Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 5

message: *there is not such a thing as Indian culture. India is too big and too diverse for that. 
*Where are your references that he made it in a Indian context? He made the claim to among others to western followers here in West. So he did not make them in an Indian context.
Hence I will reprase that statement.Andries 16:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims of divinity "in Indian context"

message: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/elanvital.html why was this link removed? It is a good article. Andries 22:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it, Andries. Please read http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/home.htm. The new editor-in-chef of that projet is Douglas E. Cowan. The previous one Jeff Adden, passed away last year. I corresponded with Professor Cowan him during my research. Cowen an his team know that the resource is very out of date and they will be updating the resources over the next two years. So I thought to keep it out of the article till then. As I know of your interest in NRMs. you may want to read this http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/essays/miller2003.htm and this http://c.faculty.umkc.edu/cowande/sssr-2002.pdf --Zappaz 09:37, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information. I wrote about five emails complaining that the entry of Sai Baba contains serious mistakes and was outdated during a period of two years but I never received a reply!Andries 09:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it is a good reference. I agree that it mainly refers to obsolete practices.  Andries 10:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: University of Virginina article, why was it removed?

message: You guys have a lot of nerve.  Once again I exposed some blatant, undeniable deception here and once again my comments are erased.  The fact is that the sources you're relying on to support the EV spin on Arti don't actually say what you're pretending they do.  Go ahead, read the actual quotes and not just the small parts clipped above.  You'll see that the arti sung to brothers is not at all the same as the Arti we sang to Rawat, which he himself amended by the way.  And the only reason the devotional Arti is ever sung to actors, as in the other quote above, is because the actors are impersonating gods and demi-gods!
In other words, EV's FAQ below is a complete revisionist lie: 
'What about this song called Arti? 
'Another little-understood practise that came from India with Maharaji in the '70s is Arti, a song sung to the teacher or to members of his family. Arti is performed not only in front of a teacher or master but also on many other occasions: a son returning from a long journey, a sister honouring her brother or to honour the successful completion of an important endeavour. In a handful of occasions in the past decade, students in the West have sung Arti. '''''
 
Once again, here is the link to the Arti that Rawat ordered us to sing to him morning and night when we lived in the ashram and which was the central ritual performed by all premies regardless of where they lived on a daily basis:
http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/iarti.htm
And once again, please note, Rawat not only added the last part long after his family split and he could blame no one but himself for throwing more wood on the devotional fire, he even added this final, spoken prayer that drives the abject subservience theme home all that much further:
'Oh my Guru Maharaji,
you are all powerfull,
there is nothing in this world you cannot do,
you can do everything,
kindly save me,
kindly protect me,
and thank you my Lord for everything.''''''
So quit pretending that this song is anything less than perfect proof that Rawat purported to be God.  And quit erasing my comments.
-- Jim
After I wrote this, my earlier comments re-appeared!  So this last rant is a bit redundant, I guess.  How'd that happen, anyway?
-- Jim
:yes, Jim, your comments (that were relevant and to the point) had been removed/censored but I restored them. I will request the ip of the culprit to be blocked if s/he does it again. Please get a userid because you may be blocked too because of vandalism by another person that uses your ip. Andries 08:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were my comments on Arti removed?! 

message: :(1) You guys are in a cult!  Holy cow, it really does seem that way to me.  You're in your own closed thought system that is not rational, it's more like pseudo-rational. So tell me, is there an article on Wikipedia itself?  Because I want to start posting my minority opinion there that Wikipedia follows a set of silly beliefs that its members can't see, of course, because of their blind spots. --Jim 
:(2) I have  done some further reading on Wiki NPOV and all I can say is that the more I read, the more stupid, unworkable and misguided it is. You guys go for it. I'm embarrassed I ever bothered to waste a moment here. -- Jim  
:(3)I hate premies -- and why not? Look  at them. 'Hate' is such a funny word these days. Some PC policy  wonks decided that after centuries of meaning simply a strong dislike or aversion to something or someone, 'hate' should now  be reserved for crimes of racial bias or other such prejudice.  Well fuck that. 'Hate' works perfectly fine the old way and that's  how I'm using it. -- Jim
:#Do you stand by these statement you made or you don't? 
:#What about answering some questions instead of asking so many? 
:You are the one misleading everyone here, not me. 
:As Fat Grrl says above, you are here for one reason only: H A T E.
:64.81.88.140
Actually, I do answer questions when I get them.  Show me where I don't.  You want answer to these?  Sure.
Yes, I generally stand by these statements with some exceptions.  I do think that Wikipedia is seriously misguided in their approach to some of these subjects, at least the Rawat one.  I think that some of the Wiki approach undermines free, rational thought and to that limited extent is cult-like.  As for my involvement here, obviously I changed my mind, at least temporarily, and that's why I've said more.  As for saying that I hate premies, why not look at the full post from then instead:
'Date: Tues, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:04:12 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: I hate premies -- and why not? Look at them
Message: 
 
'Hate' is such a funny word these days. Some PC policy wonks decided that after centuries of meaning simply a strong dislike or aversion to something or someone, 'hate' should now be reserved for crimes of racial bias or other such prejudice. Well fuck that. 'Hate' works perfectly fine the old way and that's how I'm using it.
I feel a very 'strong dislike', a visceral aversion, if you will, for the premies who post here. Why? Because I despise their words. I despise their thought patterns. I despise what they've turned into, what they've let their cult leader turn them into: backbone-less and forked. Kind of like snakes, I guess.
I get back from work today. Now let me tell you, 'work' consists of dealing with alleged rapists, murderers, even prosecutors. Not to mention my secretary. [ :) ] None of these people, if I recall, ever made a big thing about being 'seekers of truth'. Not to me anyway.
So I get home and take a look at some of the threads. And what do I see? The same old, same old. Premies denying the obvious. Denying all contentious facts and, if they're particularly cautious, denying even innocuous ones. They're liars and they know it. Why do I hate them? Because they engender disgust and revulsion in me. I don't force it, it's a natural reaction to their lies and bullshit.
Do I like feeling this way? No, not particularly. I've got a lot of friends, friends of all stripes, rich, poor, young, old, educated, not. I've even got some friends who believe weird shit; that in itself isn't ath big a problem, just gives us something fun to argue about. But I don't have friends who are liars, who would lie to me about my own life or about the obvious implications of all sorts of matters related to the cult I spent my twenties in. No, I hate people like that. I hate what they do and how they do it. Most of all, I hate what they represent.''''
I was wrong to generalize in my subject line but you can see that what I'm really complaining about is how dishonest premies who post online are in their defence of Rawat.
Like you for instance, the way you tried to support EV's lies about Arti.  Yeah, I hate that.  I don't hate YOU necessarily, and should probably have been more careful in my saying that, but I certainly hate the way you and your fellow premies mistreat the truth.
--24.64.223.203 23:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Jim's Gems

message: Ed, 
This is really too much.  First, before you read another word, I want you to appreciate that I'm sitting here,smiling, casual, happy.  Life's good.  I'm actually on holidays now visiting my mum.  I'm not heated up.  If anything, I'm just a bit bemused.
But the fact is, as I've been trying to get across to you guys, an important part of these PR wars, if you will, between Rawat and his ex-followers is the issue of truth, who is willing to distort it, to what extent and how.  I maintain that you now have before you a perfect example of EV -- and premies' -- willingness to lie and attempt blatant revisionism.  The Arti FAQ, is both recent and official and, as any reasonable person can now see, is undeniably misleading.  
Another perfect example was Jossi, a very representative follower's, attempt to mischaracterize the quotes I posted of Rawat as somehow distorted or inaccurate or taken out of context.  Again, that wasn't true. It was just a typical device Rawat and his followers use to whitewash the past.
Obviously, lying and deceiving people is not a pleasant thing.  It's not honorable and it's not nice.  But when that's an integral part of the modus operandi of a group like Rawat's, well either that part of the story gets told or there's no story at all.
You seem intent on maintaining some middle ground that allows the benefit of the doubt and the possibility of honorable intentions on Rawat and his followers' part regardless of anything.  Really, Ed, that's quite impossible here.  
Another example.  As I said up above somewhere, EV intentionally took a joke I made -- and which I admitted was a joke instantly at the time -- my claiming to have stolen $18k -- and posted that on their FAQs as an admission of theft.  You have to know that no money was ever stolen, even the community coordinator then, a premie named Jack Tuff, posted online to confirm that there never was any theft.  Still, EV in one of their FAQs about their critics, simply lies, saying that I admitted that I embezzled that money.  (I don't have the quote at hand but could get it for you in if need be).  There are no two sides to this.  It's just simple, classic cult tactics, lying to avoid the truth.  It's not possible to "soft pedal" this and explain it for what it is.  That's the issue here.
As for Zappaz, I'm osrry, but he REALLY doesn't know what he's talking about.  :)
::Jim: That is exactly the problem with your position: your inability to understand the policy of NPOV. NPOV has nothing to do with truth or falsehood. Please orient yourself by reading the NPOV pages. I am quoting form the NPOV article below: (highlighhts are mine)
----
::Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But we (humans) disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different theory of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it's a collaborative effort; but, whilst collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts that not-p? 
::A solution is that we accept, for purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use the word "know" in the sense, we often use so-called scare quotes. In the Middle Ages, we "knew" that demons caused diseases. We now "know" otherwise.
::We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of these views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents.
::To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But since Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we surely cannot expect our collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them.
::There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, and thus to encourage in them intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our nonbias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.
----
:: Unless you accept the basics of NPOV, you will have a really hard time here, Jim. I know that it is difficult for you given your early statements about your visceral hate of Prem Rawat and his followers, but NPOV is the foundation upon which  Wikipedia has developed thus far quite successfully, and NPOV is not negotiable.  141.76.1.122 16:47, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "soft pedal" the truth? 

message: The other thing this quote proves is the real significance of darshan.  Like it does with Arti, EV pretends that this ritual does not imply the guru's divinity.  Of course that's a lie and here, in his own words, is Rawat to prove it:
So the main thing to understand here is that he bows down to the feet of that guru whose utterances, whose expressions are able to illuminate. 
In the context of Rawat scolding premies for forgetting he was God, this quote says it all, don't you think?
Come on, be fair now!
:)
-- Jim
141.76.1.121, Zappaz, Jim, Jossi, Uncle Ed/Ed Poor,
What do you think of the following paragraph dealing with the claims of divinity:
:’’Maharaji used to make many adamant claims of his divinity, mostly in Hindu terms. Later he stopped openly making these claims so frequently. He now denies having made them but even continues to make them in India and to some close followers. He still occasionally allows his followers to worship him as a deity, for example during arti.   He does not tell most current and prospective students about these claims.’’
Andries 17:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also, see how this proves the significane of darshan?