition to EPO.
John.
|
|
|
|
1) Throughout the 1970's and early 80's the vast majority of premies thought Maharaji was the Lord, the Perfect Master, the Guru who was greater than God, He who had come with more power than Jesus, Buddha etc; 2) Maharaji's organizations, such as Divine Light Mission, actively promoted this belief, whether through influential speakers (mahatmas) or in their publications; 3) Maharaji himself actively supported this belief by (a) seldom denying it, and then only in a specific context, (b) making innuendos and implying on many occasions that he was, (c) using elementary logic about his 'perfect gift' of the 'perfect Knowledge' that could only be given by himself, and (d) talking about himself in the third person such as 'Guru Maharaji is all-powerful' and the like. Hi Mike. Great article, but I think your claims (above) need to be worded a little more directly. Let us not forget the festivals, the constant festivals where he sat on that throne with Arti sung to him, and songs about the Lord sung after that, encouraging him (begging, pleading, more like, encouraging is too weak a word) to dance like Krishna in the crown and mala. I used to work with the song lists at those programs. A leather-bound copy of exactly what was going to be sung after his speech for each night of the program was personally presented to him by his closest attendants, such as Marino. I typed them myself and saw them delivered to Marino or Mike Wood who then gave them to Maharaji. He would make changes from that list, phoning it to the men at the sound board, who wore headsets and sat off at the side of the stage, directing the music. HE (not the publications, DLM or the mahatmas) directed the singing of Arti at those programs, and all the subsequent songs to "the Lord" after them. And there were many, many programs, over many years, not just a few isolated instances.
So, not only did he make innuendos, he actively personally orchestrated and stage-managed those festivals (which premies lived to attend), where, as he sat on stage at the end of each and every night of them, he was sung the words to Arti at his own direction. This was his production and idea, not anybody else's. There is no way he was just going along with it. But even if that were true (which it isn't), it would still be, to my mind, exactly the same as if he were making the claims out of his own mouth. How could it be otherwise? Who allows "I bow down before such a wonderful Lord" to be sung to them by 10,000 people while they sit and smile without believing it and actively encouraging it by not denying it? He doesn't have to say a thing. In this instance, actions speak way louder than words.
So I think you should include the words to Arti in your article, and indicate (roughly) the number of times he sat onstage in front of an audience while these were sung to him, and people bowed down to him.
Modified by Joy at Wed, Mar 15, 2006, 01:39:22
|
|
|
|
Hi Joy, great post. I think this kind of first-hand testimony is really important, especially to counter all the bullshit about how it was always others, and not Maharaji, who were proclaiming his divinity. And also, these festivals, with the Krishna flab-fest, were going on well into the 80s, at least until 1983 when I left. This is the part I mean: Let us not forget the festivals, the constant festivals where he sat on that throne with Arti sung to him, and songs about the Lord sung after that, encouraging him (begging, pleading, more like, encouraging is too weak a word) to dance like Krishna in the crown and mala. I used to work with the song lists at those programs. A leather-bound copy of exactly what was going to be sung after his speech for each night of the program was personally presented to him by his closest attendants, such as Marino. I typed them myself and saw them delivered to Marino or Mike Wood who then gave them to Maharaji. He would make changes from that list, phoning it to the men at the sound board, who wore headsets and sat off at the side of the stage, directing the music. HE (not the publications, DLM or the mahatmas) directed the singing of Arti at those programs, and all the subsequent songs to "the Lord" after them.
|
|
|
|
Hi Joe and Joy, yes, I can testify, too, to the fact that arti was being sung at those festivals in the early 80's, although I think the Krishna stuff had been pretty much done away with--at least at the festivals I went to--mostly Miami Beach at that time. (Holi was still happening, as well--and darshan, and all sorts of other "Indian influences" that supposedly were insisted on by premies and not Rawat himself!) ~Shelagh
|
|
|
|
Raja Ji got his own hand-delivered copy, also. (though in a slightly less classy leather binding than M's -- had to observe the hierarchy, you know!). The sound guys got theirs in a plastic sheet. Both RJ and M, I believe, would be in communication with the sound men through the headphones, directing what was played and when (who then relayed it to One Foundation, usually). It was very tightly stage-managed. A real family business.
That's why I get so damned angry when I hear all the whitewashing that goes on about how he had it foisted on him, etc. Total nonsense.
And does anybody remember that impromptu darshan that happened in Room 401 of the Kittredge Building around 1975? That was the large room we all ate lunch in at IHQ, and served for larger meetings, satsangs etc. Maharaji dressed in the Krishna outfit (with crown), and had everyone quickly run by and kiss his bare feet while the Supernatural Family Band played Lotus Blossom Special at top speed. This was totally Maharaji's "gift" to the staff, not exactly laid on him by anyone else, especially the Krishna outfit. I remember it being a lot of fun at the time since it was sort of private, and his feet were BARE (gasp!). I somehow can't see any motivational speakers or successful investors behaving like that.
No, I think there needs to be a much more clear case made, with eyewitnesses (Dettmers? Donner?) as to exactly how Maharaji directed this whole Lord of the Universe charade (and continues to do so in subtle and manipulative ways, which is why I feel compelled to speak out about it). I'm glad to tell what little I know.
Modified by Joy at Wed, Mar 15, 2006, 20:14:06
|
|
|
|
Joy, I had forgotten that Maharaji was in control of the programming at all the festivals. It's great that you wrote about it and it's important testimony. Do you remember which years you did that service? In terms of Wikipedia, it won't matter one iota because you're not a "verifiable source" for that article. You're a disgruntled former employee. When I think about all of the thousands of witnesses (us, the premies) that attended those festivals where he was in complete control of every detail of those stages, the throne, the programming, it's ridiculous that we sit here at our computers wondering why such a stupid thing like an online encyclopedia is falling for the revisionism that's being written. For instance, you said below that Maharaji came into IHQ dressed in his Krishna costume, barefooted so that premies could kiss his feet. Now come on! Gimme a break! How many bleepin' 18 year olds dress up in Krishna outfit, and even have an International Headquarters to go to, so that their devotees can kiss his feet??? Impromtu worship. Of who? Guru Maharaj Ji. Prem Pal Singh Rawat. He was married in 1975 and had a baby, for cying out loud. He did the same thing at DECA, but he didn't dress up and an Indian divinity, he came in casual slacks with sandals on and people dove for those feet and kissed them under tables. He didn't say, "Don't kiss my feet, I'm not your Lord!" That was in 1979 and 80 when he was 22 and 23, with a wife and three kids. It's hilarious that anyone who has a brain at Wikipedia would even entertain that he didn't say he was the Lord, and then buy into the current premies' obfuscation of words and omittions to paint a new story. It's maddening yes, but when I look back and see how absurd the whitewashing has become, it's actually hilarious. Maharaji most definitely said he was the Lord in many, many ways. He didn't have to say "Yes, I am the embodiment of God." That was common knowledge among premies then and it's common knowledge now. All one has to do is read Julie's posts here to know that's what a premie believes to be true through and through.
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, Mar 16, 2006, 00:42:29
|
|
|
|
Hi Cynthia.
I did that service from approx. 1977-1980, when I was at SHIP (Shri Hans Int'l. Productions), both in Denver and Malibu. It was a fun service to do because it netted me a seat usually in the first three rows (albeit off to the far side so I could slip in and out as needed, but who was complaining?) There were times when his Lordship wanted that list revised at the last minute and I had to run off to a typewriter rented for the express purpose and redo it, as One Foundation thundered and expectations mounted in the hall.
Yes, I agree there are many ways of saying something without coming outright and stating it. His actions at that time speak way louder than words, anybody who was there will know that. And he still continues to perpetrate the fraud, getting away with it while all the time saying "I don't know what you mean!" It really adds insult to injury.
Joy
P.S. And yes, Susan's comment is absolutely brilliant. What sort of person, indeed! I remember the prevalent thinking at the time that allowed him to get away with it, and that was that nothing in creation was good enough for him, therefore he deserved it all, and even then it could never repay. There was even a quote to that effect somewhere in an Elan Vital. The absolute cheek, really. To guilt trip us all that it isn't good enough as he's taking everything we have! Talk about abuse!
|
|
|
|
Hi JoyCan I quote you on this? I am putting the quote in an updated article, but not naming you as the source. Can I quote you as the source as 'Joy' or even as your full name? I understand if you don't want to. The updated article is not done yet (7.30am UK time) but will be soon, so you can read what I say. Thanks -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
I'd like to see it first, though. I was glad to do my bit then, and I'm glad to do it now, if it'll help debunk this fraud once and for all.
Hopefully I won't then experience a CAC attack?
Modified by Joy at Thu, Mar 16, 2006, 01:44:33
|
|
|
|
Mike, do you know Joy's real name? Can you confirm that s/he was there during those programs and that s/he had the function as s/he described. Andries
|
|
|
|
I was definitely there. Joe Whalen, who posts regularly on this forum as Joe, can confirm my real name and that I was a DLM "career servant" in Shri Hans Productions for eight solid years. Joe knows Mike (whom I have never met, but have heard good things about from people I do know), and Joe is a long-time friend who helped me out of the cult in the 1980s.
|
|
|
|
Joy's name is Joy. That's the problem, Andries, lots of us have provided eyewitness accounts under our real names and it still holds less water than say, Gordon Melton who really doesn't know what the Rawat teachings and belief system have been all along. There are exes like Mike Finch, who were instructors, authorized by Rawat to travel, give satsang, and reveal knowlege. Who's more credible than that? But, on another note re: Wiki. I just reread the "Past Teachings of Prem Rawat" article. Andries, I think that's the worse article of the whole bunch. Honestly, I never heard the words "seva" and "bhajan." We never called it that. We were told consistently by Prem Rawat himself to practice satsang, service and meditation. The three-legged stool that would bring us salvation but the main ingredient was surrender/devotion. That was his primary agya to all premies. It's a useless article because it whitewashes the past (that we all lived through) and includes current material about Rawat that's covered in the Present Teachings article and the others. For anyone interested, here's the link. If for nothing else, it's great for a laugh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_teachings_of_Prem_Rawat
|
|
|
|
That article is an acute embarassment for Wikipedia. On the talk page on I argued for its deletion some time ago. Andries
|
|
|
|
That's okay, Andries, I know you do try very hard to make sure the articles tell the truth. Have you ever seen this page on EPO? It's from a book published in 1978 called The Living Master. It's all quotes of Guru Maharaj Ji that actually describe his teachings at that time (what he talked about then, and how he spoke about himself, Knowledge and practicing K). In the book, Maharaji talks about the importance of satsang, service and meditation, and also talks about light, music, holy name and nectar. He even talks about the primordial vibration, which is how Knowledge was described to me and all the other aspirants 1975. And he's not talking about his father, except when he refers to his own "Guru Maharaji." It really nails the "Teachings of Prem Rawat," past and present. It was interesting reading that EPO page because I can remember the tone of his voice, his inflections, when he gave some of those satsangs. I was one of those premies who didn't fall asleep when he spoke!  Cynthia
Related link: EPO - The Living Master
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, Mar 16, 2006, 13:40:16
|
|
|
|
Hi Cynthia,
The word 'Bhajan' was used quite a lot in the early 1980's. Bhajans are Indian devotional songs and the Holy Jesters and One Foundation sang them during the so-called super-devotional period of the early 1980's.
|
|
|
|
Hi, Yeah, I know a bhajan is an Indian song, but on that article it's used like this: "satsang, seva, and bhajan," instead of satsang, service and meditation. I never heard it in that context before. I remember the Holy Jesters and their bhajans well.
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, Mar 16, 2006, 12:56:02
|
|
|
|
Good to see you back around, Joy. And what a fantastic post! Didn't you once tell me you also used to transcribe (ie. savagely edit or rewrite) M's speeches to make them vaguely comprehensible for publishing purposes? Or, at least, I thought it was you who said that. If so, it would make another useful snippet of truth to share with your brothers and sisters in his (dis)grace... Anyway, hope you're keeping well, Joy Nige (& Moley)
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the compliment, Nigel!
Yes, I also, at the same time, did transcriptions of M's satsang's for use in the publications. I used to do a literal transcription, then the editors would turn it into something more presentable. Thank God that wasn't my job, as it was a helluva task. Trying to make sentence structure out of his ramblings was a big task as well. All I would leave out would be the occasional "uh" and "you know" (of which there were thousands!!) but mainly I did a verbatim transcript, otherwise.
I really loved the service at the time, as it seemed very intimate, just me and his voice, getting into every little nuance of it and listening to it so closely. I was such a gopi, I'm so embarassed.
Glad to see you guys back here also.
Love, Joy
|
|
|
|
I take all your points, but I also take Kelly's and Andries' and others.I am not into a public relations point scoring exercise, but simply to tell the truth as I see it. If you take too polarized a position, to exaggerate your point, you often overreach and lose credibility. I prefer to be as accurate as I can, and hope that 'at the length truth will out'. Anyone unbiased can read the various accounts and decide for themselves, and I don't think there is any doubt what conclusion they will arrive at. As Kelly said, this whole issue is a subtle subterfuge that Rawat has consistently perpetrated. It's true he has never said "I am God" in fact he has consistently gone out of his way to avoid such a statement, which is interesting. It almost reveals a cunning intelligence at work! Except I would not call it a 'cunning intelligence', more an obvious public relations exercise to limit any damage in the future. Rather like a politician will claim 'I never said X', which might be literally true, but taking the situation and context as a whole, it is clear that he/she thought X, said things very very like X, left no one in any doubt that he/she was completely immersed in X-ness, and did not actually state X specifically only for the single reason that he/she could later claim 'I never said X'. In any case, Maharaji never claimed to be God qua God. An irate premie emailed me to draw my attention to these quotes: Westminster 1971, first talk in the West - "The world thinks, people think, that God is man. People think that God has got ears, nose, teeth, and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And they think he is an old man and has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy". Very true (except Westminster 71 was not the first talk in the West). Peace Bomb satsang: So dear premies, receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God, is within your own heart The point is that Maharaji was not thought to be God as pure energy, but as the embodied Lord of the Universe, the Satguru who is greater than God, the avatar who is born with more power than ever before, our mother and father and all to us. just think you leave yourself open to the accusation that "Mike Finch admits that Rawat never claimed to be God." Don't give them that, Mike. You know details are not the cult's strong suit. No, but they are my strong suit. I am happy to admit that Rawat never claimed to be God qua God as energy. But he was thought to be that superior power in person, God in a bod, the Lord made manifest; he actively promoted that belief; and he clearly believed it himself (Jim's LOTU quote above). The evidence is clear. Why not stick to what is clear and unambiguous? -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
- God as energy is Shakti
- God as a personal God is Ishwara
- God as a divine incarnation is avatar to save and teach mankind uphold dharma and destroy the wicked. Krishna is a purna avatar, that is a full divine incarnation
- God as the formless absolute is Brahman
- Lord of the Universe Jagnnatha
Modified by Andries at Wed, Mar 15, 2006, 09:15:21
|
|
|
|
In any case, Maharaji never claimed to be God qua God. An irate premie emailed me to draw my attention to these quotes: Westminster 1971, first talk in the West - "The world thinks, people think, that God is man. People think that God has got ears, nose, teeth, and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And they think he is an old man and has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy". Very true (except Westminster 71 was not the first talk in the West). Peace Bomb satsang: So dear premies, receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God, is within your own heart The point is that Maharaji was not thought to be God as pure energy, but as the embodied Lord of the Universe, the Satguru who is greater than God, the avatar who is born with more power than ever before, our mother and father and all to us. Hi Mike, First, premies can send you all the quotes in the world but the one thing they won't acknowledge is that Rawat spoke out of both sides of his mouth. (In fact, I bet he still does.) Second, by what authority can you distinguish "God" from "Lord of the Universe" like that? Are you going to say that, according to Christians, Jesus wasn't God either? Krishna? And why are you limiting God to God-as-disembodied-energy? Isn't that a bit too confining? The way I see it, Rawat played a particular shell game where he first ridiculed and disabused our notions of God, as in the quote above ("ears, mouth..." , only to make us think that we didn't know s**t anyway and, like any cult leader worth his salt, to make us not even try to figure it out. Then he'd slip himself in there as per the various quotes emerging from the other side of his mouth.
|
|
|
|
Hi JimSo would you say that, for Christians, Jesus isn't God either? I am not a Christian, so you would have to ask someone else, but I don't think for Christians he is - he is the Son of God. To me, it does not make any difference - God, Son of God, both imply something far beyond being an ordinary human. But to people who believe in it, it does make a difference. Second, by what authority can you distinguish "God" from "Lord of the Universe" like that? Are you going to say that, according to Christians, Jesus wasn't God either? Krishna? As I say, to people who believe in this kind of stuff, it makes a huge difference, and these terms God, LOTU, Son of God etc mean different things in their theology. To me, and I think to most premies, Maharaji was not an ordinary human - he was far and away above and beyond being an ordinary human - he was Satguru, the one and only superior power in person. We worshipped him as our mother and father, our all, etc etc. That is the point. To you, Jim and Joe, I think 'God' is a generic term to mean anything utterly and above beyond being human - basically what I have just said above. That is the way I think you are using the term. But the current premies are being nit-picky, and saying 'God is pure energy' etc. It is a fact, I think, that Maharaji has never uttered the words (A) 'I am God' nor has he said the words 'I am the Lord'. But he was known generally as Guru Maharaji, and he has said things like (B) 'Guru Maharaji - the Lord - all powerful', and he allowed, and in fact encouraged, us to worship him as the superior power in person. Current premies, and Wikipedia, are saying that B does not necessarily imply A. You are saying it does. I am saying it does not matter, B is enough for me - that fact he was considered divine, a very special person indeed, more than human, that he and only he could provide us the mysterious power called Grace to save us, that he had a direct line to God - that is what was outrageous, damaging, and the very epitome of being a cult leader. It is like King Charles 1 of England saying 'we are above the law'. He denied it meant 'I am above the law' and his apologists claimed he was referring to royalty in general, the line of kings and queens both past and future etc. But Parliament had none of it, and although he never uttered the words 'I am above the law' they inferred that his proven statement 'we are above the law' was enough in the ballpark, and so they cut off his head. Not a perfect analogy, but something like that. The fact that someone generally known as Guru Maharaji could say 'Guru Maharji - the Lord - all powerful' and could arrange daily ritual songs to him 'you are my all my Lord to me' etc is enough in the ballpark. What is the point of mixing theology - precise meanings of 'God' - with people who do it for a living, or who hire people who do it for a living? The way I see it, Rawat played a particular shell game where he first ridiculed and disabused our notions of God, as in the quote above ("ears, mouth...", only to make us think that we didn't know s**t anyway and, like any cult leader worth his salt, to make us not even try to figure it out. Then he'd slip himself in there as per the various quotes emerging from the other side of his mouth. Yes of course, I think we all agree on that. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
I was having a little debate with Ocker about this down under somewhere and I'm glad Neville is around because maybe he can help to clear this up. Taking the Westminster quote as an example, Prem Rawat is the one taking a restrictive view of the terms God and Lord. The first question to the half way awake reader should be, 'who the hell is Prem Rawat that he can so brazenly state what is and what is not God?' Specifically he says that God is pure energy. How does he know that and what are his qualifications to make that claim if he is not presenting himself to indeed be God-like? He is certainly speaking with the authority of divinity.Okay point two. Most people (with the exception of Ocker duly noted) understand God and Lord to mean more or less the same thing, as in, 'I am the Lord thy God'. To make a distinction is nothing more than semantic chiggery chowdery on the part of premies. Perhaps it would be accurate to say that God can have many forms, but the terms God and Lord are interchangeable. Comments Neville?
|
|
|
|
As I mentioned to Mike, in addition to God and Lord being the same thing, at least in the Christian tradition, that same tradition saw Jesus Christ as the human embodiment of God, rather than God himself. Rawat's claims are unambiguous and clear that he claimed the same thing. Besides all the Lord and greater than God stuff, as well as "superior power in person," Rawat many times said he was doing the same thing, revealing the same knowledge as the another Perfect Master, Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
|
"Guru is greater than God" is not such a big deal when you've reduced God to impersonal and inarticulate "energy". Show us this pitiful little light and call it God? It's a God of no earthly use. Naturally all the attention then has to shift to Rawat, who can at least speak even if he talks tosh. So he can evade calling himself God (thus avoiding considerable responsibility) and still take as much or as little glory as he chooses. See that interests me: by not calling himself God Rawat has--how typical--avoided responsibility. The problems of this world? Blame God, not me. Premies are sitting ducks because Rawat can choose what part of the divine mantle he wants to take for himself (and he'll sure start with the money) and what parts are not his problem (like the suffering of premies). He controls the parameters, holds all the cards and can win all the arguments. He's God only when it suits him, but premies are too in awe of him to call him on it. Christian theology pretty much universally recognises Christ as God, period. Not much qualification needed, except maybe to say that Christ was part of the Trinity, and that the Father and the Holy Spirit were also God. In this context, yes, "God" = "Lord". Neville B
|
|
|
|
When Christ was actually on earth, doesn't Christian theology say he was both God and man, -- that he was God in a human body? At least that's Catholic theology.
|
|
|
|
I know you've said this before, but I think you've expressed it exceptionally well in this post.
|
|
|
|
I am not into a public relations point scoring exercise, but simply to tell the truth as I see it. Mike, you are clearly arguing a point in your article; it isn't a dispassionate rendition of events or research. There is no way to read you article as anything other than an answer to those who argue that Maharaji never made divine claims. My point was you undercut yourself by making that first statement, which I think is really innaccurate. Nothing wrong with accuracy, but as I said, I think that statement that Maharaji never claimed to be God is false on its face, especially due to those "third person" statements. In any case, Maharaji never claimed to be God qua God. An irate premie emailed me to draw my attention to these quotes: That's not true. Do the Christians claim Jesus Christ was God? No, they claim he was the living incarnation of God, he was human as well as divine. What is the difference, exactly, between claiming to be the living enbodiment of the energy that is God, while simultaneously claiming to be the Lord of the Universe, greater than God, etc., and claiming to be God qua God? In reality, Mike, except for a few nutcases, I don't think any religious tradition claims anybody was actually "God qua God" in the way you describe it. They claim incarnations of God, and so the premie quote isn't inconsistent with that, if God itself, is "energy." And I say this as something that really directly affected me personally and why I react kind of strongly to this. Maharaji claimed to be the same thing as Jesus Christ. So, in that sense, he claimed to be "God" in the sense that most of us were very familiar and there wasn't really anything subtle about it. No, but they are my strong suit. I am happy to admit that Rawat never claimed to be God qua God as energy Well, Mike that would be fine, but your article doesn't actually say that. It says that Maharaji never claimed to be God, not "god in the sense that he was the energy that runs the universe" or something like that. Why not stick to what is clear and unambiguous? I'm all for that, but am I the only one who finds the opening of your article actually very ambiguous?
Modified by Joe at Wed, Mar 15, 2006, 14:10:24
|
|
|
|
Hi Joe.
Maharaji never claimed to be God, not "god in the sense that he was the energy that runs the universe" or something like that.
Remember there was some quote from him around 1971 about how not a leaf moves without the Grace of Guru Maharaji? Isn't that the same as saying he was God (not just an incarnation)?
|
|
|
|
Joy, That was a classic bit of God-in-human-form strutting there but I think it would be even more important to get some proof of what he said at Kissimee '79 or '80 when he threw a major hissy fit and "reminded" us that he had the power to turn everyone blue and lift them up in the sky (perhaps to tip them upside down and get their loose change). Mind you, I don't recall ever seeing that diatribe in print, now that I think of it. It was part of his major, main-stage satsang but, for some reason, I don't think it was ever published. Too bad. As for your quote, like I say it was a classic. But where was it from? Now that's one I do recall seeing in print!
|
|
|
|
I don't know, Jim, I'm not a historian of this stuff. Where is Hilltop these days? I think he would probably be able to lay his hands on it. But I do know he definitely said it, as it was a popular quote of the time.
The thing that gets me is he very rarely said anything like this, so when he did, it was savored as something really special, and even secret. He really knew how to milk the whole charade for effect. If he'd said this sort of thing all the time, people would just discount it and it'd be easier for him to be refuted. But the way he did it, sort of dropping a little pearl like that now and again, kept people tantalized and fascinated to find out more. He really was/is a master of deceit and cunning, as I said earlier.
|
|
|
|
It's me again, your resident historian. Have a look here: http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/ashramserv.htm That depends on me what gear I want you to work. Everything depends on me. Not even a leaf moves a millimetre without my wish." (Maharaji - March 13, 1971).
Also read further where Prem Rawat explains the difference between those people who have dedicated their lives to him and those who have not. Gallery
|
|
|
|
I'm not clear after reading your article if you think there is a direct connection. Are you saying that cult apologists ascribe to "postmodern" theory to maintain their arguments? How? I think it's just dishonesty and rationalization.
|
|
|
|
Hi JoeI'm not clear after reading your article if you think there is a direct connection. Are you saying that cult apologists ascribe to "postmodern" theory to maintain their arguments? How? I think it's just dishonesty and rationalization. Well yes, but I believe the 'rationalization' has academic respectability because of the postmodernist stance - at least, that is my point. The common-sense way of evaluating a claim about the past would be to look at *all* the available evidence, including eye-witness accounts. Of course you would need to sift it, give weight to the eye-witness accounts in various ways, and balance conflicting accounts. But Wikipedia and the New Religions movement do not do that - and the intellectual underpinning of their rationale is the postmodern thinking that all personal account is suspect as it is all relative, and the academic games that support this. Personal account can of course be suspect, but you can apply the criterion of converging evidence to it and accept that some personal account is more objective and truthful than others. A strict postmodernist cannot do that, because there is no true objectivity, period. -- Mike BTW - I have edited my essay considerably, the first section anyway, which is the bit that you had trouble with I think. Thanks for your feedback.
www.MikeFinch.com
Modified by Mike Finch at Thu, Mar 16, 2006, 03:07:39
|
|
|
|
Mike, I have not read any scholar of NRM who denied that Rawat made personal claims of divinity. Religious scholars Dr. Kranenborg and Melton wrote explicitly that Rawat made personal claims of divinity. Read Wikipedia. Andries
|
|
|
