Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

"1983-2000s" lead summary

The second lead para ends Rawat's activities in the 70's with "more widely acceptable" and then goes on to talk about the organisations. The whole section "1983–2000s" is unrepresented. I suggest we summarise the section as - "....more widely acceptable. He continues to tour extensively and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation his message of peace is now available in 97 countries and 70 languages". And leave out the sentence that refers to the older organisations.Momento (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would we leave out this sentence:

• The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).

We discussed this extensively in the past.   Will Beback  talk  02:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it in now that we are expanding the lead in proportion to the article sections.Momento (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Here is a proposal:

... The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma. He continues to tour extensively, speaking about peace, and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation his message is today available in 97 countries and 70 languages.

Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses, and for leading an opulent lifestyle. --JN466 03:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks OK to me, just hit Enter a couple of times after "...languages." to break up an otherwise jarring non sequitur. Rumiton (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. --JN466 15:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you think, Will? Anyone else? --JN466 15:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think in this proposal we need to concentrate what happened in the period concerned. Leave the "Teachings" for a separate para. So a version of this ".... to make his message more widely acceptable. In the early 80s Rawat disbanded the Divine Light Mission, which was succeeded by Elan Vital, and removed the last of the Indian aspects that were prominent in his teachings. He continued to tour extensively and according to Chryssides Rawat had 1.2 million followers worldwide, with 50,000 in the United States.In 2001 he founded the Prem Rawat Foundation, a Public Charitable Organization, for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message and also for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. The TPRF website says that "his message of peace is now available in 97 countries and 70 languages".Momento (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And remember, EV is (or was) going to be replaced with another organization. That needs to be in the article and lead as well. Ronk01 talk, 22:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Jayen's draft is pretty good. Regarding the new organization, I haven't seen any reliable secondary sources on that yet.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

http://elanvital.org/ (for information only) --JN466 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A summary of Rawat in the 83-2000s period that doesn't mention the removal the last of the Indian aspects and the size of his following, is fatally deficient.Momento (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How many proposals are we going to work on at once?   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like two. We thought the other one was finished but not quite.Momento (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not another two or three? I though you wanted to work on only one proposal at a time.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Taking the various comments on board:

... to make his message more widely acceptable. In the early 80s Rawat disbanded the Divine Light Mission, which was succeeded by Elan Vital, and removed the last Indian aspects in his teachings. In 2001 he founded the Prem Rawat Foundation, a public charitable organization, for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. He continues to tour extensively, speaking on peace, and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation his message is today available in 97 countries and 70 languages.

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma; his public discourses have at times been criticized for a lack of intellectual content.

• This, for now, omits figures as to the size his following. The figures in Momento's draft relate to 1990, according to our article; I feel if we mention figures in the lead, we should use a more recent source. But we can work on that later. Is this something we could use for now? --JN466 01:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we put this on hold until we've settled the other proposal?   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks very close but I'm happy to hold if Will wants to. But the "Teaching" section is the reason for Rawat's notability and needs more work.Momento (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To some extent, the two proposals interact, because of the mention of opulent living now appearing a few paragraphs earlier. The complete lead would look like this: --JN466 01:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion closed ; See below.   Will Beback  talk  14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead proposal

Current version

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers. He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.

In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. When Rawat turned sixteen in 1973 he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes. His mother disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma.

Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses, and for leading an opulent lifestyle.

Proposed version

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers.

Rawat gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message. He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculedmocked in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. His opulent lifestyle, including lLuxury homes and automobiles made available to him by his followers, likewise received media attention. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation.

In December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes. His mother disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and progressively abandonedeventually removed the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma. ; his public discourses have at times been criticized for a lack of intellectual content.Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses, and for leading an opulent lifestyle.

Discussion

If you think this is better than what we have, then let's go for it. --JN466 01:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This includes changes that we haven't discussed. Can we settle the pending proposal(s) before starting in with this?   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the only one is "progressively". I realised that we would have had two mentions of the phasing out of Indian elements. "Gradually" might be a better word. Otherwise, it reflects current status of the two proposals above, to the best of my knowledge and ability. --JN466 02:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we wait until the other proposals are finished, one by one?   Will Beback  talk  02:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead as a whole is looking much better and it helps to see it all in one place. But there are two things that bother me. One is saying "His opulent lifestyle, including luxury homes ... likewise received media attention", presents his "opulent lifestyle" as a fact, when it is the just the personal opinion of an ex-employee and a Rabbi. Far too loaded and biased for use in the lead. And the second is that Jayen dismisses material, which makes up more than half the section, with "He continues to tour extensively". Where is the summary of "According to a 1983 article, Rawat continued to "energetically serve his followers", flying to speaking engagements in major cities around the world almost continually. In two years he spoke at over 100 programs in 37 international cities, including New York, London, Paris, Kuala Lumpur, Rome, Delhi, Sydney, Tokyo, Caracas and Los Angeles.[92][95] The number of Rawat's students grew in the 1980s and 1990s as Rawat toured extensively,[23] speaking in over 40 countries, including Japan, Taiwan, the Ivory Coast, Slovenia and Venezuela.[10] In 1990 there were said to be 1.2 million followers worldwide, with 50,000 in the United States.[94] 1999 saw the commencement of regular satellite broadcasts to North America and other countries.[96]...Between January 2004 and June 2005, Rawat delivered 117 addresses in Asia, Europe, and North America focusing on a universal message of peace and self-fulfillment. His message is currently distributed in eighty-eight countries in print and on video, and his program "Words of Peace" is broadcast on TV channels such as Canal Infinito in South America, Channel 31 in Australia, and Dish Network in the USA.[99][100] Elan Vital states that the only effective way of reaching out to the over 80 countries where his message is now promoted is by leased private jet, which Rawat self-pilots, flying around a quarter million miles a year.[23] In 2007 during a two-month tour of India, Sri Lanka and Nepal, Rawat spoke at 36 events, addressing over 800,000 people, and by live satellite broadcasts reached an additional 2.25 million?"Momento (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Some semantic points: 1. Opulence is relative. We all might look opulent to someone who lives in Bangladesh. 2. "Ridiculed" is probably a bit strong as well, especially in the context of being ridiculed for his youth. "Mocked" or "derided" might be better. 3. The Prem Rawat Foundation has all capitals. 4. "At the same time" and "also" (...attracted controversy) mean much the same thing. One could go. 5. "Abandonment" of something that is no longer viable (sinking ship, crashed aircraft) is something that is mostly done urgently, rarely "progressively." Progressively seems right, so abandoned must be wrong. How about "progressively removed" (...the Indian trappings)? Rumiton (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also concur with Momento that we have enough sources to describe his more recent activities in rather more detail than that suggested. Rumiton (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions do not conflict with other proposals being discussed. Looking in only once every day or two, it is hard to get a clear view of the process. Rumiton (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a version at 6 Aug which I restored. For some reason a bot seemed to have archived everything since 6 July. Rumiton (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's because the bot is set to 30 days. --JN466 11:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know, but unless I have it wrong, the archiving was of material newer than 30 days, rather than older. Rumiton (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Changes in response to comments implemented above, marked. Rawat's recent activities: we could indeed have more on this (satellite broadcasts, DVDs). Editors who wish to see more material on recent activities in the lead should remember though that while we are discussing and refining our proposals here, the public continue to see a version of the lead that says nothing at all about recent activities. --JN466 11:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So - are we abandoning the other discussions and now just discussing this one proposal? Like Rumiton, I'm having trouble following the process here.   Will Beback  talk  12:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very grateful if you could have a look through the above and let me know what you think. It combines the most recent status of the two proposals that we were discussing, so we can see all of it in one place. I'd say it is more straightforward if we continue discussion of those proposals here. I've transferred the most recent wordings and stitched them together as best I could; if you feel there is something I haven't carried across correctly from the discussions above, please let me know. --JN466 12:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

We never finished the discussions above - I never even got to discuss the issues with the 1980s proposal. If we want to discuss this proposal now let's close the others so we can focus on one thing at a time.   Will Beback  talk  12:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added a note to that effect to the #Convenience break 2 section above. --JN466 14:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, some of us are not as bright as others, and we need to keep this simple. I've pasted the current version in so we can see better what we're changing, and adjusted refs and hdgs, etc.   Will Beback  talk  14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Ridicule" is the word we use in the article. I don't see how "mocked" is better.
• "Progressively" implies a constant progression. It's well known that there was a return to short-term return to Indian trappings in the later 1970s.
• "He continues to tour extensively, speaking on peace, and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation his message is today available in 97 countries and 70 languages." This is poorly worded. Is this too much detail for a lead?
• "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).[11]" has been there for a year. Why change it to "In the early 80s Rawat disbanded the Divine Light Mission, which was succeeded by Elan Vital. In 2001 he founded The Prem Rawat Foundation, a public charitable organization, for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts." That's a major POV change. I propose we retain the old language.

Those are my immediate concerns with this draft.   Will Beback  talk  14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Addressing your points in sequence:
  • "Ridiculed/mocked" -- I don't mind which.
  • "Progressively" -- suggest "eventually", or just deleting "progressively".
  • Proposed wording is okay by me; if you can improve on it, please suggest alternative. (On reflection, I think I agree the "97 countries and 70 languages" are a bit too much detail for the lead; we could mention some of the other recent stuff rather than count languages and countries.)
  • TPRF promotes his message; that's a valid thing to mention. Upon checking, I find the charitable work has as good as no RS mentions; so I tend to agree with Will it's undue in the lead. --JN466 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Draft updated, pls review. --JN466 15:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Will, it should be "ridiculed" as per article. Replace "progressively" with "began". Needs some detail of his efforts and numbers of followers. DLM, EV , TPRF should be handled as they occurred not lumped together. TPRF is not POV it is a fact that TPRF says it. I have made changes and improved flow.Momento (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mm, you've changed a lot. Some of it is fine by me, but I doubt we'll be able to get consensus that way.

Thinking about the TPRF humanitarian work issue, there are some sources to be had that document that they do such work: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] --JN466 21:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I haven't done much at all. ln the "70-73" section I made it easier to read by joining a few sentences together and removing "gained further prominence" as it is covered by "he created an extraordinary amount of interest". In the "74-73" section I removed "luxury homes and cars" because there is "only one luxury home" mentioned (the other abodes were "residences reported" to exist around the world in London, New York, Colorado, California, India, and Australia and not subject to criticism). What criticism there was, was about his Malibu home and "luxury gifts" such sports cars. In the "83-2000s" section I added important info about his following and his travelling. Rawat is notable as a teacher who travels the world and it is absurd to leave it out. The info about TPRF is noted as coming from TPRF. If you read the proposal from start to finish it is an easy to read, accurate, neutral mini bio of Rawat.Momento (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As for consensus, no one has achieved it so far but the latest proposal is better written, more concise, closer to the article and covers every important point. The only issue that I see is the idea that including "followers numbers" and "evidence of Rawat's almost constant travelling" has been described as too much detail for a lead but that is purely because "numbers" and "places" are details by nature. And in this case very important details in understanding the life of Prem Rawat.Momento (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If folks are changing the posted text could they please mark it so the changes will be clear. Use a different font or color, perhaps. I don't want to half to spend ten minutes just trying to figure out what we're talking about.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to see in the diffs but what I wanted to do is present a clear version so that you could get the idea of how it will look in the article. (I had no idea you could use different colors). It may not be perfect but it considerably better than the current version, which is good for Wiki and our readers, and it is something I think we can all live with.Momento (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If you won't mark your changes then will you list them here? We were discussing Jayen's proposal, but now you've hijacked it with your own proposal. This process is really not working very well.   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually Jayen hijacked my proposal and it certainly isn't working with you making comments like that. And the changes a very easy to see here [8].Momento (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the wisdom of this system, but I've posted a version based on Jayen's last, with just one change to make it closer to the existing text, regarding the succession of organizations.[9]   Will Beback  talk  04:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Two proposals, please choose

Proposal A -

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers.

At thirteen Rawat traveled to the West where he created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine and under his charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time Rawat also attracted controversy and was ridiculed in the US media for his youth, his supposed divine status and the luxurious gifts given to him by his followers. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation. In December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement.

The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes. His mother disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat rretained the support of his followers outside India and began removing the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. In 1983 Rawat disbanded the Divine Light Mission, which was succeeded by a more secular Elan Vital.

Rawat continued to tour almost constantly, piloting himself to speaking engagements in more than 40 countries around the world. In one two year period he spoke at over 100 programs in 37 international cities. By 1990 he had 1.2 million followers worldwide and in 2001 he founded The Prem Rawat Foundation, a public charitable organization, for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. He continues to tour extensively speaking on peace, and according to The Prem Rawat Foundation, his message is today available in 97 countries and 70 languages.

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma.

Proposal B -

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge. At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers.

Rawat gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message. He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculedmocked in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. His opulent lifestyle, including lLuxury homes and automobiles made available to him by his followers, likewise received media attention. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation.

In December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen, he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes. His mother disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and progressively abandonedeventually removed the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma. ; his public discourses have at times been criticized for a lack of intellectual content.Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses, and for leading an opulent lifestyle.

Once again Will has made a proposal (B) with obvious errors. Including duplication, glaring omissions, unsourced material, UNDUE WEIGHT and SYN.Momento (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

After a careful reading, I can see merit in both. A has some important extra content (the current traveling etc) but I think B is better punctuated. Both say "married an American against his mother's wishes" which strikes a strange note for me. I picture his mother saying, "Oh no, not an American, anything but an American." It reads better with the 2 words "an American" removed. I doubt if she would have approved a New Zealander either. I understand and share editors' fatigue and frustration, but if the choice is between these versions, I would like to do some synthesising. Is that OK? Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I rather echo Rumiton's assessment; there is merit in both. Re the question of home/homes, see [10]. It is correct to say that the Malibu purchase drew most attention, but several elegant homes were indeed mentioned in press reports, even before that purchase. The part on luxurious living is clearer in proposal B. I would be prepared to take proposal B as a half-way house step, just so we actually get something into the article, on the understanding that we look at expanding the content on the most recent three decades afterwards. What Momento has written there (after "The following May ...") has potential, but I am uneasy about the 1.2 million/50,000 figures in proposal A. I am not sure that is borne out by other sources. I know it is in the article, but this area may need some more research; I'd rather use some more recent figures in the lead. The "extensive touring" is duplicated in A, and it generally sounds a little too much like a celebratory listing of Rawat's achievements. Rumiton, if you want to have a go at synthesising the first half of B with something based on the second half of A, I'll gladly take a look at what you can make of it. --JN466 13:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen, but events (see below) have rather overtaken me. I'll just watch for a while and see what other points get raised. Rumiton (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The first big problem I see is that both proposals make it seem that Rawat himself gained no wealth from this, both proposals seem to intimate things like "he got gifts", and the homes he stayed in were "made available"? If someone visits me, I might make my home available to them, I certainly don't turn it over to them to do with as they please for the rest of their life, renouncing ownership of it! And lets not forget who told those followers to renounce their worldly goods in the first place! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you propose a small change that would capture that view better?

As for myself, I've already expressed a preference for the draft I posted.   Will Beback  talk  18:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As with Will Beback' previous effort it is fascinating to see editors support a proposal that has unsourced material, glaring omissions, SYN and duplication. And how can you avoid mentioning a) Rawat's "following" and b) his extraordinary efforts to speak about peace? Not only does it take up half the section, it is the cause of his notability. Sounds like "I don't like it" because it shows his large following and, as the article says ""Rawat continued to energetically serve his followers". Less bias please and more info for readers.Momento (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding that last sentence in Momento's reply, it was added to the article by Momento himself.[11] It's a very incomplete summary of that source.[12] If we regard that as a reliable source, there's quite a bit more we could add from it, much of which gives a very different view than the quoted excerpt.

Regarding the overall proposal, most of it seems based on previous proposals by Momento. No matter how many compromises are accepted by other, Momento seems to keep demanding more and more changes.   Will Beback  talk  20:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right Will. I am almost solely responsible for fixing up the errors in the lead, everything from wrong dates to incorrect claims.[13] Yet whenever I suggest an improvement it is met with a barrage of obstacles and insults. Now I want to fix up to "83-2000" summary for the lead which, despite being an entire section in the article, is not mentioned in the lead. Let me repeat that, the entire 400 word section about Rawat's activities in "1983-2000", nearly 30 years of travels and talks, is not mentioned in the lead. As far as the lead of the Wikipedia biography of Prem Rawat is concerned he mysteriously disappeared from the face of the earth in the 70s.Momento (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're discussing 1983-2000s then why are we discussing the entire lead? I suggest we finish with the 1970s material first and then move on to the later periods.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Speak to Jayen, he's the one who hijacked the discussion.Momento (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you object to finishing the 1970s material before we go over the 1980s and later material?   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the glaring omission of any "83'-2000s" summary. I'm happy to work on my last correction to the current proposal for "70-73"-

"...millions of Indian followers.(leave out "further prominence etc" as the following sentence covers it) At thirteen Rawat traveled to the West where he created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine and under his charismatic leadership the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time Rawat also attracted controversy and was ridiculed in the US media for his youth, his supposed divine status and the luxurious gifts given to him by his followers. DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation. In December 1973, when Rawat turned sixteen... Contrary to Rumiton's opinion about punctuation, the previous version with short sentences sounds like a telegram.Momento (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's mostly OK, but Jayen's proposed text: "Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. Luxury homes and automobiles made available to him by his followers, likewise received media attention." is better for that section.   Will Beback  talk  01:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Except, as I explained two days ago, the article doesn't mention luxury "homes". And if the criteria for inclusion is "received media attention" then the appropriate inclusion would be - "Although Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world" he was criticised for the luxurious gifts given to him by his followers". You can't just present one side of the story.Momento (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Although Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world" that might belong in a section on the subject's teachings, but it doesn't really concern the fact that he received negative attention for his opulent lifestyle. Also, that quote about not abandoning the material world comes from a spokesman named Richard Profumo, and appears in a Newsweek article that lists several luxury residences and many other hallmarks of opulent living. How about this: "Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. His luxury homes and automobiles, said to be gifts from disciples, likewise received media attention." And then in the section on his teachings we can add that his spokesman said he wasn't telling people to abandon the material world, though perhaps that would be the place to say that his followers lived lives of austerity and gave him their incomes and inheritances.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can say it any clearer but I'll try. If "His luxury homes" doesn't appear in the article it can't appear in the lead because it is unsourced OR.Momento (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not unsourced OR:

• He has a sprawling $80,000 split-level house here, plus homes in Los Angeles and India. There are two Mercedes- Benz automobiles for use in the U.S. and two airplanes. In London, his followers have given him a Rolls-Royce. Queried about this opulence, he asks whether he is supposed lo throw away gifts the mission accepts in his name.
• The guru's "Divine Residence" in London is worth $125,000 and is only one of his many homes around the world.
• Reporter: It's hard for some people to understand how you personally can live so luxuriously in your several homes and your Rolls Royces.
• Sources close to Rajeshwari Devi said she was upset because of her son's materialistic lifestyle, including a fondness for expensive homes and sports cars, and because of his marriage last year to his secretary.
• In his first three years in the United States, new converts were common and their contributions led to the Maharaj Ji's homes in three states, a fleet of cars, a wardrobe of flashy clothes and two airplanes. Followers are encouraged to live in ashrams, communal houses where the virtures of celibacy, poverty and meditation are practiced. "If I gave poor people my Rolls-Royce, they would need more tomorrow and I don't have any more Rolls-Royces to give them," the guru once said in defense of his worldly goods.
• The young holy man owned a green Rolls Royce, a Mercedes 600, a Lotus sportscar, several motorcycles, homes in London, New York, Denver and the palatial Anacapa View Estate (complete with tennis courts and swimming pool) overlooking the sea on 4 acres in Malibu, California.
• Things haven't gone so well for the guru in the last 20 years, though success is relative. He didn't bring the world peace, as he promised, but at last report he was living in a Malibu mansion valued at $15 million, with other homes in England, New Delhi, Rome, Madrid and who knows where else; driving his choice of a Rolls-Royce, a Maserati, a Ferrari or a garageful of other expensive cars; jetting around the planet on a $25 million Lear jet; or sailing on his $3 million yacht.

So there are seven sources that talk about homes in the plural. Not OR at all.   Will Beback  talk  06:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Will here. We are reporting what the media wrote about; this is what they wrote about. The sentence "His luxury homes and automobiles, said to be gifts from disciples, likewise received media attention." is an improvement on what's in the proposal now.

I agree with Momento that there should be material on more recent decades in the lead. How about:

The following May he married an American against his mother's wishes. His mother disowned him and appointed his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained the support of his followers outside India and began removing the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. In 1983 Rawat disbanded the Divine Light Mission, which was succeeded by a more secular Elan Vital.

Rawat has continued to tour almost constantly, piloting himself to as many as 100 speaking engagements a year, in more than 40 countries around the world. In 2001 he founded The Prem Rawat Foundation, a public charitable organization, for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. According to The Prem Rawat Foundation, his message is today available in 97 countries and 70 languages.

The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma.

I'll start a section on adherents.com below. --JN466 07:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayen, is it too much to ask for us to finish the 1970s material first?   Will Beback  talk  07:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd be quite happy to do that. As far as I am concerned it can go in, and then we can focus on 1980-2010. --JN466 07:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To address Momento's point that there is nothing about multiple homes in the main article right now, I suggest expanding the sentence "Press reports listed expensive automobiles such as Rolls Royces, Mercedes Benz limousines[38] and sports cars, some of them gifts." with "as well as residences in multiple states and countries", citing relevant sources from among those you listed above. --JN466 08:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I know my opinion, as I have little to no knowledge, means very little, but I still think short and sweet is better than long and lengthy, if you understand what I mean. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it okay to drop this in?

• I believe we do have consensus on the following:

  Rawat gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message. He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine, and under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. His luxury automobiles, said to be gifts from disciples, likewise received media attention. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation.

• Can we drop that in? (It omits the residences, as these are not covered in the article yet.) --JN466 08:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Not OK with me. Why should tabloid trivia like "automobiles" get a sentence of their own when relevant info by Rawat on the subject is ignored e.g. "Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world". If we've got room for a sentence, how about important info like "By the end of 1973, the DLM was active in 55 countries. Tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers and dozens of ashrams formed". This is an article about what Rawat was doing not about the pathetic pre-occupations of journalists.Momento (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We do say that DLM became the fastest-growing NRM in the West. Mention of the cars is due; it was a major factor of his reception at the time. As for not abandoning the material world, the DLM did encourage premies to move into communal ashrams and make donations; premies were not encouraged to keep their money and buy homes and luxury cars from themselves. Many journalists remarked on what they saw as a contradiction between Rawat's lifestyle and that of premies, and it is a valid, very common outsider perspective articulated in our sources. --JN466 10:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We know the US press criticised Rawat in the early 70s, they made fun of his height, his weight, his teachings, his skin, his diet, his voice, his age, his name etc. It is entirely appropriate to say that "Rawat was ridiculed in the US media for his youth, his supposed divine status and the luxurious gifts given to him by his followers". But to stretch this criticism over TWO sentences when we haven't enough space to tell readers how many followers Rawat actually had in this period is pathetic.Momento (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind inserting figures for his following in 1973. But note that your proposal for the luxury gifts ("and the luxurious gifts given to him by his followers".) runs to 10 words, because you attach it to the same verb, "ridiculed", and mine to 13 ("His luxury automobiles, said to be gifts from disciples, likewise received media attention"). There is hardly a difference, and I think it is fair to say that he wasn't "ridiculed" for the luxury cars. All the other ad-hominem stuff you mention (he liked ice cream, his body shape etc.) I am not interested in. So, once more:

• Rawat gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message. He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. By the end of 1973, the movement was active in 55 countries, tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers and ashrams formed. At the same time, Rawat attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. His luxury automobiles, said to be gifts from disciples, also received media attention. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation.

  Better? --JN466 15:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We're getting there. What happened to the homes?   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Momento said earlier (06:17, 8 August 2010) that the multiple luxury residences were not mentioned in the main article and thus should not appear in the lead. Hence my earlier post suggesting we should mention them in the paragraph on his "affluent lifestyle". Re-checking just now, I see that we do in fact have the sentence, "Travelling almost constantly, he was reported to have residences in London, New York, Colorado, California, India, and Australia." That's not under the angle of affluent living though; it's more like an explanation of the practicalities of his travelling lifestyle – which is also a valid viewpoint. We could add the subclause about homes, as I suggested in my earlier post, and add the homes to the lead, or we could leave them out of the lead. I have no strong feelings either way. --JN466 22:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We can meet Momento's latest complaint by mentioning one home now, and then making it plural once we add the others to the body of the article. There's no question that the media gave attention to his multiple homes. That would give us: His luxury automobiles and Malibu estate, said to be gifts from disciples, also received media attention.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I earlier proposed -... of Indian followers. (leave out "gained further prominence etc. as the next sentence covers it). At thirteen he traveled to the west where he created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. By the end of 1973, the movement was active in 55 countries, tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers and ashrams formed. At the same time, Rawat attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth, his supposed divine status and for living "more like a king than a messiah". DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation". (END) "More like a king than a messiah" is an excellent phrase, it is in the article, in a few words it tells us how he lived (in palaces with servants) and it gets immediately to why he was criticised by the media (because they felt a "divine" person should live like an ascetic). By contrast the sentence "His luxury automobiles, said to be gifts from disciples, also received media attention" is clumsy, suggests there is some doubt as to whether they were gifts and doesn't tell us what the media thought - did they say "well known car fanatic Guru Maharaj ji has restored a 1955 Mercedes. It has green exterior and tan leather interior"? "I can't understand the objections to ""more like a king than a messiah".Momento (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, this is text added to the article by Momento[14] that he's now also trying to put into the intro. The sentence in the source just prior is "People were hostile towards the guru." I'm not sure why we quote one line but not the other. In any case, the proposed language (His luxury automobiles and Malibu estate, said to be gifts from disciples, also received media attention) fairly summarizes what's in the article. I suggest that we should minimize the use of quotes in the intro.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Malibu Estate was not a gift. The DLM bought it, it served as the DLM's headquarters, and Rawat had a first-floor apartment in it. (From memory.) --JN466 23:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Momento, I could sign up to "for living "more like a king than a messiah", with luxury automobiles and multiple residences." Deal? --JN466 23:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course you could Jayen. But I can't because it is mindless redundancy and treats the readers as idiots. So maybe we should follow "Like a Messiah" with "you know like bare feet and robes". As for Will's comment that "this is text added to the article by Momento", who do you think put this badly written tabloid sentence into the article - "Press reports listed expensive automobiles such as Rolls Royces, Mercedes Benz limousines[38] and sports cars, some of them gifts". I especially like "and sports cars" as if "expensive automobiles" excluded "sports cars". Oh, naughty Prem Rawat has "SPORTS CARS". There is no reason to exclude "more like a king than a messiah" but there is a very good reason to avoid describing how a king might live because it treats readers as idiots. And by the way, the multiple residents are NOT the product of living like a king they are the result of "Travelling almost constantly, he was reported to have residences in London, New York, Colorado, California, India, and Australia", as explained in the article.Momento (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Jayen's text is acceptable. It includes the quote that Momento is supporting and it summarizes the material in the article. It is neutral and factual. It has no errors or policy violations. Can we agree on this so we can complete this long-running discussion?   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It may suit you Will to have this article treat readers like idiots but it is unacceptable to me. Apart from being patronising and redundant, the article doesn't suggest Rawat was ridiculed for having "multiple residences". If that the last of your objections Will. I propose we put in - ... of Indian followers. (leave out "gained further prominence etc. as the next sentence covers it). At thirteen he traveled to the west where he created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. By the end of 1973, the movement was active in 55 countries, tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers and ashrams formed. At the same time, Rawat attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth, his supposed divine status and for living "more like a king than a messiah". DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation". (END)Momento (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We're not treating readers like idiots, and I think that verges on a personal attack on the editorsw who've proposed it. The proposal by Jayen does not say that the subject was ridiculed for homes. It says he was ridiculed "for his youth and his supposed divine status". Please don't misrepresent the proposal. I suggest that, since no mediators are jumping to help, we hold an RFC to get input on whether He also received media attention for living "more like a king than a messiah", with luxury automobiles and multiple residences is an acceptable summary of the text material.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you care to look at Jayen's proposal he said "I could sign up to "for living "more like a king than a messiah", with luxury automobiles and multiple residences". If you place Jayen's suggestion in the proposal you get "At the same time, Rawat attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth, his supposed divine status and for living "more like a king than a messiah", with luxury automobiles and multiple residences". So you are wrong aren't you. And saying I am "misrepresenting the proposal" when I am not IS a Personal Attack. So once again you are pushing a proposal that is incorrect while refusing to accept my proposal which is correct in every detail and falsely accusing me of "misrepresenting the proposal" when it is you that is "misrepresenting the proposal". Time for Jayen to come back and put the error free proposal into the lead.Momento (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of this discussion, the proposal is:

• ''Rawat gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message. He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine, and under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time, Rawat also attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. He also received media attention for living "more like a king than a messiah", with luxury automobiles and multiple residences. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation.

That's accurate and neutral.   Will Beback  talk  02:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We should perhaps add "made available to him by his followers". Also, the controversy was not about his being ridiculed. If the "more like a king than a messiah" quote is repetitive, we can drop it:

• Rawat gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.. He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine, and under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time, Rawat also attracted media attention, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status, with journalists noting luxury automobiles and multiple residences made available to him by his followers. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organization.

I am fine either with this, or the version Will has posted above. --JN466 03:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What a feast of WIKI:SYN. Nowhere in the article does it mention "multiple residences made available to him by his followers". It does mention that "the movement was active in 55 countries, tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers and ashrams formed." But let's leave out this important and impeccably verified info which is the reason for Rawat's notability in favour a made up phrase. What's happened to Wiki policies, guidelines and practices? Don't they apply to this article?Momento (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The closest we're going to get to consensus on this issue is - At thirteen he traveled to the west where he created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. By the end of 1973, the movement was active in 55 countries, tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers and ashrams formed. At the same time, Rawat attracted controversy, being ridiculed in the US for his youth, his supposed divine status and the luxury automobiles given to him by followers. DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation".Momento (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I could live with adding the sentence about the growth of the DLM, but I do not like the wording "ridiculed for ... the luxury automobiles given to him by followers." --JN466 11:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Since we have at least seven sources talking about multiple homes I don't think we can call that a violation of WP:SYNTH, which says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Since you keep saying that this is a violation of WP:NOR I'll post a request at the noticeboard to get outside input on this point. As for your other point, this article is about Rawat, not the DLM. Rawat didn't form hundreds of ashrams and centers by 1973 because he didn't have managerial control. If anything that information belongs in Satpal Rawat's article, since apparently he was the one running things along with Mata Ji. In any case, we already say that the DLM was the fastest growing movement in the West and that he had millions of followers.   Will Beback  talk  08:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NORN#Prem Rawat intro.   Will Beback  talk  08:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious, let's take all mention of DLM out of the article until he turns 16. And as we all know the Malibu property wasn't bought until November 74 so it can hardly be "made available to him by his followers" in 1973 and some of your other quotes are obviously from after 1973, one even says "the last 20 years". Rawat and his time machine?Momento (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What was Prem Rawat's involvement in creating those ashrams?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the sources. We don't say that these criticisms were made in 1973. They may have started in 1973, and perhaps most of them were made in 1973-1975, after which increasingly little was written about him. The one that refers to the "last 20 years" was written in 1998 as a "Whatever happened to ..." piece.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No but YOU say that in "70-73 Rawat had "multiple residences" and that isn't true is it?Momento (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did I say that?   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about summarising the "70-73" period and in this period you wish to say "He also received media attention for living "more like a king than a messiah", with luxury automobiles and multiple residences". And provide quotes about Malibu to back it up.Momento (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you're OK with having this text in a different position within the intro? I should point out that at least two of the excerpted comments (above) are from 1973. Also, the subject had a home in L.A. before getting the Malibu estate.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Only one is from 1973 and it says "Guru Maharaj Ji lives comfortably with the other members of the "Holy Family" - his three older brothers ranging up to 22 years of age and his mother".

So now we're back, again, to my proposal. Let's get the houses out of this section first.Momento (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting tendentious. There's no doubt that the subject cars and homes were commented on by observers starting in 1973. We have seven examples of that. The proposed text is an accurate and neutral summary. It is not original research. The matter of who else was living on one of the houses seems irrelevant.   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So far the main objection to my proposal has been Will's insistence that "multiple homes" be in the summary. As we've now discovered only one of Will's sources comes from 1973 (post Millennium) and it is clear that the media ridicule didn't include "multiple houses" in 1973. So once again I propose this summary which is factual, well sourced and summarises the "'70-'73 section". So.... "of Indian followers. (leave out "gained further prominence etc. as the next sentence covers it). At thirteen he traveled to the west where he created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West with tens of thousands of members in 55 countries. At the same time, Rawat attracted controversy, being derided by the US media for his youth, his supposed divine status and for living "more like a king than a messiah". DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organisation". If there are no Wiki based objections in 24 hours I'll put it in. It is far better than the current non-coverage so please do not hold up this good step forward because of little style/punctuation preferences.Momento (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there's more support for the draft that Jayen and I were working on.   Will Beback  talk  02:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We've all been working on the same proposal. Jayen's last comment on the version I have just suggested was "I could live with adding the sentence about the growth of the DLM, but I do not like the wording "ridiculed for ... the luxury automobiles given to him by followers". So I have left in "the sentence about the growth of the DLM" and removed the "the luxury automobiles given to him by followers" and replaced it with the more general lifestyle criticism of " living more like a king than a messiah".Momento (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks OK to me, apart, of course, from the "little style/punctuation preferences." The substance looks fine. Rumiton (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Momento, I think you've misinterpreted Jayen's comment. (He's apparently traveling now which is why he's not commenting here.) The "ridicule" concerned the youth and behavior. The luxurious cars and homes are a separate issue. The growth of the DLM is covered in the DLM article, and if we include the largest figure then we'd have to also include other figures.   Will Beback  talk  17:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayen added the words "being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status", the "luxurious cars and multiple homes" are out and the the figures are from 1973 in the article, the proposal stands.Momento (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The last version Jayen proposed was this:

• Rawat gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.[2][3] He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine, and under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. At the same time, Rawat also attracted media attention, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status, with journalists noting luxury automobiles and multiple residences made available to him by his followers. The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organization

It's not my exact preference, but I'd agree to it. It's neutral and factual.   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a slightly altered version in an RfC below.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Adherents.com

There is a discrepancy in the information on adherents.com. In the third column, it lists a following of "15,000" for the USA (published in 1990). In the ninth column, it says: ""General membership numbers appox. 1.2 mil. worldwide, with 50,000 in U.S. There is a core group of 3000 active members and an additional 12,000 who attend functions and contribute regularly". The "50,000" may be a transcription error made by those who generated the table, as it contradicts the 15,000 in column 3, and 3,000 + 12,000 = 15,000. The latter also is more in line with Geaves 2006, who speaks of a "hard core of about 2,000 European and North American followers". Does anyone have access to the Spencer/Keller source cited by adherents.com? --JN466 07:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Other sources:

• In 2000, a worldwide estimate of 335,000 was put forward ... 'more than 500,000 to this day have learned the techniques' (the latter is a quote by Elan Vital).
• "Outside of India, at the time of this writing, Elan Vital claims some seventy-five thousand followers in the rest of the world" (2001) --JN466 07:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about the DLM or Elan Vital. Detailed estimates of the sized of those movements belong in their respective articles. Anyway, this is another topic that we've already discussed at length. Is there any new information since 2008? Can we wait to discuss this again until we've settled the other pending issues?   Will Beback  talk  08:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Momento proposes quoting the 1.2m/50,000 figures, which are currently in the article, in the second part of the lead, and I think these figures may be problematic (i.e. too high). I'm happy to defer this until we have the 70s section of the lead sorted though. --JN466 08:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some of the previous discussions:

• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 36#Full-time membership of German premies
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 38#"Following", "students" and "former followers" sections

That's for the record. Meantime, let's focus finding a consensus about the 1970s material that we've been discussing for a while already.   Will Beback  talk  08:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hostile press

Some excerpts concerning the attitudes of the press towards Prem Rawat/Guru Maharaj Ji.

• However, during the first two and a half years after the mission had been established, Guru Maharaj Ji's habit of arriving late, or not at all, for public programmes in Britain was doubtless a factor in his receiving an increasingly hostile press coverage which, in turn, may have contributed to the decline in recruitment which took place after the Alexandra Palace festival.
  • Price
• Devotees agree to that and recommend to the skeptic that he "try it." Always the issue is reduced to the question of proof, since this particular movement asserts that evidence is available for the asking and that to demand it is legitimate. That often puts critics on the defensive, which may partly explain the hostile media treatment of this movement.
  • Messer
• When Rennie first talked to me of his conversion, after a hostile, tomato-strewn opening in Berkeley, he was nonplused.
  • Robert Scheer
• Maharaj Ji, who is clearly accustomed to more respectful attention than he has been getting from the press, appears tense and hostile throughout the questioning (one is not surprised to learn from his personal physician that he still takes Tums to soothe his stomach).
  • Richard Levine
• The wild growth of the Divine Light Mission peaked by the end of 1973. Mission officials blamed a bad press.
  • Rudin & Rudin
• A newsman said of the America-based teen-aged Guru Maharaj Ji: "The Americans say, `the guru has come.' The guru says, `The money has come.'" And God is amused. [..] By quoting the answers to questions during a press conference in Hollywood's Divine Light Mission, Greenberg suggested the frustration journalists encounter when they attempt to get straightforward easy-to-understand answers to their questions. After Maharaj Ji said: "The aim and purpose of my life is to spread the true nature of the soul to humanity," he was asked, "Give me that knowledge." The guru replied, "I can't answer materialistic requests." [..] In its issue of April 23 1973 the Times devoted two full pages to letters commenting on the Singh article. [..] Only one letter, from Dr. Edward S. Hanzelik, of the Divine Health Care Services, was sympathetic. [..] A few days later, however, Maharaj Ji made headlines not to his liking.
  • Curtis D. MacDougall
• [Mata Ji] charged that customs officials had humiliated Maharaj Ji and his entourage and that the Indian press had given his visit the worst possible coverage.
  • UPI 1972
• The guru complained that "the press does not realize it is the work of God that we are doing," and that numerous false stories about him had been circulated.
  • Eleanor Blau, 1973
• A lot of money passes through Divine Light Mission, and every press report about the Guru's appearances mentions his limousines, his airplanes, houses and wardrobe. But these reports have failed to dent the loyalty of his followers.
  • Lewis Clayton, 1973
• To some of the press, he was a ripoff artist, who in one night in the Celestial Suite at the Astroworld Hotel spent far more than the average Indian's annual income.
  • Ted Morgan, 1973

And so on.   Will Beback  talk  14:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of intro material covering Prem Rawat#1970–1973

Editors are engaged in revising the intro of Prem Rawat to make it more inclusive. There is a disagreement over two competing proposals. 23:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

Proposal A

Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled, at age 13, to the West to spread his message. He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as the "Perfect Master" by his followers, He was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine, and under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat also attracted media attention, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status, with journalists noting luxury automobiles and multiple residences made available to him by his followers.

Proposal B

At thirteen he traveled to the west where he created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as a "Perfect Master" by his followers, He was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine. Under Rawat's charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West with tens of thousands of members in 55 countries. At the same time, Rawat attracted controversy, being derided by the US media for his youth, his supposed divine status and for living "more like a king than a messiah".

Note: Both proposals agree that the final line should be:

The DLM's "Millennium" event in November 1973 was billed as the beginning of a new millennium of peace "for people who want peace"; however, attendance fell short of expectations, creating a serious debt for the organization.

Comments from involved editors

• My preference is for A . --JN466 23:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to apologize - there have been some many changing proposals that I omitted the "multiple homes" which had been in prior versions. I've added it back.   Will Beback  talk  00:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Prefer B. Problems with A = A proposal that Includes both "gained further prominence when he traveled, at age 13, to the West to spread his message" and "He created an extraordinary amount of interest (in the west)" is repeating itself. A proposal that omits to mention two of Rawat's major reasons for notability, his "tens of thousands of members in 55 countries" and "living more like a king than a messiah" is seriously deficient. A proposal that includes the uninformative sentence "His luxury automobiles, said to be gifts from disciples, likewise received media attention" is wasting words. In short a Proposal that uses more words to tell less about Rawat is an inferior proposal. But since editors traditionally vote on party lines expect Proposal A to get more votes from involved editors.Momento (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this RFC is to get input from uninvolved editors. The comments of involved editors serve mostly to help explain the dispute to them.

In response to your specific issues, I think you're misquoting Proposal A. There were various elements to the subject's fame: his youth, the remarkable claims made about him and his teachings, his lifestyle, and the popularity of his movement. It's better to keep those separate than to merge them. "Living like a king" sounds like a generality or a cliche, while the factual matter is that it was the cars and homes that attracted the attention.

"Tens of thousands of followers" is misleading, since he was said to have millions of followers. The exact size of his following at various stages of his career is a complicated matter, and giving just one number gives an incomplete picture.   Will Beback  talk  04:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure if I count as involved or uninvolved, since I've been gone for awhile, but I prefer "A", but I would add "more like a king than a messiah." Personally, I find option B to be rather, well, anemic. Ronk01 talk, 05:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• I prefer "A". The king/messiah bit seems irrational to me, tells more about a cultural neurosis than about the subject, should not be in the lead.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• I prefer proposal A, and I'm assuming the link that currently exists to [WP:Charismatic Authority] will remain in there. In short, it doesn't water down the issues like proposal B does, and I would expect, as tradition dictates, that not everyone will agree with the majority of the other involved editors (apparently, so far, "party lines" means everyone who's not Momento?). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 07:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• I think A is better. Over issues like 'derided' vs 'ridiculed' I would go with the source wording and with reference to cars and..'multiple residences made available to him by his followers' - weren't these described as 'gifts' - again the source wording should be used. PatW (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• I cannot support Proposal A. The first sentence, "when he traveled, at age 13, to the West to spread his message" is staccato and rather clumsy. Then it unproductively repeats the idea of his increasing profile: he "gained further prominence" and "created an extraordinary amount of interest." I find this too much for a lead which should summarize. More problematically, it equates media attention with criticism. The implication is that all media attention was/is hostile, an idea which sources do not support. Also "the" Perfect Master seems to imply that there could only be one. I don't think sources confirm this, either; there always seems to have been a suggestion of a lineage. The number of members included in B is also interesting and relevant. So B is better. Rumiton (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

While there may have been a lineage of previous Perfect Masters, there's only one at a time. When the indeterminate article is used it's to refer to perfect masters in general. Here's what a follower said:

• "The guru is a Perfect Master born of a Perfect Master." he said. "Just as Christ and Buddha and Mohammed were masters, the guru is master. There is always one among us. But this is the first time there has been a perfect master born of a perfect master."

Here's what the Current Biography Yearbook reported:

• He has related what happened when his father died: "I went home [from St. Joseph's Academy in Debra Dun] and everyone was weeping. I was just sitting there not weeping and something began to happen to me. I began to feel that I am not this body.... And this voice came to me saying, `You are he, you are the one to continue."' At the funeral the voice came again: "This is the last I will tell you. You are he. You must take this knowledge to the world." According to the Guru, "the satsang just came" and he found himself telling the mourners: "Dear children of God, why are you weeping? . . . The Perfect Master never dies. Maharaj Ji is here, amongst you now."

Further, in a review of sources I find over 50 that say "the Perfect Master" while fewer than half as many that say "a Perfect Master".   Will Beback  talk  17:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The notion that there is only "one perfect master on earth" is quite often proclaimed by spiritual teachers. I've seen it argued (though not as far as I can recall specifically in reference to Rawat) that this is merely a device to focus the disciple on the teacher in question, who in other circumstances may quite freely acknowledge that there are other teachers quite as capable as himself. Similarly, when Rawat says, "the perfect master never dies", this can also be read as his referring to a quality, rather than a person. But be that as it may, the claim was certainly made by disciples at the time that Guru Maharaj Ji was the one and only perfect master on earth. Here are some examples from the New York Times: [15], and similar quotes from followers saying the same thing using different words can also be found. I believe it is a historical fact that these things were said. --JN466 03:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a big problem for me, but saying THE Perfect Master seems to assume that the reader will know what a Perfect Master is, if you follow my drift. If they don't, as many will not, it rings strangely. Maybe it is comparable to saying Mr/Mrs XY is THE Poet Laureate. If you know what a poet laureate is, you don't have a problem with the sentence. But because the concept of Perfect Master is little known in the West, and we are not defining it before making this statement, I think this will confuse. (Some semantic points are difficult to explain semantically.) What about my other points? Rumiton (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

We're not here to argue over the points again. As for the hostile press, which sources contradict that view?   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the proper question would be, "Which sources support the view that ALL press reception was negative?" which is what the suggested wording implies. Rumiton (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that implication. We don't even use the word "hostile". However, I'll find some sources to support the view that the press was hostile. To avoid disrupting this sterile RFC further I'll post them in a fresh section above.   Will Beback  talk  14:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the phrase, "Rawat also attracted media attention," followed by some examples of hostility, certainly leave the reader with the impression that all the media attention was negative. I doubt that any source would say that. Rumiton (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a leap. The citation that addresses that idea most directly, though, is perhaps the Clayton excerpt which is quoted in the section above this RFC.   Will Beback  talk  14:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't like either because the implication is that followers imposed their beliefs about Rawat's divinity upon him, when quite the opposite is true. If someone doesn't know the term "Perfect Master," then that text can easily be linked to the Wiki article Perfect Master. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A major point of contention here seems to be "Perfect Master," perhaps a seperate section to discuss this? Ronk01 talk, ^{Editor Review} 22:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Important point there, Cynthia. The article is increasingly portraying the bias that the ‘divinity’ attributed to Rawat was a merely projected onto him by his followers, and that he was simply on the receiving end, powerless to do anything about it. Such revisionism should not be allowed to become the ‘official’ Wiki version.

Here are a few quotes from the man himself, making it perfectly clear that he was heavily involved in promoting himself as the “Perfect Master”, and that his followers were merely repeating the claims he had made about himself:

“I don't mind the difficulties that are being put against me. Whenever he comes to the world the Perfect Master has to tolerate many difficulties. I have come to spread this Knowledge and that is what I am going to do. Understand this and believe it”.

(Johannesburg, 29 April 1972)

“Today, if two people fight, the government is supposed to settle them down. But when governments fight, who is going to settle them down? The only one who can settle the governments down is the Perfect Master, the incarnation of God Himself, who comes to Earth to save mankind”.

Tokyo, October 3, 1972 (published in “And it is Divine” magazine, July 1973)

“And I am just teaching them perfectness, and that’s why they called me Perfect Master. And as a matter of fact, I am Perfect Master because I can reveal them this peace”.

London, 13 July 1973

Maharaj Ji: “People come to me and ask me about this, and they say, “What is your opinion about a Perfect Master? Is there one, is there two?” I tell them my opinion that there is only one Perfect Master. Because perfectness, is one, not two, not three. So there is only one Perfect Master in this world. And because he is perfect, that’s it.. he is perfect. You just can’t divide perfect ...”

Maharaj Ji: “There have always been Perfect Masters coming into this world”.

Wood: “Will there be another one?”

Maharaj Ji: ”Yes. After me”.

(From an Interview with John Wood of the Boston Globe with Guru Maharaj Ji in Newton, Massachusetts, August 3, 1973, published in And It Is Divine ~ Dec. 1973, Volume 2. Issue 2.);

Revera (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could solve the problem of "a" or "the" Perfect Master by omitting the article at all: "Hailed as "Perfect Master"..." would leave room for everybody's understanding.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the passive nature of "hailed as" that I'm objecting to. First was his claim to be the so-called Perfect Master (see the speech he gave shortly following his father's death).

Compare the claim of Mohammed Ali, aka Cassius Clay, to be "The Greatest". To say he was "hailed as" the greatest would be very partisan. Some did, some didn't. Likewise Rawat. Revera (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I share Rumiton's concerns. The concept of "Perfect Master" is not explained yet in the lead, so it sounds a little freaky to say, Rawat claimed to be Perfect Master, and not elaborate any further. Maybe it should not be in the lead, but in the body, where there is space to explain the term. For the lead that might be too long.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it hasn't been explained in the lead, that's a terrible reason to leave it out. If everything in the lead was already fully explained, it would be the entire article! The lead is a summary, if they want to find out what the Perfect Master is, read the article, that's the whole point! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it unfair for the lead to say he was "hailed" as a perfect master. Obviously not by everyone; nobody is universally approved of. I think the problem is that something that was a title in his home culture (a respected title, but still only a title) when translated into English came to be seen as a "claim." We have sources that tell us that his father, as well as Meher Baba and probably other Indian spiritual teachers of the day went by the same title, and that he inherited it as part of his father's position. For some years after arriving in the West he used the term in a fairly descriptive way, referring to his role. He also used the simplified term "master", and I think it is worthy of noting, still does. Perhaps we need to explain the background of the term more fully in the article, then look at whether it is important enough for the lead. Rumiton (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This whole issue touches on the very topical subject of 'people who reinvent themselves'. Prem Rawat is a classic example of someone who has done this with success as Ron Geaves is keen to point out. The negative view is that people reinvent themselves because there was a problem with their career, they embarrassed themselves or they actually are vilified for their past in some way. The positive view is that it is a healthy career move. Prem Rawat's critics argue that it is dishonest for Rawat not to be more forthright about his former claims - claims which cannot be denied and which some say, seduced them into harm. The neutral viewpoint would seem to be to report that Rawat claimed to be 'The Perfect Master' to his followers but was 'sheepish' (as Collier said) about stating that belief to others (the press in particular) who he quickly learned would hold it against him. Hence his seemingly contradictory statements on the matter in the 70's. Prem Rawat has reinvented himself necessarily as a 'master' maybe with a smaller 'm' and his followers are unhappy to have a public biog which accurately reports his former more grandiose claims. They would rather blame themselves. Reinvention is good. Revisionism is bad. It's a sticky one to report about fairly. Above I made a case for the article in some way offering explanation of Rawat's current beliefs about this- which I believe to be relevant and interesting. As I said, Ron Geaves' academic paper is endorsed on Prem Rawat's website and current videos - he does clearly believe that there is a traceable lineage of Masters that at some point stem from a fairly well-known Indian saint called Totapuri. He doesn't want to be billed as a Lord like Jesus or Krishna these days but he will concede that much and he DOES still talk about 'The' Master. I find the way some people are trying to dilute his former claims puzzling and disingenuous. Prem Rawat's former claims of being The Perfect Master were quite clear. There can be no pretence that this was a casually used, common device or 'title' to relate to Indian followers etc. although that is a simplistic prosaic explanation. He meant it to the hilt. He encouraged his followers (and surely still does) to believe that he was The only Perfect Master of the time. He challenged people who doubted, to first search the world for one similar who could supply true Knowledge and to come to him when they were eventually frustrated. At the time we all loved him for it and plenty still do.PatW (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pat, you have said before that Prem Rawat claims to belong to a "lineage." I have seen some speculation on Youtube on home-made videos, but can find nothing official from him. Can you direct me to the URL? Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton is right, "Perfect Master," while a title of respect in India (where it might be better thought of a "Perfect Guru," or "Supreme Guru"), it has strong diving and liturgical connotations in Western Culture. Perhaps an explaination of this in the lead? Ronk01 talk, ^{Editor Review} 22:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that it might be confusing is not a good reason to exclude it. The term was used routinely in press and scholarly coverage. The subject often explained its meaning. Right now, we say in the first paragraph:

• At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers.

How about saying:

• ... and as the new Satguru and Perfect Master to millions of Indian followers.

That links the two inherited titles together.   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would reflect somewhat on the origin of those titels.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Rumiton (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to Rumiton. PR's website (www.maharaji.org) had the same information as the WPOG video. I have screenshots of the original page from M's website which you can get here. Ron Geaves states, in his paper entitled From Totapuri to Maharaji Reflections on a Lineage - "Maharaji has referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows...etc". On the WOPG video at 8 mins 44 it says the same "Even though references to the techniques of Knowledge are made earlier than 1700, this is the traceable history thus far - Sri Totapuri Ji Maharaj (1780-1866), Sri Anandpuri Ji Maharaj (1782-1872), Sri Adwetanand Ji (1840-1919), Sri Swarupanand Ji Maharaji (18844-1936), HRH Yogiraj Paramhans Sadgurudev Sri Hans Ji Maharaj (1900-1966), Maharaji (Prem Rawat). PatW (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You say PR's website HAD this information, but the site you have labelled WPOG video (Words of Peace Global) seems to be a private effort by someone called Ramilbeej, who seems to claim no official affiliation with WOPG or anything else. I think, re Geaves, there may be some circularity. Geaves seems to be the one who raised the whole lineage thing, then he cast doubt on it, which may have been why it was removed from the PR site (speculation). At any rate, it is clearly not something that PR "claims". But more importantly, and this is a point that never seems to quite hit home, these are primary sources. They are excerpts, chosen and edited to support a point of view. Do you not see what a wonderful time I could have if I were allowed to pick and choose amongst the 4600 or so Youtube, Yahoo and privately blogged videos available in praise of the subject? Out of respect for Wikipedia, I don't try that on. I look at the most reputable secondary sources to tell me what the primary sources are saying. Rumiton (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Any idea when that page with the lineage was live on www.maharaji.org, Pat? I've tried looking for it here:http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.maharaji.org but without a date to narrow the search it's going to take an age!. Revera (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Before you lecture me on Primary Sources may I point out that I was responding to your request for evidence that Rawat claimed a specific lineage. I've provided you with screenshots of Rawats 'Offiical' 1990 website and supportive text from Geaves. What more do you want? The video was put on Youtube by Ramilbee but he says it is the property of Dunrite group and Rajvidyakender. Words of Peace Global also offer many of these videos for download and this may have come from there. There are so many there I didn't have time to look. I'm not convinced that Ron Geaves material isn't allowable here where it is not contentious, and we can and should take evidence from Primary evidence into account although it may not necessarily be used. Incidentally, I have here a copy of this paper by Geaves which a scholar friend of mine gave me recently in a book called 'The Spalding Papers in Indic Studies' edited by Anna S.King. The whole thing is there as one of "collected papers presented at the annual Spalding Symposium on Indian Religions" which he attended in 2006. Please could you show where Ron Geaves cast doubt on this lineage? This is news to me. PatW (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I concede that I find Ron Geave's prose almost unreadable, which partly stems from my complete lack of interest in his subject, but partly from his academic weaselisms. In the excerpt you quote I see, "It is clear that the lineage is not proven...", "It is also questionable..." "It is certainly possible..." etc. He seems to back away from statements before he even makes them. You claim that, "Ron Geaves' academic paper is endorsed on Prem Rawat's website and current videos." 1990 is not 2010. You have not shown me where PR's website currently refers to this stuff at all, and I am sure you know that privately made videos acknowledging copyrighted material are not representative of the views of the copyright holder. i.e. Ramilbeej's opinions are not necessarily those of Prem Rawat. Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If editors want to complain about primary sources, then there are plenty already in the article that can be removed, including those regarding The Prem Rawat Foundation, etc. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are fine and good for uncontroversial information. They cannot be selectively mined to support someone's point of view. Rumiton (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a controversial issue and those are not "selectively" chosen quotes. The major theme of Rawat's teachings were his claims of being the Perfect Master of this time and the Satguru. These are direct quotes by Prem Rawat made both in his childhood and as an adult, which demonstrate clearly and sufficiently exactly how early followers in the 1970s got the idea, or concept, if you will, that he is the Perfect Master/Satguru. That is why the phrase "Hailed as the "Perfect Master" by his followers, he was seen by many of them as an incarnation of the divine..." is a canard because it misleads readers by implying that it was his followers who came up with the idea of Rawat's divinity as Perfect Master/Satguru, instead of the fact it was a huge, important, and major focus of Rawat's teachings. This isn't controversial because these were the words that constantly came out of Rawat's own mouth about himself throughout the 1970s up until at least 1981, including 1976, when premies for a short time period had toned down the use of the terms "Lord of the Universe," "Satguru," and the like, in favor of using the less controversial term of "Perfect Master" in introductory programs. As PatW said, it's fine if someone wants to reinvent himself, because that's their right to do, but when it comes to writing a biography of someone, one cannot indulge a person by attempting to revise his entire life history in order to create the appearance that he was always the way he is in the present day. That's what I see adherents here trying to do and it's unacceptable by Wikipedia standards of NPOV writing. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sylviecyn and PatW- would this be acceptable?

• At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru and Perfect Master to millions of Indian followers.

That avoids the contentious article ("a" vs "the") and also avoids the "hailed" verb.   Will Beback  talk  19:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That is definitely an improvement, Will. With links to both Perfect Master and Satguru. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove "Satguru" altogether as is not mentioned in the article - "At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as Perfect Master to millions of Indian followers". Which changes this - "At thirteen he traveled to the west where he created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give a direct experience of God. Hailed as the "Perfect Master" by his followers, Rawat was seen by many of his followers as an incarnation of the divine and under his charismatic leadership, the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West with tens of thousands of members in 55 countries."Momento (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Momento is right. When the term "Satguru" is not mentioned in the article, it should not be in the lead. It stands for a largely unfamiliar concept in the West. Perhaps after the teachings section has been accordingly complemented, it could be added to the lead.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Would Wikilinking Satguru help solve the problem? Rumiton (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Satguru is mentioned in the article and can be expanded upon. It should remain in the lead. I'm puzzled by the worries expressed by editors about terms "westerners are not familiar with." This is an encyclopedia for goodness sake, people come to Wikipedia to learn things. Besides, both of the terms "perfect master" and "Satguru" are not obscure words. This isn't a contentious issue at all. It's how Prem Rawat described himself during his first years in the west, were widely written about, and they are the years for which Rawat is notable to even warrant a biographical article. It's not acceptable to gloss over those years in order to further his agenda of self-reinvention. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Sylviecyn, but where in the article is Satguru mentioned? And what makes you think Satguru is an understandable word even for a fairly educated reader? And why do you think explaining the term Satguru means to gloss over those years in order to further his agenda of self-reinvention? I don't object against the term, only it should not be used in the lead, when it is not in the body. No need for prancing. And Rumiton, I think textlinking Satguru would not solve the problem, as long as it is not in the article's body. Or have I missed it?--Rainer P. (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't prancing because I'm too old to prance. :):) Satguru is mentioned in the article and I think it ought to be expanded upon in this article in the appropriate section, at least a bit. I didn't say that using the term Satguru is glossing over anything, but I apologize if I was unclear. What I meant to say is that to not use the term would be glossing over a very important piece of Rawat's history in the west. Btw, in the age of the internet, people can Google terms like Satguru and Perfect Master, but the work is already done for us as there are the two Wiki articles by those names. I hope you're well. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Satguru appears a couple of times in the article, just search. Even if it weren't that would be a bad reason to delete it from the lead, since it's a key aspect of the subject's life. The term is already linked in the intro. I don't see why this is suddenly controversial. Is there any objection to the sentence:

• At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru and Perfect Master to millions of Indian followers.

It'd be nice to find something we can agree on.   Will Beback  talk  19:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't find "Satguru" in the article. Unless you mean this misplaced title "He was given the title "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj", or just "Balyogeshwar".Momento (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Lucy DuPertuis, a sociologist and one-time follower who assisted James V. Downton with his book about the Divine Light Mission, described Rawat's role as a Master as emerging from three interrelated phenomena: traditional or theological definitions of Satguru, adherents' first-hand experiences of the Master, and communal accounts and discussions of the Master among devotees.

But the argument over whether it's in the body text already or not is beside the point. Nobody denies that it was one of his roles or titles, and so it should be included. Getting back to the "Perfect Master", does anyone object to the proposal above?   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is exactly the point. If we allow an editor to insert something into the lead that isn't in the article, where will it end? It is a very simple and useful restriction that avoids the endless POV arguments. Which is why I am happy to alter the lead the reflect the article with - "At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as Perfect Master to millions of Indian followers".Momento (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Since no one objects to adding "Perfect Master", and several people have agreed to it, I'll go ahead and add it. That will simplify the main proposals we still have pending above.   Will Beback  talk  04:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Both Rainer and I objected to Satguru so I'll take that out.Momento (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's controversial - please get consensus before making changes like that.   Will Beback  talk  05:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few excerpts from sources at hand on the use of the term "satguru" to a section above: #Satguru.   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add "Perfect Master" to "Satguru" as my proposal clearly states. It was still being discussed because a) DuPertius doesn't say Rawat was a "Satguru", she "described Rawat's role as a Master" and b) it should be one or the other. It's like saying "a woman had a baby and became a mom and a mother to a baby girl."Momento (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone objecting to adding "Perfect Master", and editors from both sides agreed to it, including you. Deleting "Satguru" is a separate issue. I've started a fresh thread below since this has gotten so long and off-topic.   Will Beback  talk  06:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong as usual Will. I didn't agree to adding "Perfect Master" to "Satguru". I proposed replacing "Satguru" with "Perfect Master" as is clear in my proposal.

Why did you delete "perfect master"? What is your objection to that term in the intro?   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's no objection, I'll add it again.   Will Beback  talk  09:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Since there was only one outside view, and it supported version "A", I will go ahead and post it.   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors

• Response to RfC I prefer (a), as it is marginally more balanced and less puffy. I object to the adjective "charismatic" in both versions. Figureofnine (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Prem Rawat's Lineage as a Satguru

Anyone researching Prem Rawat would certainly appreciate, in an encyclopaedia, information as to the historic roots of his teachings. I am still wondering if we could include this information somewhere in the article since it is referred to in quite few sources. As with all lineages it is not proven but it is certainly one that is described and endorsed by Ron Geaves and it seems, Prem Rawat himself.

• a) Prem Rawat's personal website publicised his quite particular views on his lineage in this respect. (thanks Revera for link)
• b) Ron Geaves's paper argues for a lineage dating back through several Satguru personages to an eighteenth century Indian saint called Totapuri. Quote -

Maharaji has referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows:

• Shri Totapuri ji Maharaj (1780-1866)
• Shri Anandpuri ji Maharaj (1782-1872)
• Param Hans Dayal Shri Advaitanand ji (1840-1919)
• Shri Swarupanand ji Maharaj (1884-1936)
• Yogiraj Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans ji Maharaj (1900-1966)
• c) current secondary? sources (www.wopg.org etc.) publish a video which also proclaims this lineage.

PatW (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Pat, you say "As with all lineages it is not proven". Ahem, all lineages? Of everyone?

Then you say "it is certainly one that is described and endorsed by Ron Geaves and it seems, Prem Rawat himself"

An example of being damned by faint (even partisan) praise?

Fairer would surely be this: "The lineage claimed by Rawat and Geaves is as follows: ..." Revera (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Or how about just quoting Geaves directly? - Maharaji has referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows..etc PatW (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is good enough. I can't see where he currently endorses that lineage claim, it appears to have only appeared on an official site some time ago for a brief period. Anyway, this is all primary source stuff. We need reliable, current secondary sources to tell us about it. (And please don't accuse me of lecturing. Enough of that.) Rumiton (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is quite typical and characteristic for Rawat’s teachings that he does not or only casually rely on any lineage, except his father, which lies within his personal experience. So the sentence should be something like: “…has occasionally referred to such&such lineage, but has not been known to derive legitimacy from that” (I think Geaves can be used to source that). It is a chance to provide discriminative information, because in this respect Rawat seems to differ from many other spiritual teachers.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

With respect to what you both say, it still seems to me that there is no need to use a Primary Source at all. If we are to allow Geaves as a source then it would be best to stick as faithfully as possible to what he says in his scholarly paper. I think he has put it quite well "Maharaji has referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows". I would keep the information short and sweet and add something to the article like "Maharaji has referred to a lineage on his website which traces his guru succession from Totapuri (an 18th century Indian Sant) through to his father." I would further suggest that The Teachings of Prem Rawat article be modified to include this information more completely.

Secondly, Geaves' statement is informed by Prem Rawat's website and his own research. Rawat's website stated Prem Rawat's position on this quite clearly - 'This is the traceable history thus far..' I see no need to qualify this information with speculation about how much or how little Rawat relies on, or feels that this lineage legitimises him unless Geaves states that categorically. There are probably places where Geaves does say this kind of thing but I would argue that it is quite weasely - for how could he possibly know whether Rawat feels that and it would surely sound 'weasely' to put that in. Maybe he does feel that his lineage bolsters his image. It's a very one-sided view to say that he couldn't care less as he is such an autonomous and unique guru. Actually there is a lot of writing about this subject. Scholars of this particular area of Indian Religion, David Lane and Mark Jurgensmeyer, have extensively commented on how in Guru Successions, the new ones always like to feel that they are not dependant on their roots and yet how this is a catch 22 as, by the very fact of a lineage, they are undoubtedly a product of it. Geaves is criticised by other Indian scholars for trying to dress up Rawat as unique and autonomous by using transparently nonsensical terms to glamorise the achievements of the Advait Mat Gurus. He uses terms like 'iconolast' etc and gets all breathless and excited about proclaiming how Maharaji has taken the tradition out of India and re-invented it keeping the essence. To many scholars of Indian Religion this actually sounds ridiculous and naive. It's just change that's all - but it's rooted in tradition. PatW (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested to read this In particular my comments which are represented there from 1997. To be honest I'd forgotten I'd become so notorious for investigating this stuff - It was never my intention to debunk Rawat through suggesting he had a forged lineage - this was just paranoia on the part of Geaves and other premies. I just wanted to find out the truth. Now I remain concerned that the most accurate current thinking on roots of Rawats teachings are available to people so they can make their own minds up.PatW (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

When the wind blows, it is hard to tell, whence it came and whither it goes. Doesn't Jesus say something like that? He knew, because contemporary scholars were busy debating his lineage all the time, instead of listening to him. Bureaucracy has its merits, and its limits. When the guru-lineage is mentioned in the article, it seems POV to me, not to mention that is has relativly little weight in Rawat's teachings. This seems more important to me than to define a naturally ambiguous lineage centuries ago. After all the spiritual and the bureaucratic aspect of the lineage is not even uncontended in the present (Satpal!).--Rainer P. (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You sound anti-education in this respect. This article isn't an advert for Rawat's teachings, or composed to focus people just on the substance of his teachings. It should inform of the context of his teachings too. It's supposed to be a neutral resource that informs all people including students of religion. Your comments suggest that you think intelligent people cannot both be interested in the prosaic roots of a 'religious' leader (albeit Jesus or Prem Rawat) and their teachings. That is obviously absurd and condescending, notwithstanding that Geaves himself embraces both Rawat's teachings and the subject of guru-lineage in depth. I would point out that there are many books still emerging about 'Jesus The Historical Facts' etc. and there is great and healthy interest in these - it serves to demystify (which is healthy) and to educate.

Regarding Satpal - who says his lineage is uncontended? It is by current Advait Mat (However inaccurate it may be..their book 'Paramhand Advait Mat' contends that someone called Vairaganand was the chosen successor to Swarupanand, not Rawat and Satpal's father). And I don't this is just about the contentions anyway, further than it is interesting that it disagreements, splits and squabbles and the emergence of pretenders is historically a common characteristic of all guru successions in this particular area of India. PatW (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Pat, I agree with you in all points (except your speculations on my attitude. I think much of education). I only wish to remind editors that lineage is not a central part of Rawat’s teachings and is not used to enhance his credibility. This should be mentioned in the article, along with the available material on lineage. Rawat can not be understood as merely another exponent of regional Indian guru-tradition, but rather as a reformer, and quite a successful one at that. Geaves calls him iconoclastic, a word which is perhaps not in everybody’s vocabulary. These circumstances do play an essential role in, as you say, “the context of his teachings” and should not be overlooked for whatever reasons.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

With Geaves' acknowledegment of Prem Rawat's previous site entry about lineage, I would say let's put it in, but it has been taken off the site. We cannot speculate as to the reason, but there probably is one. At any rate, Geaves' statement is no longer correct: he does not "claim" (a bad word per the Manual of Style, anyway) any such lineage today. I would say this puts paid to it. Rumiton (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, Geaves' wording does not use the word 'claim' . He says- Maharaji has referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows: etc.

It matters not the reason the site was abandoned. What matters is that this is the wording of the source. Besides we have current videos from official organisations (that Rawat would've had to approve) still referring to this lineage with the exact same wording.

Rainer, If we are to include information "that lineage is not a central part of Rawat’s teachings and is not used to enhance his credibility" then we need to find a clear source for this otherwise it is just speculative. When I get time I'll read the paper in full.

With regard to suggesting that Rawat is not just "another exponent of regional Indian guru-tradition, but rather as a reformer," iconoclast etc. We could put that in too maybe - but I would warn that this is where many scholars will part company with Geaves and to publish his POV in this regard could look highly advertorial and opinionated (as it is). I suggest you take time to read Mark Jurgensmeyer, David Lane and other scholars in this area. You will see that most of the disciples of Advait Mat or Radhasoami gurus (they are pretty much inter-connected in practice) who export their religions to the west (Kirpal Singh, Ekankar etc.) have also made reformations and sometimes drastic changes to the traditions. But they're kind of notorious for denying where they got their inspiration and launching out as if they were the first to offer this 'brand' of enlightenment. The suggestion is that they make changes to establish their individual autonomy and to dissociate from their traditions in a rather dishonest way. I would say that (since Rawat himself often says the essence of his teachings has remained the same) Rawat is not so iconoclastic and is even proud of the traditions he came from. I have heard scholars say Geaves' claims in this respect are ridiculous. I think it's very clear to impartial observers that to 'big-up' Rawat as a great reformer and iconoclast is just the over-flattering opinion of a follower of Rawat - in this case Geaves. That's where he loses his scholarly cool and uses his position to praise Maharaji in his inimitable rather eccentric, over-excitable mad professor sort of way! PatW (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, we agree on not using "claim", that's a good start. But "referred to this lineage as his own" is pretty much saying the same thing. And I can only tediously repeat that no current organisation connected with Prem Rawat makes this "reference" today. Ramilbeej is an entirely unofficial video maker and is using old clips to put together a video for YouTube. Rumiton (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

How can you be certain that Ramilbeej edited this video? Looked to me like he simply uploaded it and it'd been made by the organisations he credits on his channel. (ALERT PERIPHERAL ARGUMENT!)PatW (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To talk about "most of the disciples of Advait Mat..." etc is a red herring and an irrelevancy. To imply guilt by association is not allowed in Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"I have heard scholars say..." Come on, Pat, you know better than that. This is pure time wasting. Rumiton (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You call my discussion and informing you of things you don't know and claim to have no interest in 'time-wasting' and 'a red herring'? You might appreciate that I am taking time to discuss and explain my reasons and thoughts about a proposed edit (see below) that will be well-sourced. That you have not disproved at all. Rather you are complaining about my peripheral arguments and, if you don't mind me saying, quite remarkably flailing. Tell me one thing about my proposal below that is inappropriate or not reliably sourced, 'weasely' or asserting my POV. PatW (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you would clearly mark your "peripheral arguments" as such. Or better still, leave them out if they won't stand scrutiny. See my remarks at bottom. Rumiton (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving towards an actual edit of the Teachings Section

OK, I'm getting closer to a concrete proposal to edit the Teachings section which would balance the existing explanation about the roots of Rawat's teachings which, as I will explain, is refuted as being quite wrong. Firstly the section currently opens with -
Some scholars say that Rawat's teachings began in the North Indian Sant Mat tradition,[11] which dismisses ritual and claims that true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart.[104][105] and then it simply goes on about Rawat removiong all the Indian stuff.
Well, it's fine to say that scholars say that, but Geaves' paper says categorically "This paper will firstly demonstrate that these various scholars who identify Maharaji's roots as Sant Mat, or more specifically Radhasoami are mistaken." So I propose we remove the fluff about "which dismisses ritual and claims that true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart." (as it has become a little irrelevant by virtue of the doubt shed on Sant Mat) and replace it that so it reads something like this (obviously with links added)-
"Some scholars say that Rawat's teachings began in the North Indian Sant Mat and Radhasoami traditions[11]. This is refuted by Geaves who identifies Rawat's roots as Advait Mat, a sect who trace their roots to Shri Totapuri Maharaj (1780-1866) who is probably best known as a teacher of Ramakrishna. Prem Rawat has previously referred to this lineage as his own on his website." I would like to move this on from discussion here to making an actual edit as soon as possible; so I'd welcome early approval or constructive suggestions. PatW (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Afterthought - We could add Geaves' suggestion although I'd rather not as it seems a bit too POV: "The young Maharaji was believed by his father's disciples to possess his own charisma and his succession was never considered to be a hereditary one". It does demonstrate how could negatively suggest that believers have an iron stomach for contradictions and little grasp of Occams Razor. PatW (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That deliberately inflammatory, forum-pleasing statement has been noted. Rumiton (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

By whom? The thought police? My intention wasn't to please any forum or be inflammatory but to point out the likely negative interpretation of Geaves' assertion. I'm doing current believers a favour by suggesting that this sounds like a rather naive statement in view of the fact that Rawat's father was the Satguru. Funny coincidence right? Nothing hereditory going on there? PatW (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've amended that now to make you a happy bunny again.PatW (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't say things like "is refuted as quite wrong." You can certainly say "is disputed by sources X and Y". Rumiton (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicking. There's nothing wrong with my language there. I have Geaves' paper right here and he does, quite explicitly, refute other scholars as being "mistaken" about identifying Maharaji with "Sant Mat, or more specifically Radhasoami" roots. That's the main thrust and reason for his tract. I happen to agree with him on this too! (BIG ALERT & SMILEY - THAT WAS A PERIPHERAL COMMENT) PatW (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Geaves is not a preeminent source, just a source. I don't think the line about "surrendering to God who dwells in the heart" etc. is fluff, and it is supported by Professor Julius J Lipner, about as impeccable a source as anyone could find. The rest can be discussed. Rumiton (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't strongly object to leaving that stuff about Sant Mat in. It seems a little redundant for the reasons stated above. I'll wait for some concrete objections or agreement from others before changing anything. Thanks. PatW (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll confess to being a bit lost among these theological discussions. I can say that we should include all significant points of view, even Geaves'. If some say that Rawat had a Sant Mat lineage, while other say he had an Advait Mat or Radhasoami lineage, then all of those views should be included, in proportion to their prominence, and we shouldn't take sides either directly or by implication. Note that each of those linked topics has an article of its own, so we don't need to discuss them at length in this article. Anything we do say about them should be relevant to Rawat himself.

More broadly, I'd remind everyone that we have an entire article devoted to Rawat's teachings, Teachings of Prem Rawat. The material in this article should simply be a summary of that article. Since the introductory section of that article should also summarize that article, in an ideal world we could simply copy to the intro here as a summary. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world. That article has needed work for years, but there hasn't been any significant editing there in the past year. May I suggest moving this discussion to that talk page?   Will Beback  talk  01:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As an idealist I think that a good idea. As a pragmatist I find the time-consuming implications daunting. Thanks though. PatW (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I only know what I read about this topic, so have patience with my ignorance. The "Teachings" article has a section on "history" which seems to discuss the lineage of the Rawat teachings (by which I guess we include Hans Rawat. It doesn't mention Sant Mat (except in the footnotes), Advait Mat, or Radhasoami. That seems incomplete, based on what we know from sources like Geaves. Giving that article a quick review, there appear to be many assertions that are not properly supported by the citations.

• Prem Rawat did not inherit a formal set of teachings nor did he develop one, as he sees conceptual thinking as the main enemy of direct religious experience which he claims can be obtained through the techniques of Knowledge. (What about SSM?)
• Unusually for an Indian teacher, [Hans] accepted students irrespective of caste, religion or status, and drew his share of criticism from traditional Hindus. (Unsourced, and dubious.)

It looks like there's considerable room for improvement in that article.

Getting back to this article, the "Teachings" section also needs review. For example, these sentences seem off:

• ... Rawat relies on the experience provided by the meditation techniques he calls "Knowledge."
• The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them.

If I'm not mistaken, the Techniques of Knowledge predate Prem Rawat. Saying that he calls it that implies he invented the term, and even the meditation. It's also a bit disconcerting to suddenly call him "Maharaji". His name is Rawat so we should call him that. (For the same reason, we don't refer to Elvis Presley as "The King".) So whether we start by fixing the "Teachings section here, or working on the "Teachings" article isn't strictly important. We can start at either end.   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sleeping on it, that was also my conclusion. Please keep this particular thread here intact - believe me there will be plenty more discussion needed at the Teachings article. The difficulty is one that Rumiton points out. We have to avoid mining Geaves in a partial way. Of course as an enthusiastic follower and scholar his work can appear biased BUT he does make valid and relevant points about Rawats teachings and their roots. It will be a challenge (that I think we should not shy away from) to represent the facts he states without including the 'praise for Rawat' that naturally imbues his writing. If anyone wants a PDF of the paper Geaves delivered to the annual Spalding Symposium on Indian Religions in 2006 'From Totapuri to Maharaji (Prem Rawat)? Reflections on a Lineage (Parampara)' - let me know, I can scan it and share. PatW (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's one I don't think I've seen that one. Please send me a copy - I'll pay the postage. ;)   Will Beback  talk  10:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll scan it as soon as I get a mo - Another thing, the Techniques of Knowledge article is only accessible (and is kind of buried) way down in the Teachings of Prem Rawat article. One might expect it to be buried as the techniques are supposed to remain a secret until you've watched 'Key 6' of Rawat's DVD course. Anyway I never saw this article and it does refer to the information I've proposed using here The website "Maharaji.org" (1999) included the traceable story of "Masters" that according to Prem Rawat, referred to the techniques of Knowledge since 1780, including Totapuri, Anandpuri Ji, Dayal Ji, Swarupanand Ji, and his father Hans Ji Maharaj.[2]. The thrust of my argument is that whilst someone has rather buried away the information about the techniques they have in doing so, also buried the information that is balancing to the singular assertion here about Sant Mat and it's claims about 'true religion'. That information is surely that there is an alternate view that Prem Rawat's roots are Advait Mat and therefore his teachings (especially re. meditation techniques) also. I have just had a long, rather interesting phone call with a scholar of religion who has argued with Geaves over this. He points out that the way scholars tend to trace lineages is very often by examining the variations in meditation techniques. For in fact, although the rituals and dogmas also vary, these are essential, distinguishable teachings of Gurus and 'Mats'. Techniques vary from 'Mat' to 'Mat' as it were. Prem Rawat is no exception to this phenomena. What else does he teach apart from Satsang and Service? A very particular and traceable meditation. (Although this is a area of much disagreement and speculation).Taking into account the reliance on the actual meditation techniques in distinguishing teachings and Guru Lineages should the 'Techniques of Knowledge' article be linked from this article too? Immediate problem there is that Rawat sympathisers might object but is there a valid reason to withhold a link from this BLP? PatW (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is o.k. and sufficient to mention the differing scholarly statements on the theological roots in a rather cursory sentence, denominating Sant Mat, Advait Mat, and Rhadasoami, which seem to be similar enough to get confused, as social and religious backdrop to Rawat’s origins, and to mention that there is no unanimity in this point, plus a couple of footnotes (this is where Geaves should come in) and textlinks. Then it should also be noted that Rawat himself has never made such claims, except for his guru/father, which fits into the picture of relying more on personal experience than on hear-say. Then logically a sentence should come, covering exactly that (experience vs. dogma). Does this address your request on my user page, Pat? And, concerning the techniques: Knowledge is said to be an inner experience, and several compounds are needed for its elicitation. It should therefore not be solely tied to the technical aspects. It is misleading to only compare the techniques. Techniques may superficially change, experience stays the same. I do not know where or whether even Geaves says that. Maybe somebody can find a source for this IMO important point?--Rainer P. (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• PatW pinged me on my talk page about this discussion. I think it is fine to add Geaves' view placing Rawat's teaching within an Advait Mat lineage. As for the Sant Mat passage we have at present, my preference is that we should keep it intact. Its beginning could be improved though by naming (and wikilinking, where appropriate) the scholars concerned, rather than saying "Some scholars ...". Probably best to check the sources again. Did Lipner and Schomer comment directly on Rawat and Sant Mat, or only on Sant Mat? Does anyone have the source quotes to hand? --JN466 18:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jayen I agree about leaving Sant Mat in as per my proposed rephrasing (to include Radhasoami) above. Dupertuis claims that "The gurus of Divine Light Mission traced their lineages from Sant Mat and Radhasoami Traditions". Melton makes the link as does "The Encyclopaedia Handbook of Cults of America" . Geaves specifically names these sources as ones he sets out to demonstrate are mistaken.

Rainer re."a sentence should come, covering exactly that (experience vs. dogma)". All these groups (not just Rawat) are described widely as notable for emphasis on personal experience over religious belief. Geaves says: "Maharaji's own emphasis has always been on the centrality of experiential knowledge and the role of the master in providing correct practice that leads to such knowledge"...." This echoes the teachings of the masters that came before him...In fact all proclaimed that the teachings were independent of any religious tradition.." Also Radhasoami scholars like Mark Jurgensmeyer in his book 'Radhasoami Reality' affirm this.

Re -"It is misleading to only compare the techniques. Techniques may superficially change, experience stays the same."

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Rawat's site (to which Geaves refers) says here- "Even though references to the techniques of Knowledge are made earlier than 1700, this is the traceable history thus far." Suggesting that this is a history of both the techniques and personages associated historically with Rawat. Geaves doesn't explain in this paper about the 'prior to 1700' bit so I don't know the source for that. He does however say that there is a common language to describe the experience within the Sant Tradition - "experience that is by nature indefinable". He says about this - "I discovered 4 metaphors being used repeatedly"..."Light, Sound, Nectar, and finally the Word or Name of God." He then adds- There is no doubt that any scrutiny of the language of Swarupanand Ji, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj and the early discourses of his son Maharaji will demonstrate the usage of the above four metaphors.." He goes on to explain (rather puzzlingly to me) that this doesn't necessarily mean that Rawat is connected with Sant Mat or Radhasoami. So I don't propose we speculate at all on the historical continuity of the techniques to prove a lineage but I do wonder why the Techniques of Knowledge article is not linked from this article directly rather than only remotely from the Teachings of Prem Rawat article as it appears to be now. PatW (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Pat, you are still speaking in the present tense (Rawat's site (to which Geaves refers) says...) when that whole site was removed from the web some ten years ago and can only be found through an archive. I do wish you would stop doing this. Rumiton (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton, my use of the present tense is surely acceptable modern English in this context. Vis-a-vi. No matter what I say ...oops 'said' - Geaves (as the relevant source here) does of course refer to the site in the past tense.Maharaji has previously referred to his lineage as his own on his website as follows... PatW (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, it isn't. The finding is on the archives here (c 2008?) that when a subject deletes information from their talk page it might be taken as a disavowal of that information. That is the significance of the tense. I have no idea if that is the case here, but we need to proceed with caution. OTOH I think Geave's statement looks OK as that of one RS. Rumiton (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything. I don't know what you mean I'm afraid and I am proceeding with caution. I'm glad you agree Geaves' statement is OK. NB the existing reference to Sant Mat is also OK. I suggest you don't mine these sources to insert any further speculation or explanations, especially if it is to infer that Rawat is beyond the influence of his roots. If you do then we'd have to include those scholarly comments that point out that this is a common device to dissociate and claim special autonomy. As I've said below. Let's not go there! PatW (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you are misunderstanding me. The subject is Prem Rawat, and it appears he may have deleted information from his own web bio (I used the wrong term). This can be read as a disavowal of that information (but may not be.) And please don't threaten me or impute improper motives to me. Prem Rawat has always maintained that he has been doing his father's work, just as his father was doing his guru's work and so forth, back in time. None ever claimed anything like "special autonomy", though they have all acted to make the Knowledge available in the ways they saw fit. The problem is just that defining exactly who was whose guru back 100 years and more has never been satisfactorily achieved. Scriptures say that the guru is recognised in the heart; there has never been anything like accreditation, so I cannot see how researchers today can make any definite judgements. Rumiton (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Rawat didn't remove the information - he deleted the entire site! Do you suppose Rawat removed his entire website just to disavow that information? NB. Geaves says 'has previously referred to this lineage as his own on his website' which leaves plenty of room for it having been either a past or current viewpoint. Finally, just because you can't see how researchers can be accurate doesn't mean we shouldn't report their views. We should include all significant viewpoints.PatW (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Satguru

Sources

Some excerpts concerning the subject's role or title: "satguru":

• DLM was founded in India in the 1930s by the father of the present leader, who became the Satguru, or Perfect Master, at the age of eight, 1966 when his father died. [..] At this point [following the 'Holy Family Row'] it is sufficient to state that Maharaj Ji emerged as the acknowledged leader and satguru with, ostensibly, complete control over the mission in Britain and elsewhere outside India. [..] Whatever the decisive factors in the struggle for power, it is apparent that the break came soon after Maharaj Ji's marriage and though Mata Ji attempted to appoint the eldest brother, Bhagwan Ji, as the new Perfect Master, or Satguru, the western premies never wi thdrew their loyalty from Maharaj Ji.
  • Price
• In his many appearances, Maharaji taught a simple message of universal love, peace, and devotion to himself as “Satguru” (literally, teacher of truth), this era’s divine incarnation.
  • Contemporary American Religion, Lucas
• Stretched out behind him in two long lines were more than 100 fellow devotees of Satguru Maharaj Ji, the 15-year-old guru who is said to be the incarnation for this generation of the primordial vibrations of the universe.
  • Rawson
• Once viewed by followers as Satguru or Perfect Master, he also appears to have surrendered his almost divine status as a guru.
  • Hunt 2003
• Devotees, or premies (from prem, the Hindu word for love), of Guru Maharaj ji believe that their teen-aged "Perfect Master" is that child, the Satguru, or Messiah, of our time. [..] The Guru's full name, with title, is Pratap Singh Rawat-Balyogeshwar, Satguru Shri Maharaj Ji. [..] The father of the family was Param Sant Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, the anointed protégé of Perfect Master Shri Sarapanand Ji and the Perfect Master of his time. hri Hans Ji Maharaj was a controversial figure among Brahmins, because he challenged the caste system by preaching to the lowest and poorest group in Indian society, the untouchables. He built up a large following, becoming recognized by thousands of Indian devotees as Satguru, the one living Perfect Master who reveals the ancient Knowledge of the inner self. [..] "I didn't want to be Satguru," Maharaj Ji has said. "I didn't understand why it is me. I would have been satisfied to be the humblest servant of the Satguru." [..] Approximately 200 people (some of whom became converts) gathered at the airport as the disciples greeted their Lord, shouting "Bolie Shri Satgurudev Maharaj ki jai!" (Sing the praises of the Lord True-Revealer of Light, inexpressibly all-powerful majesty), pranaming, and strewing blossoms in his path.
  • CBY
• The Mission launched a popular paper called The Divine Times and a magazine And it is Divine. Their movies, "Lord of the Universe" and "Satguru has come" attracted many viewers.
  • Mangalwadi
• Satguru Maharaji Ji, the 15-year-old "perfect master," climbed to the top of a dais shimmering with silver foil and took his solemn seat in a red-velvet and mahogany throne as several thousand devotees shouted his praises. Again and again they chanted a Hindi phrase that means, "All glory to the most holy perfect master, lord, king of kings." After a hush they sang.; "I love you, my lord, your grace is -overflowing; I love you, my Lord, you are all-knowing.
  • Thousands Bow At Guru Throne By ANDREW WALLACE 1973
• DLM was founded in India by Shri Hans Ji Maharaj who, despite the usual successional disputes, assumed leadership of his particular Radhasoami lineage upon his guru's death and became Satguru ("true guru") (Mangalwadi, 1977:192). [This paper has extensive discussion of "satguru" - this is just the first mention.]
  • Dupertuis
• Maharaji and his predecessors in India had always been known as Satguru (divine guru) in the sant idiom, and both the nirguna (formless aspect of the divine) and saguna (the divine in personal form) versions of the bhakti tradition had historically debated the divinity and the humanity of the guru.
  • Geaves 2004
• Among the most common titles given to the leader of the Divine Light Mission are those of guru, satguru, and Perfect Master. [..] The satguru, the giver of truth, or the Perfect Master, removes this ignorance forever. There have been many perfect masters throughout the ages and they have all taught in parables, revealing the inner light. They have bestowed on their disciples the same kind of experience. All perfect masters came on earth to remind human beings of the truth, to point out where the main problem obstructing enlightenment lies, and to delineate a solution. [..] The way one recognizes the Perfect Master is by his fruit. The test of this satguru is whether he can give peace through his knowledge. [..] Guru Maharaj Ji himself talks about a succession of perfect masters preceding and following him. Since there can be only one Perfect Master living at one particular time, it follows that Maharaj Ji is the satguru of our times. He fulfills the requirements of the perfect master and his devotees have no difficulty ascribing to him the attributes of the godhead. [..] Thus he reluctantly followed the call to be satguru. [..] Age and maturity are, however, traditional values rejected by the fact that Guru Maharaj Ji became satguru before he could have possibly achieved either of them and without going through some lengthy, purifying and initiatory experience or trial.
  • Saliba 1988

And so on.   Will Beback  talk  05:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Satguru" deleted

I don't see any legitimate reason for deleting "satguru" from the lead. Two editors commented that it wasn't in the text of the article, but in fact it's there twice. Even if it were not, it is a well-known and amply sourced fact that is key to the notability of the subject. The peremptory deletion of it seems disruptive.   Will Beback  talk  06:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any idea of what consensus means. We were discussing whether "Satguru" or "Perfect Master" or both should be in the lead. And then with 3 minutes notice you ignore the discussion and objections from Rainer and me and put "Perfect Master" in.Momento (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep the "perfect master" discussion above, where it's already in progress. The "satguru" objection is new, so let's discus that here. They aren't related. What is your objection to "satuguru"? Do you believe that it is not in the article, not in sources, or not important?   Will Beback  talk  07:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's redundant, not in the article, and as your non-article sources say, synonymous with "Perfect Master". As I said above, using both is as logical as saying "Rawat became a father and a dad in 1975".Momento (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We have sources that say all kinds of things about the two terms, and not all agree that the terms are synonyms. Some include the word "or", as in "Satguru or Perfect Master". Would there be a problem with repeating that usage?   Will Beback  talk  07:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that Satguru and Perfect Master are different articles on Wikipedia, so it isn't quite like father/dad.   Will Beback  talk  07:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Satguru" is a generic term and all "gurus" and their followers consider them to be "satgurus" since if they're not they must be "false gurus". Rawat was known as "Guru Maharaj i" not "Satguru Maharaj Ji" and when described it was as "Guru Maharaj Ji, 16 year old Perfect Master". "Google "Satguru" and you'll 2.5 million hits. Google "Perfect Master" and you'll get 133,000 with "Maharaji" or "Maharaj Ji" making up half the hits. "Perfect Master" is a lot more specific. Rawat is mentioned in the Wiki "Perfect Master" article. He is not mentioned in the "Satguru" article. Perfect Master is closely tied to Rawat in the west, Satguru is a generic title in India. "Perfect Master" describes who and what Rawat was and it includes being a "guru", a "satguru", a "teacher" etc. There is no need to say "Rawat was a satguru to millions" once you have said he was "Perfect Master to millions".Momento (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Above you argued that satguru="perfect master", and you also seem to be arguing that satguru="non-false guru". I don't know about those claims; I just know what I read. Various source give various interpretations, and to accept just one would be a violation of NPOV. Is there a source saying that satguru is a generic title? We have plenty of sources saying that it was a title used by the subject.   Will Beback  talk  08:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, there are two sources excerpted above which refer to "Satguru Maharaji Ji".   Will Beback  talk  08:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"sat" means "true", so "Satguru" is "true guru". The point is that Rawat was more often described as a "Perfect Master". Calling a "Perfect Master" a "Sat Guru", is like calling a "Professor", a "teacher". One title includes the other, one title does not include the other. I guess we'll have to stick with what we've got.Momento (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Geaves writes that satguru means "divine guru". Lucas says it means "teacher of truth". Dupertuis says it means "true guru". I'm sure there are more interpretations. It does not appear that satguru is unanimously considered synonymous with "perfect master".   Will Beback  talk  09:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I can find a source saying Rawat was named "Pretap". But that's not the point. Rawat's been called "Satguru", "Maharaj Ji", "Guru Maharaj Ji" Guru Ji", "Satgurudev", "Ji", "Sant Ji" etc etc etc. If you want to describe what happened when his father died, Rawat was accepted as the "Perfect Master", that was the common phrase. And that is what he said ""Dear children of God, why are you weeping? The Perfect Master never dies. Maharaj Ji is here among you now. Recognize him, obey him, and worship him."Momento (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could simply add a statement about 'Satguru' in the teachings-section, as the terms seems to have some relation to Sant Mat. Also 'Perfect Master' could be defined there. Would that help to solve the logical problem?--Rainer P. (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Satguru" has been in the lead since about April 2009, and probably earlier as well. It's been removed repeatedly by Momento over the years.[16][17][18] It's not a bad word. "Satguru" and "Perfect Master" are not the exact same thing. The subject went by both titles. They have roughly the same weight, and some sources even use the exact phrase, "Satguru or Perfect Master". Using that formula seems accurate and verifiable, even if it's redundant in the eyes of some editors.   Will Beback  talk  12:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Satguru is a fine word, I have always liked it. But now I wonder...could the English term "Perfect Master" originally have been an attempt to translate the word Satguru? I can't think of any other Hindi word that means master. Rumiton (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] I continue to be extremely puzzled by any objections to using the terms Satguru and Perfect Master. These are two common terms that were used frequently and interchangeably to describe Rawat from the earliest days when he succeeded his father as, well, the Satguru and Perfect Master. That they are synonymous is irrelevant because both were used frequently and the fact is that some of the first words Rawat spoke after his father died on July 19, 1966:

"I didn't want to be Satguru. I didn't understand why it is me. I would have been satisfied to be the humblest servant of the Satguru and not to be one myself. It was not my desire. But my father sent his love to his oldest three sons and complete prostrations to his youngest. So they crowned me with the crown of Rama and Krishna and put the tilak on my forehead, and again the voice came: '& You are he. You must take this Knowledge out to the world." Bold text

There was a movie put out by DLM titled "Satguru Has Come" In the devotional song Arti the term Satgurudev and Satguru are used 20 times. Momento has (once again) brought up the use of "Pretap" in article "The Guru Business" by Kushwant Singh, but that is not a logical argument for not using Satguru and Perfect Master in the lede as well as the article. It is an obvious mistake on the part of Kushwant Singh when he was referring to Prem Rawat's given name and has nothing to do with the discussion here. To keep bringing that up is a red herring and nothing more than a distraction from the pertinent discussion. Also, continuously repetition and insistence by Momento that Satguru is not in the article is unhelpful to the extreme because it definitely is in the article. Engaging in edit warring is extemely ill-advised. Tthis is a non-controversial issue because the use of both terms are well-sourced by reliable sources, including primary ones. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It couldn't be any clearer, "Perfect Master" is what Rawat said at the time. And where again is the claim "Rawat became a 'satguru'" in the article? My eyes see "Prem addressed the crowd of mourners, reminding them that their master was immortal and was still among them. In response, his mother, brother and the senior disciples accepted Prem as their "Perfect Master", bowed to his feet and received his blessing". But if enough of you want to ignore Wiki policies, guidelines and practices and revise history to suit your POV, how can I stop you?Momento (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The excerpted sources above make it clear that "satguru" was used commonly to refer to the subject's role. Sometimes it's paired with "Perfect Master", but other times it's used alone. We're not ignoring policies, guidelines, practices, or history if we say At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru and Perfect Master to millions of Indian followers.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If I could be bothered I could find a dozen sources that say "Guru" refers to the Rawat's role. Or "Master". But we're talking about one very notable incident that happened once only, on one night in 1966. And on that occasion Rawat says, in a famous and well documented speech, "Perfect Master". He doesn't say "Perfect Master and/or the Satguru". You have no excuse or reason to corrupt an indisputable fact because you want to impose your POV on this articleMomento (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources say that the subject was only known as "Satguru" for one night in 1966. Where did you get that idea?   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read carefully. Rawat said in a famous and well documented speech the night he succeeded his father, "Dear children of God, why are you weeping? Haven't you learned the lesson that your master taught you? The Perfect Master never dies". He didn't use the word "Satguru". And the article describes this succession and says "his mother, brother and the senior disciples accepted Prem as their "Perfect Master", bowed to his feet and received his blessing". The article doesn't use the word "Satguru". So how can anyone justify putting "Satguru" in the lead about this incident?Momento (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're quoting from Who is Guru Maharaj Ji. If so, it's an incomplete quotation. Here's more of it:

On August 1st, Guru Maharaj Ji, eight years old, stood in front of the thousands of devotees present at his father's funeral. The voice came again, saying:

"This is the last I will tell you. You are he. You must take this Knowledge out to the world."

"For the first time," says Guru Maharaj Ji, "I did not give satsang. The satsang just came and I began to speak: Dear children of God, why are you weeping? Haven't you learned the lesson that your master taught you? The Perfect Master never dies. Maharaj Ji is here, amongst you now."

Immediately his mother, three elder brothers and all the mahatmas present, prostrated at the feet of the Perfect Master and received his blessings.

A few months later, Guru Maharaj Ji delivered his first satsang as Satguru before hundreds of thousands of people in Delhi, India. He announced: "I have not come to establish a new religion. I have come to reveal the truth, knowing which you will be free. If you come to me with a guileless heart and sincere desire, I will give you eternal peace."

In one of his early discourses, Satguru Maharaj Ji promised to spread the Knowledge of God to the entire world in his lifetime. Before a million devotees in New Delhi, he revealed his plan for a great "Peace Bomb."

You said that no one called him "Satguru Maharaj Ji", but there it is. I see no good reason to have deleted "satguru", and I repeat that it was a disruptive edit.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If I said it, it was in the context that "Guru Maharaj Ji" was his common title. People have called him all sorts of things including "Ji" but since this is his biography I suggest what he calls himself is far more important than what someone else says. IN a spiritual sense he was accepted as one thing and one thing only and that is the highest spiritual authority which he described as the "Perfect Master". To claim he was accepted as two spiritual authorities is absurd.Momento (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If? You're not sure what you've written in the past 24 hours? To remind you, you wrote, Rawat was known as "Guru Maharaj i" not "Satguru Maharaj Ji"... [19]   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice quotes! But still it's a highly specialized and not commonly understandable term, and should be only placed in the lead, when explicitely mentioned and explained in the body. It's got nothing to do with POV. Can't we agree?--Rainer P. (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

People come to encyclopedias to learn about things they didn't know before. The meaning of the term is explained fully in the article at Satguru. There's no need to repeat all of that in this article.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't help it if I'm always right. The description out of Rawat's mouth and in the article is "Perfect Master". Your insistence on adding "Satguru" is unfounded and therefore tendentious. Please stop.Momento (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We all seem to agree that "perfect master" is well-sourced and relevant, so I'm going to put that back. "Satguru" has been in the lead since April 2009. I didn't add it. If someone wants to delete this well-sourced material they'll need to get a consensus for that, and I don't see it.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to confusing readers by suggesting that Rawat succeeded to TWO spiritual authorities - Perfect Master AND Satguru.Momento (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's a source that says otherwise then we can include that too. I don't think we have adequate sources to say either that they are separate titles or that they are the same title.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well Rawat believes that the authority he succeeded to was "Perfect Master". You are the one who believes he also succeeded to "Satguru". Do you have a source for Rawat succeeding to TWO authorities?Momento (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is a good reason to add "Perfect Master" to the lead. Are you arguing that "satguru" was not one of Rawat's titles? If so, that seems incorrect based on the excerpted sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rawat had many titles. Master, Perfect Master, Guru, Satguru, Maharaji, Teacher, Saint, Guru Maharaj Ji, Sant Ji, Balyogershwar and supposedly this one "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj". But, once again, we are discussing the position he succeeded to when his father died and that was "Perfect Master". It's not like the Queen of England, who holds several different authorities, she is also Queen of Scotland and Queen of Wales etc. Rawat has only one authority as "Perfect Master" so to say he also became "Satguru", "Guru", "Satguru", "Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji or any other title or description, is redundant to the point of being incorrect.Momento (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

...[R]edundant to the point of being incorrect? That's an interesting concept. We have sources that say the subject was called the "Satguru". Deleting sourced, neutral information isn't a good way to improve the article.   Will Beback  talk 

Well why don't you put all the titles in. They're all sourced.Momento (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that sounds like a good solution. We already include "guru", "maharaj", "maharaji", and "satguru".   Will Beback  talk  03:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're being ironic, Will. I don't object to Satguru, but it needs to be explicated in the article, if it is used in the lead. The Wikilink is not enough, and the "Satguru"-article does not mention Rawat - likewise the "Raja Yoga"-article does not mention the Knowledge. Both these articles are tradition-oriented and overlook modern state-of-the-art. I don't really mind, as that seems to be the way sources go. Maybe we could formulate: ..."Perfect Master" (ind.: "Satguru")...?--Rainer P. (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's typical to include major titles in the lead.

I don't object to adding material on the DLM kind of Satguru to that article, or even this article. Note that we link to many articles that don't have reciprocal links here, so that isn't an issue on its own.

I don't quite catch the meaning of your suggestion: "Perfect Master" (ind.: "Satguru"). Ind.= Indicates? Indian? Independent?   Will Beback  talk  07:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. It should be: ...(Hindi: "Satguru"). That would take care of Momento's concern, that there are two different funktions, and still reveal additional information.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What on earth is going on? One moment, Momento was arguing for only having the title "Perfect Master", now he's deleted it and left "Satguru". Huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&action=historysubmit&diff=380454482&oldid=380445591 As there's clear evidence that Rawat and his promoters used both those titles, surely the article needs to state that? Revera (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is only one spiritual position Rawat succeeded to not TWO. And that position as described by Rawat in his speech is the "Perfect Master" as is accurately reported in this article. It's a fact and that's the way it should be in the lead.Momento (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And that's why you deleted "Perfect Master" and left "satguru" in, is it? Revera (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

PS who would you say, Momento, qualifies as the current Satguru of our time?Revera (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The title given to young Prem Pal Singh Rawat at the time when he succeeded his father, was "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj". I copied and pasted that title from the article text. This discussion is unhelpful and unproductive. Both terms were used to describe Prem Rawat's role and position; they are both well-sourced, therefore, they must be used in the lede and in the article. No one can reasonably expect that every Wikipedia article linked to this one (in this case "Satguru" and "Perfect Master" articles) will specifically mention Prem Rawat by name. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rawat wasn't given that title. It's made up by someone.Momento (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We have multiple sources that say "Satguru or Perfect Master", and we have sources that otherwise include both titles, one of which is the official WIGMJ. If there's a source that says he only inherited one title then I'd like to see it. Otherwise both titles should be included.

As for Rainer's suggestion, I don't think we have a source that says "perfect master" is the English term for "satguru". But as a compromise, perhaps "Perfect Master (Satguru)" would work?   Will Beback  talk  14:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be a compromise. Or how about: ..."Perfect Master" (in India: "Satguru")..., this does not claim to be a literal translation, but is somehow self-evident?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd accept "Perfect Master (Satguru)" since the relationship between them is implied but not explicitly stated. "Perfect Master" (in India: "Satguru") makes a more direct assertion that they are the same term. Without a preponderance of sources saying that, I don't think we can make that assertion.   Will Beback  talk  15:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a source that equates the two terms: it's the Glossary from “And it is Divine” Special Millennium issue, November 1973

Millennium programme glossary

It gives the following definitions

Satguru: True dispeller of darkness and revealer of light.

Perfect Master: English equivalent of Satguru.

Revera (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's more:

“Concentration is acquired by infinite devotion and devotion is acquired from Satguru, from the Perfect Master.”

“Guru Nanak said, and Saint Tulsidas said, that anyone can become even like Brahma or Shiva, but without the Perfect Master, without the True Guru, there can be no upliftment whatsoever. Knowledge only comes from Satguru. Okay, so how do we recognize the Satguru? How do we recognize that Perfect Master?”.

excerpts from ‘Remembrance is the Unbreakable Devotion’ Shri Hans Ji Maharaj. March, 1964 Revera (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those. That glossary source would seem sufficient for this article and usage. To follow it correctly we should invert the proposal and say, "Satguru (English: Perfect Master)". Is that acceptable to everyone?   Will Beback  talk  15:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That works well for me. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Me too, and thank you for the acknowledgment, Will. It's appreciated. I spent the best part of this afternoon researching a number of quotes that confirm the correlation between those two terms (at least as far as Rawat and his father's involvement with being contenders for claiming that title are concerned). There are more quotes I came across that support the two I posted, but rather than risk boring the pants off everyone, will keep them in reserve. You know, it's strange, but having spent all that time searching, I could have simply looked a little closer at the Wiki article on the [[20]] , where it clearly states that the two terms are synonymous!

Perhaps Momento's next impossible task might be to contend the claim that Freemasonry's use of the title "Perfect Master" is equally as notable?

Here's how the article begins: "The term Perfect Master has different meanings, most notably as a title for an initiate of the 5th degree in Freemasonry and as a synonym for the Eastern concept of a satguru." Revera (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

At last, you've all finally recognised what I've been saying for days. Rawat didn't succeed to TWO positions but only ONE. The issue now is which language should we use and the answer is, English. Firstly, this is an English version of Wikipedia so we should use English and that is "Perfect Master". And secondly, "Perfect Master" is the description given in the article. If you want to put it in Hindi in brackets as we've done "Prem Pal Singh Rawat" fine.Momento (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we're trying to find a compromise. We have one, barely adequate source that says they are the same term, and many that don't. So, to get agreement, we're going with using both terms and indicating that they may be the same thing, but not actually saying so too clearly. If you're the only holdout then we may have to do it anyway.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Make up your mind. You said above "That glossary source would seem sufficient for this article and usage". Is that true or not? Because if it is true that "Perfect Master" is the English version of "Satguru" then it is not necessary to put both in. Momento (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what I said is correct in the context of a proposed compromise. The source is weak but sufficient to say, in this article, that he became "Satguru (English: Perfect Master)" on the death of his father.   Will Beback  talk  04:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It has taken days for you to realise that I am correct that Rawat succeeded to ONE position not TWO as you have been insisting. How many days is going to take you to realise that according to WIKI policies, guidelines and practices the lead should say " as the new Perfect Master to millions of Indian followers"? It should only take as long as it takes to read the following sentence. Both the sources given for the succession mention "perfect Master". Lewis says "he was recognized as the new Perfect Master and assumed the title, Maharaj Ji" and Downton says "he was elevated to his father's position as Perfect Master at the age of eight". Neither mention "Satguru" and it is not sourced. You can add "Satguru" to the article thus "In response, his mother, brother and the senior disciples accepted Prem as their "Perfect Master" ("Satguru" in India), bowed to his feet and received his blessing" and provide a source for "satguru" which otherwise remains unsourced.Momento (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion would be easier if you'd spend less time patting yourself on the back.

There is a whole set of sources above that say the subject became the Satguru. They are reliable sources. I don't see any consensus for deleting "Satguru" from the lead, where it has been since April 2009.   Will Beback  talk  06:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me remind you of WP:VER - "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question". Neither of the inline citations "directly support the material in question", in fact, neither even mention "Satguru". WP:BLP says = "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". As I read it, we should "remove "Satguru" immediately and without waiting for discussion". Does anyone disagree?Momento (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely you jest. There are half a dozen sources excerpted above. Are you saying we need to cite all of them immediately lest we violate BLP? Fine, we can add the citations.   Will Beback  talk  08:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Still no sources to support "Satguru" so I have removed "Satguru" as per WP:VER and WP:BLP. And inserted "Perfect Master" as per the inline citations.Momento (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Sant Mat says the following about the disputed terms, "Satguru" and perfect master. "The Sant Mat tradition refers to the necessity of a living human master, which is referred to with honorific titles such as Satguru, or perfect master." The Wikipedia article Contemporary Sant Mat movements mentions Prem Rawat: "The Divine Light Mission, founded by Hans Ji Maharaj and succeeded by his sons Guru Maharaj Ji (Prem Rawat) and Satpal Maharaj, was characterized as part of the Sant Mat tradition." Notice that the Sant Mat article uses the terms interchangeably. Unless Momento can provide clear evidence that this is a contentious issue, it is more than clear, and evidenced by reliable sources, that both terms be used in the lede and article because both terms were used by the DLM movement throughout Prem Rawat's earliest years. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of bizarre for an editor to delete six citations and say "Still no sources". I've added the "Satguru (English: Perfect Master)" formula discussed above.   Will Beback  talk  19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because none of those sources say - "He succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers". Perhaps, you can show me because otherwise it is unsourced. And let me remind you again that the source must "directly support the material in question". That is the source must say "Rawat succeeded his father as the new Satguru". It is not enough to say that "Satguru = Perfect Master" therefore the we can put "Satguru" wherever "Perfect Master" appears because that is WP:SYN, using "two sources to make a claim not explicitly made by either".Momento (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following your argument. You said that the two terms are synonymous and you've also said that they are not synonymous.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I know you have trouble, so let me simplify it for you. "Master" and "Teacher" are synonymous but you can't say "as the new Perfect Teacher to millions of Indian followers". You have to accurately follow the source and none of your sources say "succeeded his father as the new Satguru". Therefore for the purposes of Wikipedia it is unsourced.Momento (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have said that the two terms are synonymous. But you also seem to be saying that treating them as synonymous is a violation of WP:SYN. This looks like arguing for the sake of arguing.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You can treat them as synonymous in your own life but in Wikipedia you have to be true to the source. As for your proposal "Satguru (English: Perfect Master)", that is completely false. The English of "satguru' is something like "true revealer of light and dispeller of darkness".Momento (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Glossary" says that "Perfect Master" is the English version of "Satguru". Price says that Prem Rawat "became the Satguru, or Perfect Master, at the age of eight, 1966 when his father died". I think we have adequate sources for the assertion.   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So we have two sources who say he became "Perfect Master" and one who says "Satguru, or Perfect Master". I think it's clear then that "Perfect Master" is the dominant description.Momento (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it your interpretation of the NPOV policy that only the dominant view should be included? If that is what it says then this article will need to be re-written from top to bottom. However I don't think that is its meaning. Quite the opposite: it says to include all significant views.   Will Beback  talk  23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Since two sources say "Perfect Master" exclusively and only one says "Satguru or Perfect Master". Mathematically 2.5 Perfect Masters and .5 Satguru. It clearly means is that "Perfect Master" is the dominant description. Any mention of "Satguru" must be in the minor role. You're welcome to have a discussion about whether and how "Satguru" should be included. I would suggest in the article.Momento (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to apply this same mathematics to other parts of the article. As for the intro, if you can find a consensus to remove this sourced, neutral material that's been in the lead since April 2009 then we can remove it.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the least disruptive edit is to replace the minor description with the major description. As for the minor description being in the lead since 2009, so was a wrong date, an unsourced opinion, a glaring omission etc etc. I have made the edit since there was no consensus for the last edit either.Momento (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We can now discuss how and where to include "Satguru". The obvious place is where "Perfect Master" is first introduced - "In response, his mother, brother and the senior disciples accepted Prem as their "Perfect Master", bowed to his feet and received his blessing.[17] Previously known to his father's followers as Sant Ji, Prem now assumed the title "Guru Maharaj Ji"."Momento (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm disturbed that you're edit-warring to remove well-sourced, neutral, and stable material. If you revert again to your preferred version I will request a sanction.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As we know "Perfect Master" is not only well sourced, it out numbers "Satguru" 5 to 1 as the prefered description. And as for your claim that "Perfect Master" is English for "Satguru", even the glossary you cite says "Satguru" means "True dispeller of darkness and revealer of light". Talk about unsourced! Momento (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this deletion. Please revert yourself.  Will Beback  talk  01:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus for inserting the nonsense that "Perfect Master" is English for "Satguru". It is not just unsourced, it is contradicted by the source provided. And it does not even appear in the article. More importantly WP:VER and WP:RS confirm, by a ratio of 5 to 1, that the position Rawat succeeded to was "Perfect Master" not "Satguru". And as WP:CONS says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". "Perfect Master" is the position Rawat succeeded to and a million consenting naysayers cannot override WP:RS and WP:VER. I have reverted PatW.Momento (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What's this "5 to 1" ratio you're talking about?   Will Beback  talk  19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The two sources, Downton and Lewis, that have been used in the lead to cover the succession say "Perfect Master". The recently added source, Price, say "Perfect Master or Satguru". Mathematically there are two sources 100% for "Perfect Master" and one source is 50/50. Therefore of the three sources (300%) "Perfect Master" gets 250% and "Satguru" gets 50% of the total. Therefore 5 to 1 in favor of "Perfect Master". It is the dominant/preferred description. Furthermore it is the description used by Rawat in the famous speech and in the article for the succession. So Rawat, the three sources and the article use "Perfect Master" when describing the succession. It must take precedence.Momento (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to count cites in a manner meant to somehow weigh which terms to use and how. The intent and meaning of both terms are quite clear based on reading all of the reliable sources. Here's another source that uses the terms in the way that Will suggested, and with which I agree. In her published paper, "How People Recognize Charisma, The Case of Darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission," Lucy DuPertuis writes:

"As spiritual descendent of the Radhasoami tradition, Guru Maharaj Ji taught very similar ideas and practices to his Western followers. He was Satguru, or "Perfect Master;" only his power could initiate one into Knowledge, which alone among spiritual methods could reveal God." Sylviecyn (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest all those who are tiring of Momento's aggressive designs express their objections here as it's pointless arguing with him further.PatW (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd mentioned above that I'd found more quotes on the topic, but didn't want to 'bore the pants off everyone'. However, with Momento apparently impersonating a Jack Russell terrier that won't let go of its current favourite squeaky toy, it seems necessary to go the extra mile. Trouserless as may be.

"Sublime devotion, however, comes from implicit faith and confidence in the Satguru of the time, and it must be clearly understood that only He who can bestow God-vision instantaneously within oneself is the Satguru of the time, and no one else. In reality, He is God incarnate."

excerpt from discourse given by Yogiraj Param Sant Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, Father of Guru Maharaj Ji, in June, 1961, at Prem Nagar, India.

"Concentration is acquired by infinite devotion and devotion is acquired from Satguru, from the Perfect Master.”

“Guru Nanak said, and Saint Tulsidas said, that anyone can become even like Brahma or Shiva, but without the Perfect Master, without the True Guru, there can be no upliftment whatsoever. Knowledge only comes from Satguru. Okay, so how do we recognize the Satguru? How do we recognize that Perfect Master?"

excerpts from ‘Remembrance is the Unbreakable Devotion’ Shri Hans Ji Maharaj. March, 1964

"Seek the shelter of the Perfect Master who has realized God; He will show you the way to realize Him. The Satguru or Realized Soul is the only shelter and it is He alone that can provide you with the vision of God." Lord Christ said, "Come to me and I shall deliver you from all troubles'" Prophet Mohammed and other prophets have all said the same thing. The question now arises, how to know and recognize the Satguru who can bestow the vision of God. Lord Krishna was the Satguru of His time; He bestowed the vision of God to His disciple Arjuna. But where to find the present living Satguru?”

excerpt from ‘How to Save Mankind from Extinction’ Satsang given by Param Sant Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj at Prem Nagar Ashram, Hardwar, India

The claim is evidently this: that there is only one Satguru, and on his father's death, Rawat succeeded to that title. Also evident is the fact that "Satguru" and "Perfect Master" were terms that were used interchangeably by Rawat's father, but with preponderance actually given to "Satguru". The biography 'Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, Eternal is He, Eternal is His Knowledge' published by Divine Light mission in 1970, uses the term 'perfect master' only once (quote: "In the story of Christ we find an example of a perfect master and his message."). Nowhere else in the entire book. By contrast, the term "Satguru" is used no less than 30 times. (See http://ex-premie.org/papers/Satgurudev.htm for evidence). Enough said? Revera (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I don't see how anyone could object to the inclusion of the title 'Satguru' as it was before Momento kept removing it. Can it be re-instated yet? ... then perhaps we can all move on in a decent trousered fashion. PatW (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no objection to placing "Satguru" in the article with a suitable source but the sources used for the claim in the lead "Rawat succeeded his father as the new Satguru", Lewis and Downton, actually say "succeeded his father as the new Perfect Master". According to Wiki policy we should use that description.Momento (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Talking of which, Pat, perhaps the following link might be useful in counteracting the recent attempt at 'de-bagging' the sources you cited as regards Rawat's claimed lineage: http://web.archive.org/web/19991012111809/maharaji.org/masters/masters.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revera (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Revera (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your reading of Downton is correct - as far as it goes, Momento, but go an extra page, and you'll find this: ('Sacred Journeys', p4): "Premies prostrated to them (his family) as they did to Guru Maharaj Ji, even though in India and the United States he was the only one spoken of as "satguru", the Indian term for Perfect Master". 'nuff said? Revera (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Momento got Topic banned?

Kind of curious how this happened, since I've been away for some time. Ronk01 talk 18:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive67#Momento.   Will Beback  talk  03:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy

'...He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message.[4][5] Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled, at age 13, to the West to spread his message.[4][5] He created an extraordinary amount of interest among young adults for his claimed ability to give ...' Isn't there too much redundancy in this passage in the lead?--Rainer P. (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I removed one of the duplicate clauses.   Will Beback  talk  03:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Summary of relevant points to include from Geaves

Reading Geaves' paper it's clear that he does not refute other scholars descriptions of Prem Rawat's teachings, techniques and language as being similar to Sant Mat and Radhasoami (which is a current Sant Mat based sect). He acknowledges the many references within Rawat & his father's teachings to 'Sants' like Kabir, Rumi etc. but does explain the differences. So to summarise, I believe the two missing points from Geaves' paper relevant to this article are -

• 1) Geaves places Rawat's lineage and teachings (roots) more specifically in the Advait Mat group.
• 2) He indicates that Prem Rawat has referred to Advait Mat as his own lineage.
  

So how about we say for the time-being :

"Some scholars say that Rawat's teachings began in the North Indian Sant Mat and Radhasoami traditions[11] which dismiss ritual and claims that true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart.[104][105] Geaves further distinguishes Rawat's roots as Advait Mat indicating that Prem Rawat has previously referred to this lineage as his own."
Since people might wonder what the difference is between all these groups and Rumiton wants to keep the existing "which dismisses ritual and claims that true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart", maybe we should add something to differentiate Advait Mat? However since their teachings are so similar to the Sant Mat and Radhasoami ones already described, perhaps we should point out the lineage difference as an addendum - "Advait Mat trace their roots to Shri Totapuri Maharaj (1780-1866)"
This just about sums up my thoughts on the matter apart from the inclusion of the Techniques of Knowledge link from this section. Please would people now, in this thread, vote with an 'Agree' or 'Disagree' below this post and if the latter, please offer a precise improvement with explanation.Thanks. PatW (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

He indicates that Prem Rawat has referred to Advait Mat as his own lineage - Pat, could you please cite the quote verbatim?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure - "This paper shows that Maharaji's history is linked to the lineage of Advait Mat, a north Indian cluster of movements which perceive themselves as originating from Totapuri, the teacher of Ramakrishna Paramhans with claimed ancient links back to Shankaracharya through a succession of Das Nami sadhus. Maharaji has perviously referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows:

Shri Totapuri Maharaj (1780-1866)

Shri Anandpuri ji Maharaj (1782-1872)

Param Hans Dayal Shri Advaitanand ji (1884-1919)

Shri Swarupanand ji Maharaj (1884-1936)

Yogiraj Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans ji Maharaj (1900-1966)"
PatW (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Pat! I read this passage slightly more ambiguous: Maharaji has previously referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows:... connects only to the following succession of gurus. Is that what is called Advait Mat? Or is just the common factor Totapuri? Is Totapuri claimed also by other sects? Chances are he left more than one branch, carrying different denominations? I think Shankaracharya has left several different successors, probably multiplying each generation. Certainly Shri Hans has presently left two branches, which bear remarkably little resemblance. Can you help? And I remember Geaves mentioning the 'Sant Mat', which fits nicely into his calling Rawat a modern 'Sant'. I may be mistaken, though.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant by being cautious. I don't think these things are ever cut and dried. As I have said, I find the whole subject terminally yawnsome, and it would take a very learned source to say anything really meaningful about it. And it is by now a very cold trail. Rumiton (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a friend, sane in other respects, who does know a lot about these 19th C Indian groups and grouplets. As this isn't going away I will ping him now and see if he has a clear source. Rumiton (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to Rumiton and Rainer-

• Is that what's called Advait Mat? Yes this is the same lineage described in The Paramhansa Advait Mat book which you can download from [here]. The only difference is that they say (on pages 244-287) that Vairaganand succeeded Swarupanand not Rawat's father who is not mentioned anywhere. Geaves acknowledges and also explains this bifurcation of the lineage.
• Is Totapuri claimed also by other sects? Chances are he left more than one branch, carrying different denominations? Of course that's true but I see no need for us to research all the bifurcations of the lineage. That's a lot of work and irrelevant to this simple addition.PatW (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Can you help? I have done my own original research into this over a period of years which I find personally helpful and would gladly share, but not here since I believe it's inappropriate. Suffict to say that I agree broadly with Geaves' assessment of the lineage but his I find his writings naturally biased.
• it would take a very learned source to say anything really meaningful about it. And it is by now a very cold trail. Geaves and all the other scholars are learned enough for our purposes. This is no argument to exclude their information. I have been very careful here to propose wording which sticks very closely to that of the sources, adds no original research and which would link clearly to more detailed articles on the subject.
• I will ping him now and see if he has a clear source.Your friend won't have any clearer sources than are exhaustively listed on the linked pages. There has been a lot of work put into this by other editors over the years and all available avenues have been explored. Geaves in particular has made it his specialist subject.
• I find the whole subject terminally yawnsome. Well don't put yourself through being so suspicious about this edit and don't interrupt the work and progress I and many others have made over the years. You know how close that comes to filibustering. You have not been interested enough to read Geaves' paper or the other available sources. I have and I've offered to send it to anyone interested so with respect why don't you just stop arguing about a subject you apparently know nothing about and have no interest in? I gather that you are not alone in your disinterest though. Quite a few people I invited to comment have simply ignored my invitation. Now unless somebody comes up with a better wording can I please again invite people to agree or disagree to the edit and to clearly explain why if they don't? I am prepared to put the time into carefully putting the links to sources but I then I must take a Wikibreak as I have a pile of work. PatW (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll give my chap 24 hours and see what he comes up with. Rumiton (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Prem Rawat has previously referred to this lineage as his own ... The only difference is that they say that Vairaganand succeeded Swarupanand not Rawat's father who is not mentioned anywhere. This shows contradiction, especially as it concerns Rawat's father, who is the only lineage Rawat actually really refers to. We should not then amplify the notion, that Rawat has himself claimed any lineage except his father. We might indicate, for the sake of knowing-it-all, that the concept of a living master is entertained by several hindu sects in that region, like Advait Mat, Sant Mat and Rhadasoami, equipped with Wikilinks and footnotes. It may create unnecessary confusion to try and nail Rawat down to a certain lineage.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Rawat's father, who is the only lineage Rawat actually really refers to. We should not then amplify the notion, that Rawat has himself claimed any lineage except his father."

Not true. Read what Geaves writes again.

"It may create unnecessary confusion to try and nail Rawat down to a certain lineage."

We're NOT nailing him down at all. We're just reporting that Geaves (and Rawat according to him) refer to the Adavit Mat lineage as his (Rawat's) own. What could be clearer? I don't even propose mentioning the 'contradictions' of the various groups claiming their branches are the correct ones. Geaves is perfectly clear as to his opinion as is Prem Rawat according to his paper. If you want to extrapolate on this later fine. I don't see the need.

We might indicate, for the sake of knowing-it-all, that the concept of a living master is entertained by several hindu sects in that region, like Advait Mat, Sant Mat and Rhadasoami

Let's leave it to the scholars. I have resisted the temptation to insert excuses or lengthy explanations that infer Rawat is either 'beyond' or 'influenced by' his roots. That is where we would be asserting bias. There are well-sourced arguments for both opinions. Even your above suggestion is flawed if not simply because I think you'll find Sant Mat and Radhasoami are not Hindu Sects but are from a Sikh tradition. I don't want to go there. I simply want to balance the existing reference to Sant Mat by including Ron Geaves' alternate view - his distinction that the lineage is Advait Mat. Your argument is very odd since I'd have thought you would want this article to reflect Rawat's view. Rawat's father's guru was apparently Swarupanand (early DLM literature claims this, as does Shri Hans' own book Hans Yog Prakash) and Rawat and Geaves have probably identified Advait Mat expressly to clear up confusion with Radhasoami who had a similarly named guru. Geaves certainly says as much. PatW (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To Rainer as an afterthought- just in case you didn't get my point. Re. your comment "It may create unnecessary confusion to try and nail Rawat down to a certain lineage." Can I point out again that Geaves IS more or less nailing Rawat down to a certain lineage for his expressed purpose of clearing up the confusion created by other scholars. His mentioning Rawat's website is obviously significant to this perceived necessity. It's relevant to this article because it demonstrates Rawat's pertinent views about his lineage. Like Geaves we are presenting these facts to clear up confusion not to create it. Furthermore it would be conspicuously wrong not to add this information (now we have it) if only to balance the preceding statement which some might argue 'nails Rawat' unfairly to Sant Mat. If we stick to the sources wording 'refers to as his own' we will not be guilty of original research about the degree of their conviction on the matter. Neither is it appropriate for us to speculate as to whether their views have changed over time. There are no more recent sources as far as I know. PatW (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said above, I read that quote a little differently, and it sounds to me as if Geaves is trying to show that there is common personage alright, but no straight lineage that already carries a denomination. (And, for OR, I never heard Rawat say anything about Advait Mat or the like in all those almost 40 years I've been listening to him attentively).--Rainer P. (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• PatW, Geaves doesn't say Rawat belongs within Advait Mat. He says Rawat shares their lineage up to Swarupanand, and that the term Advait Mat was only used by other successors of Swarupanand. --JN466 00:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• The relevant quote in Geaves' "From Totapuri to Maharaji" is, "The lineage from Anand Puri to Maharaji provides an interesting source of research for those interested in the relationship between founders, paramparas and panths. It is clear that the lineage is not proven to be connected to the Radhasoamis although it develops historically in the same period and in the same region of Northern India and has some similarities regarding organisation and symbolic language at various stages of its development. It is also questionable to label the lineage as Advait Mat as opposed to Sant Mat as the term Advait Mat seems to have been developed by the institutionalised developments after the death of Swarupanand Ji. It does not figure in the language of the masters themselves, including Shri Hans Ji Maharaj and his son Maharaji." We have to be careful how we word the Advait Mat link, if we do mention it. --JN466 00:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the above, the term seems to have no relevance to the subject at all. Rumiton (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it does - Geaves goes on at length to describe the significant links with Advait Mat. What else do think is the relevance of Geaves' paper here? The clue's in the title "From Totapuri to Maharaji (Prem Rawat)?"PatW (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with points raised by Jayen and Rainer. However I think the idea of stating the bit about how the terms 'Advait Mat' and 'Sant Mat' don't figure in the language of Rawat or his father is risky. Geaves himself goes on to explain how personages from those lineages (Kabir/Tulsidas/Rumi etc) figure in their language as do 'metaphors' for the same techniques. As long as we don't suggest that these terms do figure (are we doing that?) I think we'd be better avoid that area. I suppose the only reason this point has been flagged is that I've proposed to include Rawat in the equation as Geaves' does. I think it pertinent that Rawat, according to Geaves, has referred to a specific lineage 'as his own' that is the same as Advait Mat up until Swarupanand. It's interesting as evidence of a Master who HAS referred to a linage. Rawat doesn't seem to fit the past pattern in this regard. Instead he's been open to opine on the matter. Maybe he's aware that people are interested in the history of his teachings and happy to oblige with his view? Lineage isn't a feature of his teachings it's true, but why do we need to make disclaimers about things we are not suggesting?
I suggest we phrase all this without going into the subsequent succession disputes, the concepts of whether there is only one true master or how little the Masters themselves put any store in their lineages etc. Rumiton claims he's disinterested in the subject and minimises the relevance of Geaves' paper to this article. Perhaps because he believes that Rawat has a charisma and uniqueness that is not derived from his history? Geaves indicates that this is was the case in the past- "The succession of Maharaji was never considered to be a hereditary one. The young Maharaji was believed by his father's disciples to possess his own charisma." . This is no reason to omit the info. There is plenty of scholarly writing that suggests that these sort of beliefs are trumpeted to amplify authenticity. We don't want to either to amplify Rawat's authenticity or falsify it. So let's not venture either way. My suggestion would be along these lines - Please feel free to improve. My bracketed text=optional.

"Some scholars say that Rawat's teachings began in the North Indian Sant Mat and Radhasoami traditions[11] which dismiss ritual and claims that true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart.[104][105] Geaves has more recently proposed that Rawat's history is linked, prior to the succession of his father from Swarupanand (1884-1936) to that of Advait Mat. Rawat has referred to personages from this lineage (on his website indicating a traceable history) from Shri Totapuri Maharaj (1780-1866) through to his father Hans Ji Maharaj (1900-1966)

I propose that this describes the key points in an unbiased way and provides links (which I suggest you follow to see what I mean) to all the directly related articles and sources which elaborate (for those who are interested).PatW (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could add another headline: "Historical aspects" or so? Perhaps inside the teachings-section. That paragraph could go there.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me.PatW (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Other editors' opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Aside - someone was asking about DuPertuis coverage of Prem Rawat/Sant Mat/Radhasoami etc. See [[here] for the full 1986 paper (a relatively recent resource) which makes for an interesting read. PatW (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The above link crashes my computer, for some reason. My main problem is that this article has been stable for a long time, after intense wrangling, and I am reluctant to start another round for something as nebulous as this lineage thing. "Some scholars say...but on the other hand..." and so forth. It seems clear that no one really knows, and in fact it seems that every time a master in any of these Indian groups passes on there is a dispute over who will take their place. Maybe there is an article in that. The source I mentioned before has been silent, but it seems from the above that the term Advait Mat only started after a separate branch formed itself from Swarupanand. So Prem Rawat is not "linked" to Advait Mat, it may be correct to say they appear to have a common ancestry. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

'Sant Mat' and 'Radhasoami' are also recent terms for lineages of gurus and saints and these are mentioned. So you can't argue to exclude 'Advait Mat' for that reason. It deserves equal mention. Also 'Advait Mat' (and the connection) are mentioned already in the linked articles. The Teaching Section in this article should summarily reflect this and link. At present it's clearly unbalanced even if it is stable. Actually I believe it would be more correct to say his 'history' is linked (Geaves' choice of words verbatim) rather than 'ancestory' as the latter more implies a blood-line , which is of course untrue. If the above link crashes your computer you may not have enough memory for your browser. It's a pdf and doesn't crash any of the computers here. Try 'right click' to download rather than view in browser? (or 'Option, Click' on a Mac). PatW (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I made some changes to my set-up, but pages between 111 and 117 are still blank. What I have read is stuff I read years ago about the effects of darshan and satsang, interesting enough, but not helpful to this lineage debate. I agree "ancestry" is wrong, but "history" doesn't work either. It is not his personal history, and I think it is important not to imply any greater certainty than what exists, which is very small. If there was a similar division after Swarupanand to that which occurred after Shri Maharaji, resulting in the creation of Advait Mat, and sources state this strongly enough, maybe that could go in the main article body somewhere. Rumiton (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't you think the lineage disputes and bifurcations are better described in the articles dedicated to Sant Mat, Advait Mat, Radhasoami, Swarupanand and Hans Ji etc? Otherwise won't this section grow unnecessarily long? Surely here we should focus on 'the Rawat story' not Adavit Mat's version of events after Swarupanand etc. The Advait Mat book documents that Swarupanand appointed someone called Vairaganand. DLM dispute this in their early literature. I think that info would be contentious/superfluous to insert here. Instead I would rather here offer perhaps some brief explanation of the common concept these groups have of a leadership succession from master to master. This is well-sourced. In which case this wording may be more helpful...

"Some scholars say that Rawat's teachings began in the North Indian Sant Mat and Radhasoami traditions[11] which dismiss ritual and claims that true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart.[104][105]. These traditions commonly describe a leadership succession (Parampara), whereby leadership authority is passed from one master or Satguru to the next. Geaves has more recently proposed that Rawat's history in this respect, is linked prior to the succession of his father from Swarupanand (1884-1936) to Advait Mat. Rawat has referred to personages from this lineage (on his website indicating a traceable history) from Shri Totapuri Maharaj (1780-1866) through to his own father and master Hans Ji Maharaj (1900-1966).

I propose that the further details be added to the other linked articles at some point (if they are not already there). Re. 'implying certainty'. If this wording implies any certainty please point out which words or phrases. Geaves' use of the word 'history' is now clearly qualified I think you'll agree. PatW (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Geaves has more recently proposed that Rawat's history in this respect, is linked prior to the succession of his father from Swarupanand (1884-1936) to Advait Mat. Rawat has referred to personages from this lineage (on his website indicating a traceable history) from Shri Totapuri Maharaj (1780-1866) through to his own father and master Hans Ji Maharaj (1900-1966)." I think that wording is too opaque. I know what you mean because I have read the sources, but it will leave the unprepared reader baffled. --JN466 22:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

JN. Can you offer a less opaque version please? PatW (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Opaque? JN is being diplomatic, Pat. What you have written is pretty much incomprehensible. It seems to be an attempt to "link" Prem Rawat with the Indian movements known as Advait Mat. I can't think of a perfect analogy, but trying to link current Lutheranism with post-Vatican II Catholicism might come close. Hundreds of years ago, they were identical, though no doubt with fissures starting to show; they are now incomparable. But this is even more problematic, as the many groups and panths that came under the umbrella "Advait Mat" have continued to evolve away from each other, and no longer identify themselves in that way (as far as I can understand from my reading.) The term seems to be defunct. Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

JN, Rumiton - Rumiton, yes it's corrrect to "link Prem Rawat with Advait Mat" because, as you can see this is EXACTLY what the source says. Geaves clearly acknowledges that Rawat comes from a specific tradition despite the fact that Rawat "is unusual in that he does not consider his lineage to be significant and does not perceive his authority as resting in a tradition". Geaves is scholarly enough, and considers it important to present this without worrying about misrepresenting Rawat's beliefs. The Geaves source I provided was categoric in describing the Advait Mat link. But since you reject the wording of that source [Here] is another book called "Introduction to new and alternative religions' where Geaves again states in a section called "Origins"-

"Although categorized as an NRM in the West, the organizations that developed to promote Maharaji's teachings, especially the now defunct Divine Light Mission, are better understood within the context of Indian sampradaya formation and the global reach of Eastern spirituality in the second half of the 20th century. Although many sociologists of religion claimed that Maharaji's origins are in the Radhasoami tradition, those scholars are mistaken. Maharaji's history is linked to the lineage of Advait Mat, a North Indian cluster of movements that trace their origin to Totapuri, the teacher of Ramakrishna Paramhans. He claimed to have ancient links to Shankaracharya through a succession of Dasnami sadhus. However Maharaji is unusual in that he does not consider his lineage to be significant and does not perceive his authority as resting in a tradition. He has referred to it in the past as follows:

Shri Totapuri Maharaji (1780-1866)
Shri Ananduri Maharaji (1782-1872)
Paramhans Hans Dayal Shri Advaitanand ji (1840-1919)
Shri Swarupanand Ji Maharaj (1884-1936)
Yogiraj Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans ji Maharaj (1900-1966)

With the exception of his father, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, this lineage concurs with that of all Advait Mat movements. ..."

This is neither 'incomprehensible' or 'opaque'. I suggest we stick to the sources choice of words closely and that, since you are so wary, that would be the correct way forward. PatW (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a proposal:

A number of scholars have said that Rawat's teachings began in the North Indian Sant Mat or Radhasoami tradition, which dismisses ritual and claims that true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart. Geaves argues that this is not quite correct; referring to Rawat's own statements about his lineage, he places Rawat and his father within the tradition established by Totapuri, which also gave rise to the Advait Mat movement. Geaves argues that while the teachings within Totapuri's lineage have similarities with those of the Radhasoami tradition and developed in the same geographical area, they are nevertheless distinct. Geaves adds that Rawat "is unusual in that he does not consider his lineage to be significant and does not perceive his authority as resting in a tradition."

Relevant passages from Geaves' paper From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage (Parampara):

...these various scholars who identify Maharaji's roots as Sant Mat, or more specifically Radhasoami, are mistaken ... Maharaji's history is linked to the lineage of Advait Mat, a north Indian cluster of movements which perceive themselves as originating from Totapuri, the teacher of Ramakrishna Paramhans with claimed ancient links back to Shankaracharya through a succession of Das Nami sadhus. Maharaji has referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows:

• Shri Totapuri ji Maharaj (1780-1866)
• Shri Anandpuri ji Maharaj (1782-1872)
• Param Hans Dayal Shri Advaitanand ji (1840-1919)
• Shri Swarupanand ji Maharaj (1884-1936)
• Yogiraj Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans ji Maharaj (1900-1966)

It is clear that the lineage is not proven to be connected to the Radhasoamis although it develops historically in the same period and in the same region of Northern India and has some similarities regarding organisation and symbolic language at various stages of its development. It is also questionable to label the lineage as Advait Mat as opposed to Sant Mat as the term Advait Mat seems to have been developed by the institutionalised developments after the death of Swarupanand Ji. It does not figure in the language of the masters themselves, including Shri Hans Ji Maharaj and his son Maharaji. --JN466 11:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

...places Rawat and his father within the tradition established by Totapuri, which also gave rise to the Advait Mat movement correctly and succinctly describes the situation as I now understand it, and it avoids the contentious word "linked" which was only going to cause more trouble in the future. The repetition of "Geaves" is something we could work on. Rumiton (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I like JN's proposal. I vote for the immediate addition of his version. (Maybe change the third 'Geaves' to 'He'. Not an issue for me though.) PatW (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, if everyone else agrees we can put that in Teachings, then discuss how the main Teachings article can reflect this small change. Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's see how it looks! And the "Teachings"-article does then need some adjustment.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"He" in place of the third Geaves would definitely be an improvement. --JN466 19:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added JN's version with citations. Well done everybody. I think it would be appropriate to add more citation(s) to reflect the fact that more than one scholar refers to Sant Mat and Radhasoami. For one, Mark Jurgensmeyer's book 'Radhasoami Reality' states on p. 207 "The teachings of the Divine Light Mission, led by the boy guru Maharaj Ji, are essentially those of Radhasoami". FYI I received this from another scholar this morning - "Religions never emerge from a vacuum, there is always a religious background to any 'new' religion. DLM exhibits(ed) many of the core attributes/features of Radhasoami 1) The techniques of meditation 2) Satsang/Service/Meditation as key practices 3) The idea of the Satguru as the living master." Geaves also acknowledges much of this although he leans towards differentiating. I will take a look at the Radhasoami article in the coming weeks, as well as the other linked articles. Thanks again. PatW (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Re the above, I would definitely like to see Teachings concentrate on the Satsang/Service/Meditation aspects, leading in to the current role of The Prem Rawat Foundation, which incorporates all of them, but sources are scarce and synthesis not kosher. Rumiton (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about getting involved again...

It's been awhile since I've done any work here, but with Momento on... holiday, for a while, I think I could help out. If someone could give me a quick briefing on what's being discussed, it could save me a few days of reading archives. Thanks! Ronk01 talk 02:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a comparison of the article as it was on 19 May 2010 (when Momento's most recent sojourn began) and the article as it stood when he left it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&action=historysubmit&diff=381580201&oldid=363021272

Please be clear that I am in no way suggesting that Momento's influence was the sole reason for the changes to the article during that time period. All editors here have had their influence, even those who (like you and me, Ronk01) prefer to restrict their input to the discussion pages. Incidentally, mind if I ask what it is that leads you to maintain an interest in the way this article is progressing? Just general concern for the state of health of Wikipedia, or do you have some particular interest in the subject of the article? Hope you don't mind me asking! Revera (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

PS - I've just noticed that the final line of the lede has - for some reason/mistake? - been removed. It's about criticism of Rawat "for leading an opulent lifestyle". If you're reading this Will Beback, could you say why you removed it? Revera (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The "opulent lifestyle" was replaced with "journalists noting luxury automobiles and multiple residences made available to him by his followers" earlier in the intro. I mentioned that as part of the proposal a couple of times during that long discussion.   Will Beback  talk  11:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

To address your initial request, Ronk01: I think most editors agree that the article has improved through the recent controversy, like it or not. It starts cultivating a sometimes really neutral tone in this very delicate issue, and is developing into a really fine article. It's got ambitious editors.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Who agreed to replacing "opulent lifestyle", Will, and where was it ever discussed, let alone consensus being agreed? It was part of the article even up to the point when Momento was banned, and you removed it on 1st September. What's going on? [[21]] 80.189.117.48 Revera (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's all in the archives. It can be re-added if that's what folks want. I'm kinda tired of the topic and will be happy to sit back and watch others figure out the next improvements.   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've trawled the archives back to last June, then decided to check out the history of the article. The passage in question re 'opulent lifestyle' had been there for over a whole year until 1 Sept 2010. Could you give me a clue as to roughly when it was discussed, Will? Revera (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's in the recent past. I found it when I looked. Anyway, you guys determine the current content. There's no question that sources say the subject led an "opulent lifestyle", it's just that there are multiple ways of expressing that. A longer and subtler version supplanted the short, pithier version. But whatever other other editors agree to is fine with me.   Will Beback  talk  11:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"You guys determine the current content" - sounds like you're excluding yourself there Will! After so much input from you, has some straw caused you to give up the ghost (as it were) on this article? I can understand you needing a break from it (at the least), but you must admit that the changes you've made since Momento left have been fairly drastic. How about leaving the article the way it was when Momento left - with the "short, pithier version" in the lede, but also putting the "longer, subtler version" in the body of the article? Any objection? Revera (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We held an RfC and, based on the minimal response, I made the proposed change. If folks want other changes, then make a fresh proposal in a new thread.   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the diff. The only question I have is: Why was Satguru replaced with the translation "Perfect Master?" The reason I have an interest in this article is because I was the mediator in the Aldridge dispute, I stayed because I wanted to make sure things were going to be stable. I left because I was frustrated with Momento, but now that he got himself topic banned again, I would love to help out. Ronk01 talk 14:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Many sources talk about the Perfect Master title, so there was a desire to add it to the lead. Momento first rejected that proposal then he flipped his position and insisted that only "Perfect Master" should appear and "Satguru" must not be in the lead. Sources are ambiguous over whether the terms are equivalent, and thre are separate articles on Wikipedia, so the middle path was to include them both. The article was stable before Momento returned and I hope it will be fairly stable again.   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem including both. They have both been used at different times and I don't think it synthesis for the lead to say so. I'm not sure what point Momento was making, but fairly stable sounds fairly good to me. Rumiton (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ronk01, I for one am not wholeheartedly rejoicing at your return. Last time you were here you tended to deride one side of these debates and support the other. You added fuel to any fire that was starting and then would belatedly apologise (I can give you diffs if you need them.) I can't see that you helped resolve any content issues at all. You said you were approached on your arrival by editors who tried to sway you to one particular POV, and pretty obviously they succeeded. If you can now see that this is a complex subject without good guys and bad guys, and if you now want to help improve a mature, informative article, then you are welcome back. Current editors have agreed on some good improvements over the last 4 months. Rumiton (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My take - Does it matter what an editor's persuasions are or how they came by them? - No. The more POVs in the discussion the merrier. Without a good range of POV's one group WILL dominate - especially in matters of religion :-) Welcome back Ronk! PatW (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My take. POV's are one thing, an editor showing up to be a mediator then taking sides to the point of accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet with zero evidence...that's a whole another. Rumiton (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

@Rumiton, I will do my best to avoid partisanship (I remind you though of the Successful outcome of the Aldridge dispute)

@Everyone else, I'm kind of curious what we are discussing right now, if anyone has any sources, I would appreciate it if you could email them to me (if possible) at wp.ronk01@gmail.com. Thanks! Ronk01 talk 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Only thing happening right now is that Revera is asking Will Beback about some changes he recently made after a long discussion here. That's between them. I believe most consider the article itself to be looking pretty good. Rumiton (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

External links revisited

I suggest replacing the link maharaji.net by a link to www.wopg.org. If you take a look at both, you will immediately see the difference in informational substance. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you that wopg.org is more informational, it is a website for an organization associated with Rawat, whereas the current site is one for Rawat himself. Ronk01 talk 15:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So? The same goes for tprf.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As an addendum , it would be acceptable, but as a replacement it wouldn't work. Ronk01 talk 21:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As editors may recall, the external links section was a battleground for years. We only achieved peace by limiting it to the single link to the subject's personal site. A little later, we merged the TPRF article into this one and so the agreement was modified to allow it too. I think that editors should think long and hard before opening up that issue again. As for WPOG itself, it does not appear to be notable, and it's not clear what role the subject plays in its governance.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree broadly, but not totally. I just don't want to blow this out of proportion. By the way, Will, what do you think of the current PC trial fiasco?Ronk01 talk 21:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Do what you will, but think twice about it.

As for the PC trial, "fiasco" is a fair term. But there are better places to discuss it than this page.   Will Beback  talk  22:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Will, I do remember that discussion we had a while ago, and I don't wish to reopen it. That is why I propose only replacing the link, not adding it, as Ronk01 with good cause suggests, and hopefully stay under the anti-Rawat radar alert threshold. Wopg.org did not yet exist then, but meanwhile it has developed into the "official" sole main international portal for Rawat's activities and it seems awkward to omit it. If we can discuss the issue here in a peaceful manner, we should be able to obviate an edit war. Thoughts?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not reopen this subject again. I strongly object to changing the external links. TPRF is linked in the article because it bears the name of Prem Rawat, even though TPRF is not notable and isn't well-sourced. WOPG can be found by readers within the link sections of both TPRF and Maharaji.net websites and that's adequate information. Sylviecyn (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am also inclined to leave things as they stand. Anyone with more interest in the subject can follow the trail. Rumiton (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)