Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Teachings of Prem Rawat's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Hunt":
From Techniques of Knowledge: Hunt, Stephen J. Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ".The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them. Knowledge, roughly translated, means the happiness of the true self-understanding. Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self. In turn, this brings a sense of well-being, joy, and harmony as one comes in contact with one's "own nature." The Knowledge includes four meditation procedures: Light, Music, Nectar and Word. The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher. Hence, the movement seems to embrace aspects of world-rejection and world-affirmation. The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion, but the adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full."
From Prem Rawat:  Hunt (2003)
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Teachings of Prem Rawat]] 

message: I finally found a source who talks about these things as central to his teachings. It is Reinhard Hummel. Shall I put it in? Rumiton (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what would be best is of you put your proposed changes here so that everyone can see what exactly you would like to change/add/alter. -- Maelefique (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is reasonable. I was just testing the waters before I spend some time translating it. Rumiton (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. He writes that the "three principles [are] Meditation, Service and Satsang". Before that he talks about Prem Rawat's charisma as a Heilsmittler (a word which I cannot think of a way to fairly translate) and the attraction many found in his command to serve society and those in need. It gets difficult after that, because he seems to be suggesting that the DLM organisation got in the way of "service to society and the needy" and made "working for the organisation [the] preferred form of service." It's a bit ambiguous, but what is clear is that he promoted Service, Satsang (company of truth) and Meditation as his "principles". Rumiton (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And now where to suggest inserting these principles into the article? The article has developed by concentrating on Knowledge (the meditation techniques) but anyone who was there will agree with Hummel that it was a three-fold path. I think this is important. I'll keep looking for a way without a total rewrite. Rumiton (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: How about it, guys? Can we do it? Huh? Can we? Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the exact change/addition you'd like to make to the lead? -- Maelefique (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't know that until we get the Hummel info into the article in a form that is acceptable to everyone. Then we can make a summary of that for the lead. You know, the normal stuff. Rumiton (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absense of further comment, I shall make the change. Rumiton (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: This should be summarised and included in some way - "Performing Service, or good works, for the sect was a requirement, and giving Satsang was one type of Service, as it led others to hear that the knowledge was available. Other Service included helping with arrangement of speaking tours for the mahatmas and drawing new converts into the group. Premies could live in ashrams to devote themselves more full to Service. Premies often worked part or full time outside the ashram and gave a sizable portion-sometimes all-of their income to the movement. They also practiced celibacy, vegetarianism, and frequent meditation. The focus of this ascetic existence was their religious mission rather than personal pleasure or gain. (Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion (Paperback) by Marc Galanter)Momento (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Agree with Maelefique. The Service, Satsang Meditation material should be integrated into the "Teachings" section as per "Techniques of Knowledge".Momento (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez, Maelefique, and we were getting on so well! I posted it above. The heading and sentence is what I put up for discussion three DAYS, not minutes, before I put it in the main body. And as I said, the summary for the lead should reflect what we end up with for the article. I am perfectly open to suggestions about that. Rumiton (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, my even-handed and collegial spirit has won out. I can see that my post was misread. Service Satsang and Meditation was the heading of this section, but it was also the heading I wanted to put in the article, with an expandable sentence under it. Please read again in that light. Rumiton (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Why don't you combine Hummel and Galanter?Momento (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have Galanter. What does he have to offer? Rumiton (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I wrote it a few paras up.Momento (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no problem, it was probably all my fault. It's a fair assumption, I have found. Anyway, I am still trying to come up with a version that includes both Galanter's and Hummel's observations. I think it can be done, and would add value to the article. Rumiton (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Once again I agree with Maelefique. Rumiton you need to be a bit patient and read what people write. You ask me above about Galanter's material which is five paras up from your question about it, so you obviously didn't read my contribution to this discussion. And therefore ignored my input and a valuable source. To summarise, I agree S,S & M should be in the article if RSs are found. There are two RS so far which should be summarised and proposed for inclusion in the article. When there is general agree as to its inclusion and form then you put it in. The next question is "Should it go in the lead" and my feeling is that two sources in the article for two sentences are barely enough for inclusion in the lead but I know there are many other sources that refer to satsang and service individually if not as part of the S,S and M platform.Momento (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I missed that. It's Mealefique's fault, he was really ticking me off and I lost concentration. :-) I'll have a look now. I don't see any urgency to even think about the lead right now, don't know where that came from. Let's try to make the article body more informative first. Rumiton (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be difficult to combine the two, they would need to be cited separately, I think. Galanter seems to be saying that service was exclusively assisting the organisation in spreading the Knowledge. Hummel, while acknowledging that this happened, describes it as a narrowing of the universal idea of service "to society and the needy," the practise which led to Prem Rawat's father becoming known as "the guru of the poor." He states that Prem Rawat taught the same ideas that his father had taught, and this narrowing of definition stemmed from the Divine Light Mission's coming to regard their master as "Satguru" and the "Perfect Master of the Time" and ascribing to him the role of "Saviour" (not the exact translation). I will think some more of a way to put this which is true to both sources. Rumiton (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On second and third thoughts, perhaps they are complimentary. Galanter is describing the same phenomenon as Hummel...the idea that service was only considered service if performed directly for the guru. But Hummel describes this as a weakening of his and his father's message of service to humanity and the poor. He attributes it to the view of Prem Rawat which was popularised by the Divine Light Mission, that he was Satguru, the Perfect Master and Saviour of the Age. He states (these are my words) that this religious attitude was "calculated" to undermine the central tenets of his message "from the start". It's interesting stuff. I don't think some people are going to like it. Rumiton (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, no one is blamed. Let's proceed with the fleshing. Rumiton (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I need to consult a native German speaker about the translation of certain of Hummel's words and phrases. I'll get back here soon. Rumiton (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

text: There's also some material somewhere about DLM settings up medical clinics etc that were cut back because of the Millennium debt.Momento (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you remember where that material is? Perhaps it is connected to info on the old World Welfare Association, which was a charity he started in the early 70's. Rumiton (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that Will. It seems this article needs quite a lot of work, focused as it is on the meditation techniques. I agree the word "teaching" doesn't do it (he really has never taught anything) but I can't suggest how else to describe SSM. The word used above, "enjoined", comes pretty close, but it isn't in everyday use. "Requirement" isn't quite right. "Recommended" is pretty close -- if you didn't want to do it, you walked. And yes, he hasn't changed his advice. Most current premies do their service through the TPRF, either as direct supporters of his work or in its international charity projects. Rumiton (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Requirement" seems to be correct, based on the sources. ("required", "necessary", "musts", etc) If one didn't engage in SSM, could one still be a part of the movement or a student of Prem Rawat? FWIW, I believe I saw that the brother also teaches (or whatever) SSM. While it'd be nice to say more about this topic, there don't seem to be many sources that go into much detail. Does anyone have better sources than those I've quoted above? If not, then there's might be enough here for a couple of sentences, which will be partly redundant with what we have in the DLM article.    Will Beback  talk   10:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't much mind "requirement". Re your question; yes, quite a lot of people never seemed to do anything at all, but they stayed around and still show up whenever Prem Rawat is in town. They are definitely considered students. The ashrams were different, of course, if you went in there you had to work hard and behave very strictly. Hummel is a good source for this. I have asked a translating colleague for some advice, as Hummel uses some academic terms I am not 100% sure about. Rumiton (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Regarding his brother Satpal, I am sure he would be teaching exactly what their father taught them, but I have never read anything in English about his work. Rumiton (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you use a foreign-language source, could you please provide the excerpt being cited in its native language?   Will Beback  talk   11:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I am not sure what you are suggesting. Rumiton (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The DLM article has a section titled "Beliefs and practices" which already covers SSM. I'm suggesting using these sources to expand that section. For this article, a sentence or so saying the Rawat and the DLM advocate/require/recommend SSM, and a brief description. Before we do that, are there more recent sources that discuss SSM and Rawat?   Will Beback  talk   20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a small problem with that. The DLM is a long-defunct organisation, as Elan Vital soon will be. His teachings (if we have to call them that) were not part of DLM and have not changed, so they require their own article. The only relevance for newer sources might be regarding the formation and progress of TPRF, an organisation formed to help him spread knowledge and to provide service to humanity. Quotes regarding his current day teachings about service, etc. are abundant on their website and show their continuity. Rumiton (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the sources - Do any of them discuss Elan Vital, or WOPG? No, they are all from before 1980. Thirty years ago. We don't have any sources that even say this is still a part of the program. "His teaching were not part of the DLM"? That makes no sense to me. SSM is closely connected to the DLM, so if those weren't Rawat's teachings then they certainly don't belong here. If there is a recent self-published website that describes SSM then we can use that here, but I don't see any. The other sources all seem to refer to DLM and the DLM era. Our job is to summarize those with the neutral point of view, not to impart the truth we know.   Will Beback  talk   20:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my 4th attempt at replying. I need to go offline for a few days to sort out my computer problems. Rumiton. 114.77.242.145 (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I am back with a working computer. The problem I see is that to attach SSM only to the DLM article is to suggest SSM were a defunct organisation's teachings rather than Prem Rawat's. Sources such as the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance tell us that TPRF was founded by Prem Rawat to "to promote and disseminate to the general public the speeches, writings, music, art and public forums of Prem Rawat; to support, fund, and promote humanitarian initiatives for the relief of physical hunger and thirst through practical and tangible means; and to provide relief to natural disaster victims worldwide." This is Satsang and Service; the Meditation is in the Keys. It seems to me this continuity can and should be reflected in this article. Rumiton (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back to Cyberia. All of the sources talk about the DLM, or date from the DLM period. The BBB source is obviously a second-hand, though still reliable, primary source for TPRF's self description. If we want to cite it for the fact that TPRF is intended to "to promote and disseminate to the general public the speeches, writings, music, art and public forums of Prem Rawat;.." then we can do that. However that is not SSM by name, and we shouldn't decide on our own that it is and call it that in the article. Prem Rawat didn't invent SSM. At a minimum, he inherited it from his father and the DLM. It's also taught by his brother, Satpal, IIRC.   Will Beback  talk   13:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Did you miss the 2nd part, about service to humanity? Of course he didn't invent the concept, but he has been teaching it consistently since arriving in the west, at least. If we don't want to call it SSM, we can draw synonyms from the sources. The link still needs to be made. Rumiton (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I got that. The general point is that most references refer to the DLM, so that material should go in the DLM article. The BBB/TPRF self-description is usable, but we can't draw any conclusions or make any linkages. At most, we can place it next to a discussion of SSM, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. But the problem is that since TPRF has no direct connection to Prem Rawat, we'd be discussing what it does rather than what he teaches, so I don't see how we could even frame it for this article.    Will Beback  talk   21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't see his connection to TPRF as problematic, they describe him as "the founder of TPRF." But I don't have a problem with saying that he started that charity in the same paragraph as his teaching SSM. I am still working on the translation of Hummel, which gives a bit more light on this subject. Clarifying some ambiguities is proving more difficult that I thought. The thrust of Hummel's research is the suggestion that PR has continued his father's work as "the Guru of the poor," but that the guru-devotee relationship which was fostered by the organisation worked to narrow that focus down to doing service only to him, not to humanity. Rumiton (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be interested in seeing that when it's ready.   Will Beback  talk   10:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Satsang, Service, and Meditation were taught by Prem Rawat, but I never, ever, not even once, heard that "Service" was supposed to be "service to humanity," or in anyway anything remotely close to serving anyone other than Guru Maharaj Ji, or Prem Rawat himself.  The closest thing to "Service to humanity" was to support Rawat's work and he has never spoken about giving money or selfless work to other people. To try to finesse the wording in this teachings article, to make it appear that the teachings of SS&M, (which are terms that have long been obsolete in this NRM and are no longer used by Rawat) is to rewrite the true and realistic history of this NRM and the teachings of Rawat.  It would be a distortion of Rawat's core teachings to describe "Service" as anything but service to Rawat alone. "Service" was always taught by Rawat as "service to Guru Maharaj Ji," period, the end.  Btw, there probably isn't a reference to it, but the other part of the teachings besides SS&M, was Darshan.  So Rawat didn't just demand that "premies must do Satsang, Service, and Meditation," he also taught they must also go to see him, whenever they could.  Sylviecyn (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Remember the World Welfare Association? I recall him talking about relieving the suffering of people when I was an aspirant, but the idea we should try to do something outside of service to him was poo-pooed by my coordinator. Anyway, it is what Hummel says that is relevant, not our recollections. The problem I am having there is that he makes his points over several pages, so I can't just grab quotes out. (I also agree that darshan was an important part of it.) Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the scholars discuss darshan, but the main source would obviously be Lucy DuPertuis  How People Recognize Charisma: The Case of Darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission  Sociological Analysis 1986, 47, 2.111-124.   Will Beback  talk   20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

text: It's getting further from the idea of a "teaching" though. Not sure how to proceed with that, or with SSM for that matter. None of it was "taught" in the sense people expect when they read the word "teachings." Rumiton (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service, Satsang and Meditation 

message: According to Reinhard Hummel, the three principles of Prem Rawat's teachings are Selfless Service, Satsang (company of truth) and Meditation (the Knowledge.) 
Then a short reference to this in the lead. Rumiton (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about it, guys? Can we do it? Huh? Can we? Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the exact change/addition you'd like to make to the lead? -- Maelefique (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't know that until we get the Hummel info into the article in a form that is acceptable to everyone. Then we can make a summary of that for the lead. You know, the normal stuff. Rumiton (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absense of further comment, I shall make the change. Rumiton (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: This should be summarised and included in some way - "Performing Service, or good works, for the sect was a requirement, and giving Satsang was one type of Service, as it led others to hear that the knowledge was available. Other Service included helping with arrangement of speaking tours for the mahatmas and drawing new converts into the group. Premies could live in ashrams to devote themselves more full to Service. Premies often worked part or full time outside the ashram and gave a sizable portion-sometimes all-of their income to the movement. They also practiced celibacy, vegetarianism, and frequent meditation. The focus of this ascetic existence was their religious mission rather than personal pleasure or gain. (Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion (Paperback) by Marc Galanter)Momento (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Agree with Maelefique. The Service, Satsang Meditation material should be integrated into the "Teachings" section as per "Techniques of Knowledge".Momento (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez, Maelefique, and we were getting on so well! I posted it above. The heading and sentence is what I put up for discussion three DAYS, not minutes, before I put it in the main body. And as I said, the summary for the lead should reflect what we end up with for the article. I am perfectly open to suggestions about that. Rumiton (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, my even-handed and collegial spirit has won out. I can see that my post was misread. Service Satsang and Meditation was the heading of this section, but it was also the heading I wanted to put in the article, with an expandable sentence under it. Please read again in that light. Rumiton (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Why don't you combine Hummel and Galanter?Momento (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have Galanter. What does he have to offer? Rumiton (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I wrote it a few paras up.Momento (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no problem, it was probably all my fault. It's a fair assumption, I have found. Anyway, I am still trying to come up with a version that includes both Galanter's and Hummel's observations. I think it can be done, and would add value to the article. Rumiton (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Once again I agree with Maelefique. Rumiton you need to be a bit patient and read what people write. You ask me above about Galanter's material which is five paras up from your question about it, so you obviously didn't read my contribution to this discussion. And therefore ignored my input and a valuable source. To summarise, I agree S,S & M should be in the article if RSs are found. There are two RS so far which should be summarised and proposed for inclusion in the article. When there is general agree as to its inclusion and form then you put it in. The next question is "Should it go in the lead" and my feeling is that two sources in the article for two sentences are barely enough for inclusion in the lead but I know there are many other sources that refer to satsang and service individually if not as part of the S,S and M platform.Momento (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I missed that. It's Mealefique's fault, he was really ticking me off and I lost concentration. :-) I'll have a look now. I don't see any urgency to even think about the lead right now, don't know where that came from. Let's try to make the article body more informative first. Rumiton (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be difficult to combine the two, they would need to be cited separately, I think. Galanter seems to be saying that service was exclusively assisting the organisation in spreading the Knowledge. Hummel, while acknowledging that this happened, describes it as a narrowing of the universal idea of service "to society and the needy," the practise which led to Prem Rawat's father becoming known as "the guru of the poor." He states that Prem Rawat taught the same ideas that his father had taught, and this narrowing of definition stemmed from the Divine Light Mission's coming to regard their master as "Satguru" and the "Perfect Master of the Time" and ascribing to him the role of "Saviour" (not the exact translation). I will think some more of a way to put this which is true to both sources. Rumiton (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On second and third thoughts, perhaps they are complimentary. Galanter is describing the same phenomenon as Hummel...the idea that service was only considered service if performed directly for the guru. But Hummel describes this as a weakening of his and his father's message of service to humanity and the poor. He attributes it to the view of Prem Rawat which was popularised by the Divine Light Mission, that he was Satguru, the Perfect Master and Saviour of the Age. He states (these are my words) that this religious attitude was "calculated" to undermine the central tenets of his message "from the start". It's interesting stuff. I don't think some people are going to like it. Rumiton (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, no one is blamed. Let's proceed with the fleshing. Rumiton (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I need to consult a native German speaker about the translation of certain of Hummel's words and phrases. I'll get back here soon. Rumiton (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

text: There's also some material somewhere about DLM settings up medical clinics etc that were cut back because of the Millennium debt.Momento (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you remember where that material is? Perhaps it is connected to info on the old World Welfare Association, which was a charity he started in the early 70's. Rumiton (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that Will. It seems this article needs quite a lot of work, focused as it is on the meditation techniques. I agree the word "teaching" doesn't do it (he really has never taught anything) but I can't suggest how else to describe SSM. The word used above, "enjoined", comes pretty close, but it isn't in everyday use. "Requirement" isn't quite right. "Recommended" is pretty close -- if you didn't want to do it, you walked. And yes, he hasn't changed his advice. Most current premies do their service through the TPRF, either as direct supporters of his work or in its international charity projects. Rumiton (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Requirement" seems to be correct, based on the sources. ("required", "necessary", "musts", etc) If one didn't engage in SSM, could one still be a part of the movement or a student of Prem Rawat? FWIW, I believe I saw that the brother also teaches (or whatever) SSM. While it'd be nice to say more about this topic, there don't seem to be many sources that go into much detail. Does anyone have better sources than those I've quoted above? If not, then there's might be enough here for a couple of sentences, which will be partly redundant with what we have in the DLM article.    Will Beback  talk   10:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't much mind "requirement". Re your question; yes, quite a lot of people never seemed to do anything at all, but they stayed around and still show up whenever Prem Rawat is in town. They are definitely considered students. The ashrams were different, of course, if you went in there you had to work hard and behave very strictly. Hummel is a good source for this. I have asked a translating colleague for some advice, as Hummel uses some academic terms I am not 100% sure about. Rumiton (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Regarding his brother Satpal, I am sure he would be teaching exactly what their father taught them, but I have never read anything in English about his work. Rumiton (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you use a foreign-language source, could you please provide the excerpt being cited in its native language?   Will Beback  talk   11:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I am not sure what you are suggesting. Rumiton (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The DLM article has a section titled "Beliefs and practices" which already covers SSM. I'm suggesting using these sources to expand that section. For this article, a sentence or so saying the Rawat and the DLM advocate/require/recommend SSM, and a brief description. Before we do that, are there more recent sources that discuss SSM and Rawat?   Will Beback  talk   20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a small problem with that. The DLM is a long-defunct organisation, as Elan Vital soon will be. His teachings (if we have to call them that) were not part of DLM and have not changed, so they require their own article. The only relevance for newer sources might be regarding the formation and progress of TPRF, an organisation formed to help him spread knowledge and to provide service to humanity. Quotes regarding his current day teachings about service, etc. are abundant on their website and show their continuity. Rumiton (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the sources - Do any of them discuss Elan Vital, or WOPG? No, they are all from before 1980. Thirty years ago. We don't have any sources that even say this is still a part of the program. "His teaching were not part of the DLM"? That makes no sense to me. SSM is closely connected to the DLM, so if those weren't Rawat's teachings then they certainly don't belong here. If there is a recent self-published website that describes SSM then we can use that here, but I don't see any. The other sources all seem to refer to DLM and the DLM era. Our job is to summarize those with the neutral point of view, not to impart the truth we know.   Will Beback  talk   20:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my 4th attempt at replying. I need to go offline for a few days to sort out my computer problems. Rumiton. 114.77.242.145 (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I am back with a working computer. The problem I see is that to attach SSM only to the DLM article is to suggest SSM were a defunct organisation's teachings rather than Prem Rawat's. Sources such as the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance tell us that TPRF was founded by Prem Rawat to "to promote and disseminate to the general public the speeches, writings, music, art and public forums of Prem Rawat; to support, fund, and promote humanitarian initiatives for the relief of physical hunger and thirst through practical and tangible means; and to provide relief to natural disaster victims worldwide." This is Satsang and Service; the Meditation is in the Keys. It seems to me this continuity can and should be reflected in this article. Rumiton (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back to Cyberia. All of the sources talk about the DLM, or date from the DLM period. The BBB source is obviously a second-hand, though still reliable, primary source for TPRF's self description. If we want to cite it for the fact that TPRF is intended to "to promote and disseminate to the general public the speeches, writings, music, art and public forums of Prem Rawat;.." then we can do that. However that is not SSM by name, and we shouldn't decide on our own that it is and call it that in the article. Prem Rawat didn't invent SSM. At a minimum, he inherited it from his father and the DLM. It's also taught by his brother, Satpal, IIRC.   Will Beback  talk   13:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Did you miss the 2nd part, about service to humanity? Of course he didn't invent the concept, but he has been teaching it consistently since arriving in the west, at least. If we don't want to call it SSM, we can draw synonyms from the sources. The link still needs to be made. Rumiton (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I got that. The general point is that most references refer to the DLM, so that material should go in the DLM article. The BBB/TPRF self-description is usable, but we can't draw any conclusions or make any linkages. At most, we can place it next to a discussion of SSM, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. But the problem is that since TPRF has no direct connection to Prem Rawat, we'd be discussing what it does rather than what he teaches, so I don't see how we could even frame it for this article.    Will Beback  talk   21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't see his connection to TPRF as problematic, they describe him as "the founder of TPRF." But I don't have a problem with saying that he started that charity in the same paragraph as his teaching SSM. I am still working on the translation of Hummel, which gives a bit more light on this subject. Clarifying some ambiguities is proving more difficult that I thought. The thrust of Hummel's research is the suggestion that PR has continued his father's work as "the Guru of the poor," but that the guru-devotee relationship which was fostered by the organisation worked to narrow that focus down to doing service only to him, not to humanity. Rumiton (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be interested in seeing that when it's ready.   Will Beback  talk   10:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Satsang, Service, and Meditation were taught by Prem Rawat, but I never, ever, not even once, heard that "Service" was supposed to be "service to humanity," or in anyway anything remotely close to serving anyone other than Guru Maharaj Ji, or Prem Rawat himself.  The closest thing to "Service to humanity" was to support Rawat's work and he has never spoken about giving money or selfless work to other people. To try to finesse the wording in this teachings article, to make it appear that the teachings of SS&M, (which are terms that have long been obsolete in this NRM and are no longer used by Rawat) is to rewrite the true and realistic history of this NRM and the teachings of Rawat.  It would be a distortion of Rawat's core teachings to describe "Service" as anything but service to Rawat alone. "Service" was always taught by Rawat as "service to Guru Maharaj Ji," period, the end.  Btw, there probably isn't a reference to it, but the other part of the teachings besides SS&M, was Darshan.  So Rawat didn't just demand that "premies must do Satsang, Service, and Meditation," he also taught they must also go to see him, whenever they could.  Sylviecyn (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Remember the World Welfare Association? I recall him talking about relieving the suffering of people when I was an aspirant, but the idea we should try to do something outside of service to him was poo-pooed by my coordinator. Anyway, it is what Hummel says that is relevant, not our recollections. The problem I am having there is that he makes his points over several pages, so I can't just grab quotes out. (I also agree that darshan was an important part of it.) Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the scholars discuss darshan, but the main source would obviously be Lucy DuPertuis  How People Recognize Charisma: The Case of Darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission  Sociological Analysis 1986, 47, 2.111-124.   Will Beback  talk   20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

text: It's getting further from the idea of a "teaching" though. Not sure how to proceed with that, or with SSM for that matter. None of it was "taught" in the sense people expect when they read the word "teachings." Rumiton (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Service, Satsang and Meditation