Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dispute status?

The page has been stable for a couple of days. Although not all facts presented in the article are 100% checked & substantiated, I think it presents a pretty decent NPOV. I am removing the totallydisputed template, toning down to disputed, leaving the controversial template for a while. --141.76.1.122 15:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

You've got to be kidding! There is no way in the world that the current article is anything close to NPOV. Frankly, with all your talk of NPOV, I think you guys don't really have the faintest clue what fair reportage looks like. Here's an example. Referring to Rawat's "Peace Bomb" satsang. the article now states:

Some critics interpret this speech as a declaration of divinity[3] (http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/claims.htm). The FAQ of one of the organizations that support his work (See Elan Vital), rebuts this by saying that in Indian culture it is routinely declared the Guru as God or even greater than God. To the man on the street in India, "Guru is greater than God" is a common statement.[4] (http://www.elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/10/076/article/). They also say that in India the title of "Lord" is given on the the basis of affection or admiration[5]

First, it's clearly not just "some critics" who would interpret this speech as a declaration of divinity. ANYONE would! Have you actually read the piece?

Here's yet another sample:

In the Bhagavad Gita, the Lord says that whenever religion becomes corrupted and evil increases, He takes a human body and manifests in this world to destroy evil and to protect His devotees. All of you must know very well what is happening to religion and Knowledge in the materialistic age. All the time, the latest models are being built, the latest fashions are being designed. Day by day men are striving to improve the quality and appearance of their inventions. And today I have to say with sorrow that the Knowledge which was once firmly established in this land of India has been slowly disappearing. But when the Lord saw that the troubles His devotees were having to endure had reached the final point, He said, "My devotees can bear it no longer", and then manifested Himself in a human body. So He has now come to reveal the lost Knowledge and to restore true peace. The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world. So, in this ground, where one moment ago I expressed sorrow, I now praise the fate of India. I do not have the words to express how fortunate we are that the Lord's Grace always saves us from destruction and makes us His lovers.

So, dear premies, we Indians have a duty and that duty is to forget that self-esteem which makes you lazy and to destroy those things that separate you from God. Only accept that which is of God, which is one with the Name of God, and from which every ray of the Light of God comes. Accept that and show the Western world that in this degrading age, we are the same Indians as before. The Lord, Guru Maharaj Ji, has brought the same Grace with Him that He brought for us before, and if you are not receiving it then come to me.

How could anyone dispute that this was a declaration of divinity? Further, how could anyone give any credence at all to EV's FAQ's about this? Just because they deny reality doesn't mean they have a legitimate viewpoint that deserves acknowledgement. Doesn't your cherished NPOV have a component of reasonableness?

And that's just one example. If this is the best Wikipedia can do, then it's clearly not up to the job of profiling controversial subjects. You must have a threshold reasonableness standard and exercise some discrimination. You guys are so quick to suggest that because I'm an ex-member I can't have the same NPOV you do. That's a smug, ad hominem and conclusory opinion that doesn't stand up to the light of day. The real question is who's willing to consider the evidence, fairly and reasonably. Anyone can do that if they're careful.

I would suggest that you read Talk:Prem_Rawat#From_NPOV_page so you may gain an understanding of Wikipedia's aim as an encyclopaedia. Also note the disclaimer about the neutrality of the article. Pls see this as "work in progress". Eventually, and after contributions of many editors and anons like me, most pages reach the goal of NPOV. Patience is needed.168.143.113.138 17:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Instead of Some critics interpret this speech as a declaration of divinity I edited to say Some interpret this speech as a declaration of divinity. That is an example of NPOV editing. -168.143.113.138 17:32, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jim here again. I've read your NPOV stuff and it doesn't change my opinion. I think you guys are operating under some very misguided, disabling principles. I think it's quite telling, in fact, that again and again, you Wikipedians avoid actually discussing these issues substantively. Instead, you rather robotically keep referring to your own apparently sacred texts, your NPOV guidelines. It seems like a substitute for rational discourse or something. CAn't you just stop doing that for a bit and actually discuss this with me?

My argument is a simple one: no fair-minded person could dispute that that speech was a declaration of divinity. How can it be fair then to discount that fact as a mere interpretation that some might make, suggesting, of course that others might FAIRLY AND REASONABLY disagree? Would you please explain that to me?

By the way, have you ever heard of the fallacy of the middle? The fallacy of the open mind?

Jim, I think you have a point. Barrett (see references) who sounds very sympathetic when writing about Elan Vital and who has spoken to Glenn Whittaker and Susan Evans writes that Maharaji used to have an "almost-divine status". Jim, I would appreciate it if you created a user id here. Andries 18:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you Andries. Within NPOV, you can say that some interpret this as a declaration of divinity, but you cannot say followers accepted his claims of divinity. You cannot be certain of what a person of group of people accepted or not. Some may and some may have not. Reverted. If you want, you can say Barret argues that Prem Rawat used to have an 'almost divine-status'. That would be OK.--141.76.1.122 23:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

141.76.1.122 okay, I will drop the verb "believe" which Barrett didn't mention in this respect. I think you are formally correct but your skepticism goes too far. It is as if you say that one cannot write in Wikipedia that Christians believe that the Bible was divinely inspired because there is no proof of this, even if a scholar writes it. This may be formally correct but at the same time lacks common sense. Why would people follow Maharaji if they did not believe what he said? Such behavior would be very plausible. Why would some followers kiss his feet as I just saw on the video downloaded from www.ex-premie.org? It may be true that many (superficial) followers just wanted to learn the meditation techniques and did not care so much about other things, but I am now only speculating. I just found another reference by the well-respected Dutch NRM specialist Dr. Reender Kranenborg who wrote that Maharaji was an example of a guru with almost absolute power in the DLM. Source Een nieuw licht op de kerk? - Bijdragen van nieuwe religieuze bewegingen voor de kerk van vandaag/A new vision on the church? -Contributions of new religious movements to the current church 1984, the Hague, Netherlands Boekencentrum . Andries 19:19, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jim. This project is one of the most successful open source projects ever. The concept of NPOV has worked remarkably well for subjects much more controversial than this one. Spend some time browsing Wikipedia articles and you will see for yourself. If we managed to reach NPOV on pages such as abortion I am certain we will be able to do so here as well.--141.76.1.122 23:02, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

edits to "Maharaji" title

Am beginning to go through article for inaccuracies as I see them, in accordance with Wiki rules as best I can.

This edit corrects and gives more neutral information. It is important that the correct translation be given for this title. "Maha" = great; "Raj" = king. The article as written was submitted with a slant toward portraying Maharaji as un-hindu-like and un-God-like as possible, since that is his current way of presenting himself in the West. Mary Moore 19:32, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)Mary

Maharaja or Maharajah means great king in Sanskrit, In Hindi, the 'a' is dropped so it is pronouced "Maharaj". In India, the title Maharaj is an honorifc title, even used in informal greetings. You could be walking down a village's road in your western garb and villagers will come to you, and call you Maharaj... The suffix "Ji", also commonly used, means "Sir". Tis is common knowledge. Just google Maharaj and you'll see 225,000 pages... --Zappaz 02:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Clearly this man has evolved in the way that he presents himself and his teachings. I think the article is already giving that impression very clearly. I have been reading his speeches from the 1970's (from your website ex-premie.org) as well as the more recent ones (www.maharajiblog.net) and the evolution is consistent year by year, though something at the core of his teachings has remained the same, IMO. I don't think that is up to us in Wikipedia to decide if this is good or bad. If we present this evolution as a fact supported by references, we can let readers decide that for themselves. That is the point of NPOV.--141.76.1.121 00:13, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

edits to Satpal / hindu trappings paragraph

Original paragraph incorrect as stated in that Satpal asserted himself as the teacher over Maharaji everywhere, not just in India. Satpal has toured outside India. Also added notations that Maharaji continues to present himself Hindu-style while in India. For example, he sits on a huge throne, wears Indian garb, a devotional song "Arti" is sung to him, which proclaims him as "father, mother, brother, friend, you are my all, my lord to me", and darshan line is performed (followers line up to kiss his feet.) All of this happens in current day. My most recent personal eyewitness of this was 1997.

Mary, don't agree with your edit and reverted, Maharaja means great king. Maha (great) Raj (king). The suffix Ji means respectfully, "Sir". Revetred edit.168.143.113.138 22:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mary Moore edits

Mary, you have removed some text and edited several paragraphs in a manner that denote bias. For example, you took out Ed's edit about Maharaji being an honoray title and the statement about Indian culture?. I disagree with that edit and reverted.

In regard to the figure 5.5 million, instead of 6.5 million, how do you substantiate that? Just in the last year alone, according to press releases, Prem Rawat talked to one million people. The official number is 6.5 million [1]

Concerning the Indian trappings, why did you remove infrmation about Satpal Rawat. As far as his website go, he has definitively remained within Indian culture trappings and has travelled very little outside of the Indian sub-continent. The fact that he has had mixed success in his political career, is also known.

I appreciate your participation, but please try to add value to the article rather than reduce value. I will be reverting most of your edits. Thanks. --141.76.1.121 23:21, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mary, can you explain why you de-wikified David C. Lane? These kind of edits do not make sense. Add value, don't remove value. Thanks.--141.76.1.122 01:13, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

response to reversions

I'm really making an effort here to not be biased. And taking the time to do it in the way that you have requested. Below are responses. I would appreciate my edits being reinstated if you agree with my points below.

"Mary, don't agree with your edit and reverted, Maharaja means great king. Maha (great) Raj (king). The suffix Ji means respectfully, "Sir". Revetred edit.168.143.113.138 22:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) [edit]"

Maharaji is a shortened version of Maharaj Ji (e.g., Guru Maharaj Ji). Don't understand your logic how is Maharaj, "Maha", "Raj" not great king? Would you prefer "great king sir"? That is the literal translation of his name.

"Mary Moore edits Mary, you have removed some text and edited several paragraphs in a manner that denote bias. For example, you took out Ed's edit about Maharaji being an honoray title and the statement about Indian culture?. I disagree with that edit and reverted."

Are you sure it was Ed's edit? I thought it was Jossi's original text attempting to make Maharaji look well-loved and not claiming to be god-like. I believe that a literal translation is more neutral.

"In regard to the figure 5.5 million, instead of 6.5 million, how do you substantiate that? Just in the last year alone, according to press releases, Prem Rawat talked to one million people. The official number is 6.5 million [2] (http://tprf.org/prem_rawat.htm)"

The 5.5 million number is the one I've seen in press releases. The reference you give above has no number at all on that page -???. It's really a moot point however. The Elan Vital method of counting is entirely suspect. They count the same people over and over again and make it sound like it's a lot of people, to give the guru credibility. I don't care what number you put. It's not right anyway; it's just a Public Relations spin-job.

"Concerning the Indian trappings, why did you remove infrmation about Satpal Rawat. As far as his website go, he has definitively remained within Indian culture trappings and has travelled very little outside of the Indian sub-continent. The fact that he has had mixed success in his political career, is also known."

I didn't change anything about what was said about his political career. The original paragraph, as I explained already, made it sound like the split was that Satpal took the Indians and Maharaji took the West. This is not the case. Satpal claimed to be the one satguru for mankind and Maharaji ALSO claimed to be the one satguru for mankind. I never said that Satpal hasn't retained Indian trappings. Indeed he has. But he has attempted to recruit followers in the West. A more important point, which you have removed, which I made, is that Maharaji still presents himself with all the Hindu trappings while in India. This fact should be reinstated. You have not given any reason for reverting that.

"I appreciate your participation, but please try to add value to the article rather than reduce value. I will be reverting most of your edits. Thanks. --141.76.1.121 23:21, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

I would appreciate your reverting my edits back into the article so that you and I don't get into an edit war. This is very tedious. All I was trying to do is work within the constraints of this organization to make the article more balanced. It was written by a current cult-member, for God's sake, there is a lot of spin that needs to be balanced out.

I like what you guys have been doing to make the article more neutral. Please stay involved so that it can move forward.

"Mary, can you explain why you de-wikified David C. Lane? These kind of edits do not make sense. Add value, don't remove value. Thanks.--141.76.1.122 01:13, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

Sorry, don't know what you mean by de-wikifying David C. Lane. That was unintentional. I thought that there was no purpose in classifying him as an anti-cult activist. I saw that as a transparent attempt to prejudice the reader against him before even reading his work.

Would appreciate your patience. I would hope that my 29 years in the cult and 2 years working on guru's personal staff in the recent past would be considered of some use in bringing accuracy to the article. I also have many years of professional writing experience. As I was editing, I did correct some grammar and misspellings which now have probably been lost due to the blanket reversions.

I believe that you are biased against me, simply because I am an ex-member and inexperienced Wikipedian...please be patient, I am trying to help. Mary Moore 03:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)Mary

further comments/replies to mary

--141.76.1.121 04:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the tile Maharaji, please see the comment by user:Zappaz above. It clearly explains this. (BTW, your bias was very transparent here...)

As far as I can see from the history, jossi's last edit was [2]. Most of the NPOVing was done by me, user:Andries, user:Ed Poor and a couple of other anons. The first para last edits where done by me and later augumented by Ed. See Talk:Prem_Rawat#Good_work

The current version was not written by user:jossi or any one individual. It included contributions of at least 10 editors, if not more, including some from your group of ex-followers.

De-wikifying the name of David C. Lane means that you removed the link to his page in Wikipedia. It should have remained David C. Lane, so people can link to that page. The assertion about being an anti-cult activist comes from that page. Check it out. (BTW, what is bad about being an anti-cult activist? For some people that is a commendable endeavor, for others it is an an abhorrent one...) In the future be careful in your edits not to remove these links or to assume bias when there isn't.

141.76.1.121, the bulk of the article about David C. Lane was written by Lane himself upon my request but I added the sentence that he was an anti-cult activist. But on second thoughts I don't know whether that is accurate because he is not a full time anti-cult activist and doesn't earn money with it unlike e.g. Rick Ross and Steven Hassan. I think it would be more accurate to write that he is critical about several NRMs especially when the guru makes extraordinary claims about himsel, like claiming to be a perfect master or an avatar or in case of plagiarism with MSIA and Eckankar. Andries 18:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hope we will not enter into an edit war. You are most welcome to edit, but as said please add value, don't remove value. The fact that you were a student of maharaji, does not mean much here if your contributions to the article are not substantial enough to withstand scrutinity by other editors. I admire the fact that you are attempting to write while conscious that you are biased. The best way to do this is to write for the enemy. Read carefuly this: NPOV#A_consequence:_writing_for_the_enemy.

Regarding Maharaji's Indian trappings in India, I checked the weblogs and in the photos from India I did not see any big thrones as you claim, just a simple stage and a gray office chair. Check for yourself [3] and [4]. Again, we need to keep our bias in check: it blinds us.

And finally, an editor's ability to correct grammar and typos is always welcome.--141.76.1.121 04:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also note that the title Maharaj Ji is also given to his brother Satpal Rawat. On SatPal's webiste [5] it reads: His father passed away in 19th July 1966, bequeathing his mission and unfinished work to his eldest son. When the time came, young Maharaj Ji took command with his characteristic zeal and efficiency, dedicating himself to fulfilling his father's dreams.

On a lighter note there is cricket ball in India who's brand name is Maharaj :) [6]--Zappaz 07:21, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Indian trappings"

Regarding Maharaji's Indian trappings in India, I checked the weblogs and in the photos from India I did not see any big thrones as you claim, just a simple stage and a gray office chair. Check for yourself [4] (http://inspire.contactinfo.net/v1_i10/story_2.htm) and [5] (http://inspire.contactinfo.net/v1_i7/story_1.htm). Again, we need to keep our bias in check: it blinds us."

Yes, that is because in public programs Maharaji tries to present himself less dramatically. That has always been his way everywhere. In introductory programs he is more the "man on the street" so as not to arouse your defense mechanisms. As you become more involved, and, in typical cult indoctrination fashion, you become less critical, he takes on a grander presentation. Up to the programs where he sits on a throne and you file by and kiss his feet.

See: http://gallery.forum8.org/krishna.htm and http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/TheThreeFacesofPremPalSinghRawat.htm

Mary Moore 12:56, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)Mary

Mary:Your reference from the ex-followers forum is by the look of it from the 1970's. The other reference from Indimedia (presented in the website as a professional media outlet, when actually it is an open source Internet publishing project, and clearly a well written spin piece by an ex-follower) does not substantiate your claim that the Indian trappings continue to this day. I have also cheked other speeches at official venues in India, where Prem wears western attire instead of a kurta as in the photos seen on the weblog. It seems to me that the evolution of this man's message has taken him from his early days as a the follower of the tradition of his father's lineage (the Radhasoami tradition) to the adoption of a more universal approach without compromising his core teachings. This shows up not only in the way he presents himself, but in the way the organizations have evolved alongside him. (From DLM in the 70's to the Prem Rawat Foundation in 2000). If this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is not for us as editors to decide. An anti-cult scholar will define this in similar terms as yours. I may see this as a remarkable evolution in the midst of a fascinating controversy.--Zappaz 15:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indian trappings, press releases

Hi Zappaz, What's the difference between a "well-written spin piece by an ex-follower" and a well-written spin piece by the organization itself? Is one a more credible source than the other for this encyclopedia? I used to be in marketing; part of public relations is to make it look like others are talking about your client in a positive fashion. Press releases are written as advertorials. Rawat's organization pays PRNewswire to distribute its advertorials. An ex-follower could pay them to say the opposite.

Regarding recent pictures of Rawat on a throne in India in Western garb, I've put out a request and will see what comes (since my eyewitness account isn't credible enough :).) Does it matter who took the picture? :) These pictures are definitely available, but most are in the custody of the organization. Some ex-followers may have them too.

Regarding the Indian trappings, let me elaborate to get my point across. To the public, Rawat portrays himself in a particular manner, e.g., Western attire, non-confrontational peace-speak. At meetings which are NOT intended for the public, he portrays himself in a different manner. For example, he tells Indian stories which imply that he is greater than God. While in India, and Australia, at non-public meetings, he has "Arti" sung to him, which is a devotional song and engages in the darshan line (foot-kissing). I will see if I can rustle up the full text for you of arti.

Since this behavior is not presented to the public by his organization, and reporters are not allowed to non-public events, the only witnesses to this behavior are ex-followers. Current followers have been instructed to NOT speak about this behavior to the press.

Sincerely, how does Wikipedia deal with this situation? Is there a NPOV way this type of information can be presented? Thank you for your time. Mary Moore 17:42, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)Mary

Mary, this is certainly important information that has to be included in a NPOV way. Andries 18:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am tempted to write that piece, but will let Mary give it a go. Just see if you can write it in an NPOV way. You know that otherwise it will be re-edited unti it does. Thanks.--Zappaz 19:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indian trappings info/picture

Okay, here it is: http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/recent_indian_satsang.htm Mary Moore 18:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)Mary

Mary: The article already covers the controversy. Critic claims, official sites' claims, as well as scholars papers are well referenced throughout the article. I think that I explained clearly what "darshn" means in Indian tradition. Don't see what is the big deal.

In regard to "Arti", also known as "Arati". If you have ever been to India, "Arati" is played in the radio, daily. It is a traditional Hindu song: Om, Guru Brahma Guru Vishnu | Guruh devo Maheshwarah | Guruh Sakshat parambrahma | asmai Shri Gurave namah | Dhyana mulam guror murtihi | Pujamulam guroh padam | Mantra mulam guror vakyam | Moksha mulam guroh kripa. There are many versions and adaptations. The original song was written thousands of years ago.

Concerning the transcriptions of the speeches from India. Do you know what are the sources/translations of these? am reading these now with interest. thanks --Zappaz 18:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I read with interest the transcriptions of these satsangs. He speaks of the same thing in satsangs he gives in other places of the world, within the context of the culture he is speaking to. I mean, it will make no sense to talk about "Sadhguru" in Paris, London or Buenos Aires. An Indian person will know what that means. Regarding the photo, he is wearing a simple kurta/pajama and wears a garland. That is very common in India. What is not common is that he does not look like most gurus (no beard, flowing hair, teelak or other sacred marks in his forehead). So, I don't really understad the point you are trying to make.--Zappaz 19:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Darshan

In Indian culture, the kissing of the feet is a show of respect. Children do kiss the feet of their father or elders. Students kiss or touch the feet of their teacher. Darshan or Drshn means 'Seeing', derived from 'drush', to see. To see with reverence and devotion. The term is used specifically for beholding highly revered people with the intention of inwardly contacting and receiving their grace and blessings. "By doing darshan properly a devotee develops affection for God, and God develops affection for that devotee" (Sãrangpur-2). See also Darshan.168.143.113.138 21:02, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Darshan

Sounds like an Indian tradition to me. Sounds like Rawat is still doing it. It doesn't prove that he thinks he is God. His words prove that.

U of Va article

Dear Zappaz, edit war is not my intention. I believe I explained quite clearly the purpose of my edit. Please see below:

(cur) (last) 00:11, 10 Jul 2004 Mary Moore (Restored reference, put NPOV to opinion about out-datedness. Removed statement that "most of the article is from the ex-follower website", because 15-1/2 of the 61 footnotes are from there)

How can you support that most of the article is from the ex-follower website when 75% of the footnotes are from other sources? This seems a silly point to quibble about.

Also, the out-datedness is sympathizer POV, thus my explanation of NPOV. It was last updated 1998 - that's pretty recent for a guru with a 30-year history.

I'm reverting your edits, sorry. I denote bias in your treatment of this article. Mary Moore 02:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)Mary

Mary: I do not see any sense in these edits.

1. Rawat is one of the most common names in India. It is also the last name of the other three brothers. Either you say "Prem Rawat" or you say "Maharaji"

2. The sites are not "his" websites. These are official websites of the organizations. i.e. Prem Rawat Foundation is an official site for that entity.

What is with all this minutae edits? Really do not know what to think. If you want to contribute, please provide some substace?Reverted edits

3. I can only say one thing about the discussion about te U of VA reference: I don't understand why you are so particular about the comments associated with that reference. These are facts that you can learn by visiting that page. ((???????)

--Zappaz 02:53, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

reply to Zappaz

Dearest Zappaz, happy to explain...

The "minutae edits" were not being done for the sake of doing those edits. That paragraph didn't flow well after I put in the "Revisionism" paragraph. Perhaps I was not as careful in attention to detail as I should have been. Sorry. There was some redundancy as I recall. I really don't care whether he's called Rawat or Prem Rawat or the pronoun that's used for these organizations. I don't like to use the term "Maharaji" myself as it's an honorary title and I don't feel he's an honorable person.

"I can only say one thing about the discussion about te U of VA reference: I don't understand why you are so particular about the comments associated with that reference. These are facts that you can learn by visiting that page. ((???????) "

Zappaz, I have visited that page, and it seems I have a different opinion about it than you do. The reason I feel it's important how it's described, is, if you'll notice, there are many, many references to pro-Rawat websites and quotes. There are fewer from ex-followers and most of them have been grouped together in a "Critics" page followed by libelous allegations that the critics are a hate group. This attempts to discredit what ex-followers say. The U of Va article at least is independent and is not an advertorial for Rawat. And, count the footnotes - there are only 15-1/2 out of 61 that are from the ex-follower website. I'm sorry to have to be so picky, but it seems that this is what it takes to get a balanced article around here.

Regarding the hate group section, I would really like this issue to be looked at by some senior admins. Now that you've moved my revisionism paragraph to the "Critics" page, I am somewhat alarmed that my name is on the same page with these allegations. I am not part of any hate group. Mary Moore 04:06, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)Mary

1. This is not page for you to state your personal views. You can do that on your own webiste or blog. This is an ecyclopedia.

2. If you put your name up on this page, you implicilty agree to the GNU free doc license. This means that others can edit this at will. If you don't want your name to be in contexts you do not approve of, then edit it out.

3. The so called ex-followers, (meaning the critics) are clearly a small minority. Read the stats provided by the webmaster of ex-premie.org as posted in this talk page's archive. As a minority you can express your views but you cannot expect a minority's view to be given the same stading as a majority view. Read the NPOV reminder in this page. This is an article about Prem Rawat a.k.a Maharaji, not about his ex-followers. Thit is why we have a section called "Critics", This follows the style of all other pages for similar NRMs.

4. No one is libeling you. The article clearly indicates that it is Elan Vital's view. Alongside this there are the critics claims. This is NPOV.

5; I will kindly suggest that you slow down and read Wikipedia:Keeping cool when the editing gets hot before continuing editing.--Zappaz 04:42, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, regarding point three, you assert that ex-followers are a small minority. I think that this is untrue. First of all they claim to be speaking on behalf of the many people who have left Maharaji/DLM/Elan Vital silently but I have to admit that this is difficult to prove. The many people who have left silently made implicit criticism that they found the message of Maharaji and the meditation not worthwhile, in spite of the great promises by Maharaji. It should be taken into account that some of the critics were close assistants to Maharaji, like Bob Mishler, ex-President of Divine Light Mission (DLM) between 1972 and 1977. [7]You cannot expect the ex-followers to form an organization with members that will provide you with the number of ex-followers etcetera because people want to forget and move on. I do not know of any group of ex-followers of any cult or NRM that has done that and I have studied many. I think the vocal critics are people who want to forget too but are or were unable to do so because they had been too deeply involved emotionally. Thirdly, Maharaji received strong criticism in the press [8] and from the anti-cult movement back in the seventies. E.g. from Margaret Singer.

Nowadays few people care except the (ex-)followers (plus me).

See also http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/faq.htm#numberfollowers

And http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/movingon.htm stating: “"At the height of Maharaji's popularity in the west in the late 70's, he could command 20,000 to attend a two week outdoor festival. Now, after a further 22 years of teaching 'Knowledge', he has difficulty getting 5,000 to attend a two day international event in the US, in spite of most followers being more affluent than they were in the 70's. "”

By the way, some controversial NRMs like Sathya Sai Baba and Scientology have separate article that deal with the controversy because there is too much to put in the main article. This used to be the case with Maharaji too but the article was removed and re-directed to this article. I do no agree with this removal because there is clearly too much controversy to put in the main article.

Kind regards, Andries 08:36, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"hate group" information

I removed some of the information about this, as it's all available through the first link.

There's no need to libel us further here. All it does in this page is discredit the ex-followers, who are an important resource of information. If someone wants to see what Elan Vital has to say about its ex-followers, let them go there, okay?

Also, revised a paragraph to more clearly state the purpose of the ex-followers' activism as I understand it.

Mary Moore 04:27, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)Mary

Following the rules

Dear Andries (I believe this is you)

I am going through the article taking my valuable time to try to balance out an article which I still feel is biased.

I would appreciate it if you would put your comments on the talk page before reverting my edits as you request others to do. I put a description of why I made the edit, and I disagree that it is destructive. I believe my edits are substantive and constructive. Would you please reply to why you feel the reason is not valid? Thank you, Mary

The issue at hand is not about "balance". It is about NPOV. There is a clear difference. As an ex-follower critic of Prem, I am sure that your perception of "balance" is the exact opposite of a follower's. Balance, then, is not possible from that perspective. I can see that you have read NPOV from your an earlier comment. I would kindly suggest you go back and re-read it. It takes time to understand and appreciate the difference between balance and NPOV. I would also suggest you visit other pages an Wikipedia. Some of these touch issues that are much more controversial that this one. You may learn something from these pages. As you are a newby, me and other editors need to help you in developing these understandings. Maybe others can chip in here as well.--Zappaz 04:55, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andries did not reverted your edit. Anon@163.143.113.138 did. Please follow the rules as stated by Ed Talk:Prem_Rawat#Let.27s_follow_the_rules. Cooling-off is also a good idea. This is clearly becoming personal for you (your name is now on the article...). That is never a good thing around here. Take a week or two without editing and come back later. You could be pleasantly surpised. As a new contributor, take your time to take in the process. Contribute to other pages. Learn. (pease add four tildes after your comment so we can see a timestamp) --141.76.1.121 05:19, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear User 141.76.1.121, it appeared that the user was Andries because when I clicked on the user id, it took me to many other contributions by Andries. Is this not the way it works?

Regarding my name being on the article, a quote from an eyewitness was a suggestion from Andries as a way to introduce information as not opinion. I would rather it not have my name on it, as this is a controversial subject, as you can see, but sometimes you just have to say what you know to be true.

Thanks for your patronizing comments about cooling off. I am quite cool, actually, and you are wrong in your perception of my emotional state.

Regarding following the rules, please point out what rule you allege I broke. I explain every edit I make which is a bit tedious, and then others simply revert my edit with no explanation. How am I the rule-breaker here?

Regarding the four tildes, I do it every time and forgot one time...sorry. Mary Moore 16:09, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To Wikipedia Administrators from John Brauns, webmaster of www.ex-premie.org. The problem with the current article can be illustrated with an example. Would you expect the marketing department of Philip Morris to write a fair article about cigarettes? Sure they might mention that some smokers have health problems, but they are unlikely to give lung cancer or thrombosis appropriate prominence in the article. Jossi is a devoted follower of Rawat and his article is a blatant advertisement for Rawat (which I note is against NPOV guidelines) in spite of the nod to his critics. The press section and links are the most glaring evidence of this, with prominence given to TPRF paid advertorials over genuine newspaper articles; and 95% of the links are to websites with no additional information on Rawat, except how to get his product. This is like the Philip Morris article having a list of shops selling cigarettes. If Philip Morris did write an article on cigarettes, you wouldn't use that article as the basis for writing a fair article. No, you would scrap it and find someone with less bias to write the article. I accept that a lung cancer victim may not be the ideal candidate but the resulting article wouldn't be an advertisement like Jossi's article. John Brauns, July 10th.

Why all this talk about me? I have left the editing to others. This article is not mine. I did not write this article. Your assessment shows how blinded you are.--16:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, I apologise. Who did write the article before the various edits were made? In particular who added all the links from contact-info and the individual links to the TPRF press articles? - John

separate article

I like what Andries has said about two articles, with a separate one for critics. Could whoever is interested or involved please reply as to your opinions about that at this point, now that this article has matured a little bit.

Jossi states that this article is not "his", but, he wrote it, or at least provided it. It was, in the fashion he originally provided it, a POV piece advertising Prem Rawat. It has been edited by many others, yes, but there are still things about it that are too one-sided. That is why I have spent time trying to bring balance. For example, the large number of website links to followers and official websites. If I just take them out, I will be accused of being "destructive". The fact that the original article was written by a sympathizer originally puts more work onto the non-sympathizers to balance it out.

The "impartial" Wiki editors are doing their best to be as impartial as they can, but they are human, too.

I assume that both articles would have links to each other? If so, I vote yes. Mary Moore 16:41, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

vocal critics / ashram

Here is the original paragraph under "Organizations": "Maharaji's work is helped by many of organizations around the world most of them run by volunteers, others are set up as non-for-profit organizations. The first one "Divine Light Mission" (DLM) was set up in the early 70's, being superseded by Elan Vital in 1983. Ashrams setup by DLM in the West were closed at that time. Several of the most vocal critics (http://ex-premie.org) came from the ranks of these that lived in the DLM ashrams at that time, who felt disenchanted with the change and abandonment of Indian traditions by Maharaji."

I removed the last sentence as it doesn't seem to serve any express purpose in this section of the article, other than to discredit critics, generalize, and belittle why they are critical.

Mary Moore 17:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

edits to "critics" section

Character assignation of critics does not need to be repeated here. It can all be found through the link that is in the article.

Removal of non-English websites

I have removed all non-English speaking websites because there were complainsts from several people among others John Brauns and David Gerard that there were too many pro Maharaji websites and because they didn't serve any purpose anyway here in the English Wikipedia. Andries 20:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am back

I am back editing this article. It just took less than 12 hrs in which none of the senior editors contributed to this article, for Mary and Andries to attempt to skew the article in their "ex-follower" POV.

I have no problems with Mary contributing, and agree that some of the ex-follower's views are needed as long as are within NPOV. I am not editing these. I am just editing out her POV, nuance and bias.

Mary, now that the controversy page is back [Maharaji - Controversy]], you can go there and edit there to your heart content as long as it is NPOV. Rest assure that I will be monitoring that as well.--jossi 01:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FIRST YOU OWE US ALL AN EXPLANATION, JOSSI Jossi,

You falsely accused me of posting "heavily editted" source material. In my view, despite whatever insult that was to me personally, it was a blatant fraud on Wikipedia. How can you talk about NPOV with a straight face when you yourself will lie like that? And how acn anyone here trust you unless and until you deal with that deception? Again, I demand an explanation. Rest assure [sic] that I will be monitoring you as well.

Jim

"A palabras necias, oidos sordos"

--jossi 04:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

moving link to testimonials by ex-followers by Jossi

Dearest Jossi,

Hope you are well and happy. Haven't talked with you in a few years.

Reinstated this link in relevant paragraph. If "Maharaji's Teachings" section is to contain reactions to his teachings by students, it is POV to censor which reactions are included by editors.

There are various points of view presented throughout the article. Just because a reference is not supportive of Rawat doesn't mean it has to be thrown into a "critics" section. If we did that, we would have to revise the entire article. Mary Moore 03:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello Mary. I am doing pretty good, maybe spending too much of my precious time monitoring this page :). Hope you are also well.

My view is simple: This is a page about Maharaji, not about his critics. Early on, I created the page Maharaji - Controversy in which ex-followers and other critics could provide information about their views. Andries said "no way, it must be in the body of the article", that page was redirected here, and the section "Critics" was added. Now the page is back (by the wonders of Wiki!) You may not believe this, but I have no problems whatsoever in you or other critics posting their views as long as they are presented as NPOV. Ask anyone that is not a follower neither a vocal critic to read the article as it stands today. They will clearly see that this is controversial. You have a group of people that find Maharaji to be most noble, and his teachings fascinating and priceless ( and I am not talking about followers only), and there are some people that find Maharaji and his teachings to be the worst thing in the universe. The idea of NPOV is that you trust that people are intelligent enough to read the article and make their own assessments. We do not need to spoon feed them neither we need to patronize them. I will be very busy next week, so I will monitor once a day only. Hope that with the help of Ed and other experience editors this page can reach some stability soon.--jossi 04:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, I said that a summary of the controversy should be in the main article. There is always some criticism in articles about controversial subjects. I do not know how much the criticism section can or should take. Any suggestions? Andries 07:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest that we wait until the Maharaji - Controversy article is in stable shape, and then someone can sumarize that page and replace/edit the critis section in the main article. For this to happen, I will move the page to [Maharaji - Criticis]. The reason is that I think that this issue is controversial regardless of the critics claims. The main article is alrady shapping up that way.--168.143.113.138

removing reference to what critics claim

Jossi stated as his reason for reverting half of this particular contribution is that Maharaji has not claimed that his techniques are unique. Critics claim that he has said this. End of story. Jossi, feel free to say that you claim he has never said this. Don't just delete a contribution because you believe it is not true. Also, look above in the paragraph. Why would he ask followers to not divulge them to others if he didn't think they were unique? Mary Moore 03:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good NPOV Mary. Thanks. Regarding your question, the answer is very simple, and you know it.--jossi 04:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is that the best you can do, Jossi?

Jossi,

The moment I asked you for an explanation for accusing me of "heavily editting" source material, you started finding excuses to avoid answering. Now you're taunting me with Latin. I believe the phrase translates as "To foolish words, deaf ears". What's your point? Why don't you forget being cute in Latin and tell me and the good folks here why you lied about the quotes? How can people trust anything you say or respect you in the least when you make serious false accusations like that and just laugh them off?

Jim

restored supporting reference deleted by Jossi

Jossi, Your deletions of material with no explanation are getting tiresome. Please explain if you are going to delete, especially supporting reference. Mary Moore 03:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your unsubstantiated additions are becoming tiresome as well. There is a limit on how much spin and inuendo you are going to be allowed to do here. Read the references you provide, please, and only then quote from them. Any one will be appaled for this jagdeo's digusting behaviour. But to say that that a complaint was sent and it was not followed up and investigated is just too much. Sorry. Reverted. Left the link to the reference, thoughjossi 03:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I read with interest the pages about the alleged sexual molestation on the critics website [9]. It was a bit tedious due to the information being all mixed-up, facts with anecdotes, copies of letters, information removed by the request of one of the alleged victims, etc. After reading all the material, to write as Mary did "the sexual misconduct was reported to Prem Rawat beginning in 1977" is just an ungrounded POV, and substancially incorrect. The letter to Prem Rawat was written in July 2000, and according Elan Vital FAQ, they did an investigation. If you want to be taken seriously, please read the references you offer before quoting from them and try doing that in an NPOV manner. In fact, the reference speaks for istelf. The current wording works already as it is IMO. --Zappaz 04:17, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jim here --

Just to say that I editted the Jagdeo text. It had said that:

"According to Elan Vital, they first received a complaint in 2000 and conducted an investigation immediately[31] (http://elanvital.com.au/faq/idx/0/090/article/). As a result, the counterpart Indian organization filed a legal complaint against Jagdeo in 2001."

I added:

"However, there is no evidence that they ever tried to find and serve him."

Which is true, there is no such evidence and much reason to think that's one lawsuit that will never see a court of law. But then my edit isn't appearing. Why?

Jim

Please cool-off

I would kindly request from both Mary and Jossi to cool-off. The article is slowing shaping up as a well written NPOV article and there is no need to engage in edit wars. I would suggest to user:Mary Moore to focus on the [Maharaji-Critics] page were hopefully you will be able to expand on your critique of Prem (needless to say, you must stay within NPOV editing). To jossi I would say to be careful in the way you delete text entered by other editors. I can see that you are trying to remain neutral, but please be aware that it is not easy for you given your allegiance to Prem. To Mary I would say the same: be careful when you add text, move things around, and delete text. Just accept the fact that you are biased as well, and be extra cautious: I will be monitoring the page from time to time and will attempt top NPOV any additions that aren't or revert edits with blatant POV. Happy editing. --141.76.1.121 06:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

20,000 students of M for a 2 week event with him?

I've been a student of his since 1973. I was the co-founder of 1 of the DLM's, in 73. I have remained a volunteer for 1 or more of the grass roots non-profit associations that help with his work pretty much from the beginning. Often I did security work at US events. If the quote hadn't been in support of an attempt to claim his audiances are shrinking I'd have let it pass.

But I don't see how there could have been a 2 week event without my hearing about it! And I never have. Also, events being larger than about 6,000 have always been rare outside India, making that part of the claim suspect as well. The Houston '73 event has been claimed at 70,000 by adherants and at 40,000 by others. I happened to find out from 1 of the volunteers who helped set up the discount rates we got at the hotels that over 30,000 rooms were booked under our discount ... but this proves nothing. Maybe a lot of people ended up not coming, despite the fleet of 747s we chartered. (38, still the largest civilian airlift in history.) We used the Jackie Gleason Theater in Miami many times, standing room only. Its capacity is slightly over 6,000. That was fairly typical of attendance. There were also small programs with next to no advance notice that had under 1,000.

So a more NPOV (and accurate) way of describing event attendance would be to say that programs scheduled with 3 months or more notice in the West usually ran between 3,000 and 15,000, with the largest having possibly exceeded 40,000, while in India the largest was over 500,000 (and which happened recently, btw). I can't offer anything useful re: Indian events typical ranges - I didn't pay enough attention, since I knew I couldn't make many of them.

The EPO gang have said that his work was just about to fall apart at least 2 or 3 times a year in the 4 years or so I've been watching them. You are well advised, if you seek Nuetrality, to make them substantiate their claims. One thing I noticed isn't touched on at all. He has been on Satelite TV and Cable TV in the US and Europe for several years now. And this is growing - as are the numbers of people who come, seeking to receive his teachings, who 1st encountered him from TV, not from 1 of us. I'm not sure how (or if) this should be included, but it is a fact, and an easy to confirm 1. (The airings are, of course, the fact I'm refering to.)

Reasons people support or condemn the teacher

I sense a lot of anger and frustration on both sides of the issue. I hope this won't prevent us from stabilizing the article.

Perhaps it would help if supporters and followers of Maharaji would explain, in the article, why he has attracted so many followers:

• what are his teachings?
• how has following these teachings benefitted the followers or their communities?

Also it may help of critics and ex-followers of Prem Rawat would explain:

• what they object to, in the teachings as well as the character of the man (or if it's primarily that he doesn't seem to follow his own teachings
• how their lives were affected, either by trying to practice the teachings, or their association with organizations he founded

Something like:

Rawat has attracted large numbers of followers who say they have found peace and contentment by practicing his teachings. Yet thousands of ex-followrs condemn Rawat for (a) false or impractical teachings, (b) exploitation of followers' gullibility, and (c) personal hypocrisy.

You could use the Sun Myung Moon and Unification Church articles as a model for this process. --Uncle Ed 14:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ed: there are no "thousands of ex-followrs condemn Rawat". There are 20 very active critics and maybe a couple of hundred that posted to the ex-followers discussion forum (see the stats presented by the web master of that site. The problem with the current article, is that it is not respecting the NPOV of not providing equal coverage to a minority position. This is a fact: vocal critics of Maharaji are just A VERY SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE. The article must present that clearly. Currently you have a full page on criticism and another half a page here in the article. That is not NPOV. Hopefully other supporters will join and assist.--64.81.88.140

I'm not sure that Wikipedia's policy on the NPOV requires equal amounts of criticism and praise for a controversial figure, or even amounts proportional to the numbers of critics or supporters. We should report the praise and criticism accurately, and without bias. We rise above the controversy by ducking any conclusions and scrupulously avoiding and endorsement or condemnation. --Uncle Ed 15:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ed: I was refering to this (quoted from NPOV article:--64.81.88.140 18:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

Jim here --

Still wondering about your allegation that I'd posted "heavily editted" transcripts, Jossi. I'm sure that if I accused you of a deception like that, you'd want to resolve the matter. I sure do. I'd like you to admit that you just said that and that you had no reason to believe what you were saying. Until then, it really seems outrageous for you to complain about anything. You made a false accusation of fraud. That in itself is fraud. You should clean your own house here, bud.

Jossi, this is Andries. I agree with Jim that this is relevant to the article. If you do not substantiate your previous statement that the transcript was heavily edited then I think it is fair to assume that you were wrong about this and that the transcript was not edited and can be used as a proven fact in the article. Until now you have evaded this. Andries 19:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Usenet/Forum posts as references

To Andries: Using Usenet posts or ex-followers forum posts as references to substantiate a claim is not good practice. Otherwise I can post anything I want in Usenet and claim a reference. I have removed your reference in the critcs section. --66.214.90.71 22:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jim here again --

How insulting!

Listen, pal, whoever you are, for starters, we're not talking about Usenet or forum posts. All of the quotes on EPO come from authorized, official Rawat organization publications and transcripts. The quote in issue, Rawat's infamous "peace bomb" was, like others, reproduced in the book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" which was touted as the "offical authorized biography" of the then-Lord of the Universe. One of the functions of EPO is to protect and preserve the historical record that Rawat has tried to obliterate. If you have any doubt about the veracity of this quote or any other, why don't you do the civil and responsible thing and simply ask for that proof. Bear in mind that although Rawat has shown that he is certainly game for shutting down EPO however he could (he tried and failed to do that on a spurious copyright infringement complaint at one point) neither he nor his followers have ever seriously accused us of changing archival materials. Not until Jossi the other day, has any of them claimed that we were "heavily editting" anything. And it should be patently obvious to you by now that Jossi was just blowing smoke and trying to obscure the historical record.

Your clear bias against ex-followers of this cult won't necessarily stop you from discussing it intelligently providing you stay rational and quit with the ad hominem assumptions all the time. Even people with axes to grind can tell the truth just as people without can lie. You need to go for the evidence. If you want it, we've got it. Otherwise, you've got no right to shut us down just because you assume that we might be as deceitful as the cult we left.

Now, do you want that evidence or not?

I was talking about references to Usenet or to the Forum8 discussion forum. These are not valid references. References to the ex-premie.org are all kept and throughout the article.--66.214.90.71 00:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jim. What contributor .71 is saying, and I agree, is that having a Usenet post or a discussion forum post as a reference is not really useful and does no add value to critic's claims.--168.143.113.138 16:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've had enough

I just read through the talk page to catch up, and I think I will spend my time elsewhere from now on. It's just too frustrating.

Prem Rawat is the leader of a mind-controlling, personality dependency cult, which has milked thousands of their time, self-esteem, and money for decades.

There is plenty of evidence of this in many places. I'm going to leave it to the Wikipedians to get their facts straight.

The article as it stands now is disputed, as far as I am concerned. It still reads like an advertorial for Prem Rawat. And there doesn't seem to be anybody editing this except Andries that seems to understand this.

I wish you well, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this effort. Mary Moore 23:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Mary. If you do not believe in the editing model of Wikipedia, this will not work for you. IMHO the article is shaping up nicely and presents the official side (the voice of the organizations), the unofficial side (the voice of the students) and the dissenting voices (the voice of the ex-follower, and the voice of anti-cult scholars). To say that the article is an advertorial is un ungrounded assessment made by someone that is unable to accept the possibility of reaching NPOV in this article and that does not believe in the power of collaborative editing. The article has evolved amazingly well since two weeks ago. Collaborative editing and NPOV works, and I am sure that Andries believes in this as well. --64.81.88.140

Pity thay you took this attitude. Thank you for the contributions to this article. I can uderstand your frustration as I can understand Jossi's. A Wikipedia article is an encyclopedic article, not one to promote one aspect of a controversial issue at the expense of the other. I agree with 64.81.88.140 that the article is getting there as it includes the POVs of all vested constituencies. I am going to the library to study additional references that hopefully will augument this article. --Zappaz 16:50, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removal of reference to David C. Lane's book

I have removed the reference to David Lane's on line scholarly study about guru succesorship because neither Maharaji nor his father were mentioned in the reference. Andries 17:22, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maharaji is not a monastci title. reverted.--64.81.88.140 18:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

p.s. another word of explanation

As the user above said, "A Wikipedia article is an encyclopedic article, not one to promote one aspect of a controversial issue at the expense of the other."

I completely agree with this. I encourage you to keep going to achieve this. To say that I don't believe in collaborative editing is incorrect.

I think, though, that for me, at this time, I am too fresh out of the cult to handle the criticism that was directed at me. It made me frustrated and angry. I have been damaged by Rawat, as have many others, and it still hurts.

Perhaps when I've had more time to process what happened, I can go head-to-head with a cult member without getting so angry. It felt like I was fighting for every sentence.

When I was a VP of Marketing for a 500-person public company, I used to write brochures and press releases, and was accustomed to others editing my work. But the process here is brutal. I suspect it would be less brutal with a less controversial topic.

You might want to ask yourselves from an objective point of view, why are so many people angry with Maharaji? Are they just nutso people, as Elan Vital tries to portray? There are a LOT of people that are angry at Maharaji, not just 20 as say. And most of them are not actively vocal because they just want to forget about it, put it behind, like a bad marriage. And why does EV work so hard to discredit these people? Why is there so much anger on each side?

On the cult side, the followers are angry because you are attacking someone they love, that they have dedicated themselves to.

The people that get the most angry seem to be the ones that were used up and thrown out. There were large numbers in this category when the ashrams were closed in the mid-70's, then early 80's, when the airplane refurbishment project DECA took place, and when the Malibu residence was rebuilt in the 90's. And personal staff that got to know the real Prem Rawat (like me). If you're interested in my story, see http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/journs/moore.htm.

There are people that know a lot about what went on with this "teacher". How he affected lives. When an ex-follower tells their story, please be aware that it's not spin, it just sounds strong because this person was hurt. They trusted and they were betrayed. They gave of themselves and they were disappointed.

It would make a good documentary. So, hopefully this is not too off topic and I won't be told I should go to Usenet to say this stuff. I just wanted to clarify why I am no longer contributing to the article. No hard feelings. Good luck with it. Mary Moore 22:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)