Misplaced Pages

Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:12, 25 May 2009 editWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits →Proposed changes to Former Followers section: personal remarks are out of place← Previous edit Revision as of 22:34, 25 May 2009 edit undoPergamino (talk | contribs)895 edits →Proposed changes to Former Followers sectionNext edit →
Line 229: Line 229:
:Also, to correct Zanthorp's mataken characterization oft he RfAR: I was admonished about edit warring. I have not edit-warred since that finding. Please avoid making personal remarks on this page. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC) :Also, to correct Zanthorp's mataken characterization oft he RfAR: I was admonished about edit warring. I have not edit-warred since that finding. Please avoid making personal remarks on this page. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:As for Patrick's book, please explain why it is questionable. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC) :As for Patrick's book, please explain why it is questionable. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat&diff=290830285&oldid=289629502
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat&diff=291928410&oldid=291851722

Not only you did "edit-warred", you broke the rule that calls you not to do the same changes more than once in a period of seven days. And if you were admonished, you should be even more careful. ] (]) 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


== The Lede == == The Lede ==

Revision as of 22:34, 25 May 2009

 Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Teachings of Prem Rawat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 14 days 

See also:

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2


This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Name or Word Technique using a Mantra word

"Kranenborg additionally states that it employs mantras while exhaling." This Mantra idea is false and is not verifiable. The current techniques are not public but they have not changed from the old Knowledge days. These are widely available on the web . Misplaced Pages is meant to inform as accurately as possible and hence I am removing the Mantra reference because it is misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.200.87 (talk • contribs) 03:51, November 17, 2007

Was the above from Zanthrop? Putting a section break in the middle of an edit is a bad idea, as it makes it difficult to respond to it.

The descriptions of the techniques in the cited website are significantly different from those promoted by Goom Rodgie's authorized representatives ("mahatmas") before and during his high-water-mark-in-America year of 1973. If some were to practice the techniques exactly as published on that website, I would certainly have no problems with that, but, of course, they would have NO NEED whatsoever for this "motitivational speaker" (formerly Lord of the Universe).

The big problems in the past came from the precise techniques taught along with the exact way they were taught, coupled with the process of proving you were worthy of initiation and the communal living situations in ashrams, premie houses, applicant ashrams and all that.

Does anyone have access to back issues of The Detroit Free Press on microfilm? A medical doctor who was interviewed during the summer of 1973 (when Pat Haley treated the guru appropriately) stated, on the front page, that "the light" is a "phosphene reaction" from pressing on your eyes. I don't recall his descriptions of the other two techniques, but he described the "nectar" as "snot can taste sweet, sometimes." Those descriptions should certainly be in the article. Consumers need to be warned about this garbage.

There are valuable meditation techniques available for free in the world that do NOT make you go blind and that do not require that you accept the "spiritual" authority of some fat, ugly and disease-ridden guru. Nobody ever hit Angarika Sri Munindra or Lama Lodu in the face with a shaving cream pie. There is a reason for that. Wowest (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the original message was apparently left by an anonymous editor back in 2007. Because it was unsigned and undated it wasn't archived automatically like the other old messages. Here's the edit made by the same editor. If it's properly sourced it should probably be restored.   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

FORMER FOLLOWERS section

I was surprised to find this while doing a bit of extra reading and I have taken the unusual step of deleting it entirely, but forgot to include an edit summary. Patrick is a convicted criminal]. The passage appears to justify his criminality. Also, the 1st sentence doesn't make sense. Patrick didn't obtain the reports, they are his reports presumably. That makes him the source. In addition to his criminality, I think his obvious bias would have to be referred to if he is to be accepted as a source. --Zanthorp 07:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)

You also removed "Conway, Flo and Siegelman, Jim, "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change Second Edition, Second printing: pp 159 f (2005) Stillpoint Press, ISBN 0-38528928-6" without any explanation of why that did not support the text. I suggest you reinstate your deletion and open up your concerns about the text for discussion rather than deleting a whole section without any proposal for alternative text. Otherwise this looks like a return to editwarring. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I encourage Zanthorp to make the changes he proposes. Deleting it entirely is not a good idea because it's a notable viewpoint.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe Conway/Siegelman is self-published and thus falls under WP:SPS. Jayen466 01:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The first edition is published by a reliable publisher. The 2nd edition was apparently self-published.   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
So we need to check the first edition to see if it's in there in order to be on safe ground.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone appears to have an agenda here. SPS says
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an 
established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has 
previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should 
be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth 
reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
The authors had already established their expertise by being published in the first edition, and the second edition is essentially the same as the first -- certainly in the case of Divine Light Mission and all that, which hasn't done anything newsworthy since, perhaps, 1974. The biggest differences seem to be in the page numbers, which are different, as is the type size. We should probably go ahead and cite the second edition, since it is easier to locate for validation purposes.

Regarding Mr. Patrick, he is in fact, a convicted criminal. So what? So was Nelson Mandela. Does that invalidate his opinion? Further, Patrick's book is ghost-written. He isn't literate enough to have done that himself. He's just street-wise. I think the Marcia Carroll quotation should stand on its own strength.

Most courts have held that Mr. Patrick's motivation did, in fact, justify his behavior. The Common Law doctrine involved is called the "justification of necessity." However, Common Law defenses are not admissible in all jurisdictions, although they are included in the Model Penal Code. In the Crampton case, cited in the article, the court found that Patrick was acting as the agent of the parents of Kathy Crampton, a young adult, and ruled that "The parents who would do less than what Mr. and Mrs. Crampton did for their daughter Kathy would be less than responsible, loving parents. Parents like the Cramptons here, have justifiable grounds, when they are of the reasonable belief that their child is in danger, under hypnosis or drugs, or both, and that their child is not able to make a free, voluntary, knowledgeable decision."

Of course, it was significant that members of the "Love Family" who participated in the LSD "sacrament" in the presence of Paul Erdman, a/k/e "Love Israel," learned that Love was "Greater than or equal to God," and, of course that they had a duty to turn over to him all of their money and valuables. Members of the Manson Family had similar insights under similar circumstances, but the California legal system did not have a means to find Leslie Van Houten and the others "not guilty by virtue of temporary insanity."

Scientologists, of course, are not under the influence of mind-altering drugs, as far as any experts have written. They are merely the dupes of an elaborate con-scheme which frequently leads to an angry and abrupt non-coerced exit when they learn that "body Thetans" were created long ago when an evil space tyrant named Xenu dropped nuclear weapons on sentient beings who had previously been secured to volcanoes. Wowest (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You make some good points, but the (possibly) self-published source in question is Conway and Siegelman, who quote Patrick. It's possible that Patrick made similar observations in his own book, but we'd need to find it there. (BTW, Patricks' book was published by Ballantine, a reputable publiser.)   Will Beback  talk  05:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The 1st edition of Snapping is available via Google. There's at least one report of the type mentioned in the now-deleted text, on page 159. I think the sourcing is OK, so we should restore the text and Zanthorp can add some mention of Partick's conviction if that's necessary.   Will Beback  talk  06:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I am confused -- what you link there is the second edition. Stillpoint Press is Conway's and Siegelman's own publishing company. Jayen466 23:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Nik is quite correct. Somehow by removing the text I also removed the second source. I don't know how that happened. It may have been due to a glitch in the software and if so its not the first problem I've had. The first source, David Barret's book, still appears in the reference list. The quoted section from Barret does not support the deleted text. Thanks Will for the Google link. I checked 'Snapping' pp159,160 and it does not support the deleted text. PP159,160 refers to "jamming the mind" and "putting the mind on hold" to get rid of "uncomfortable emotion" etc. There is no mention of self hypnosis or Ted Patrick. Other available pages barely mention the DLM or its members. When they get a mention, PP174,175 for example, they are lumped together with many other groups including the Moonies, Scientology, the Krishna group, and Bible sects. Under a graph on P175 the DLM is referred to as a "Hindu sect." According to the authors there is a correlation between the "new spiritual and personal growth practices" associated with all of those groups what they call "information disease symptoms." Misplaced Pages does allow the inclusion of fringe theories, however, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This is exceptional only in that it appears to be inaccurate at least in part and probably poorly researched. It supports the deleted text only in part. there is no mention of self-hypnosis, Conway and Siegelman are not "several scholars" and as far as I know, no source refers to Rawat's followers as "worshippers." Here's the text I removed. "Reports obtained by Ted Patrick and several scholars after deprogramming of several of Rawat's former worshippers refer to the experience of Rawat's "meditation" techniques as self-hypnosis, and as diminishing the ability to think both during the practice and for an extended period of time after cessation." I'm sure this was written in good faith.
The problem is that it is so poorly devised and contentious that I think it best to leave it out of the article pending the outcome of further discussion and further investigation of the sources. An edit war would not be productive and that's not what I had in mind. I'm pretty sure that this can be resolved amicably by discussion. --Zanthorp 08:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)
It's a question of process, there's much that should possibly be pulled from the Rawat articles but it would be better to discuss the changes in advance rather than each one of us making the change we want and having everyone else discuss it after the fact. Removing a whole section seems particularly inappropriate. The issue of stray and unrelated references is I think a significant problem throughout the Rawat articles and represents poor editing over time - however merely scrubbing the references is not the best approach, the references may well have supported text which should not have been edited out and the existence of an orphan reference should elicit a check of the history, not summary deltion. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an earlier version of the text:

Former premie (follower of Rawat) Marcia Carroll was deprogrammed from Rawat's cult in 1973 by Ted Patrick. Patrick's autobiographical ghost-writer, Tom Dulack, quotes Marcia at length, describing each of the four techniques in detail within the context of her experience. She concludes: "the more meditation you do, the less able you are to reason. It becomes painful to think at all. So whatever they tell you, you do.... With more and more meditation, you experience a sort of ... self-hypnosis. It keeps you there."

This assessment is seconded by Dr. Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman in the second edition of their study "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change." They quote a former premie as saying "after my deprogramming, it took several weeks before I was able to maintain a train of thought and make two sentences go together without having the whole thing erased. Meditation had become a conditioned response. My mind just kept doing it automatically."

It seems like that material became condensed and perhaps lost accuracy in the process. The material from Snapping is also in the 1st ediiton. Any objections to restoring this verion?   Will Beback  talk  15:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you've been doing some good research. I'm sure there is something else in Snapping from another former premie about it seeming like a bad phone connection trying to listening to his own thinking in his own head after practicing Maharaji's meditation for a while. I know of more examples, personally, but I don't think they've been documented in reliable sources. During the summer of 1973, a physician was quoted on the front page of the Detroit Free Press debunking the meditation techniques. He said that the "light" was actually a phosphene reaction from pressing on your own eyeballs and that the "nectar" was explained by "snot can taste sweet, sometimes." Wowest (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Let's have that earlier version restored, which at least provides a platform to work from.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The earlier version that Will wants to reinstate set off warning bells for me and prompted me to do a bit of my own research. Unfortunately Will's research fails to mention that Conway and Sieglelman have been widely discredited by more serious researchers. Ted Patrick in particular has been justifiably discredited and condemned.

From Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory by J. Gordon Melton
"Among the most widely circulated statements of support for Singer came in the book Snapping, authored by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman. Snapping was the name they gave to the effect upon cult members when the brainwashing process took over. As these opinions became known at the end of the 1970s, they produced a storm of comment and through the mid 1980s the issues were fully aired at various scholarly gatherings, and a significant scholarly consensus that the brainwashing model used by Singer and her colleagues was woefully inadequate emerged. That consensus, most clearly stated in the negative responses to the report that Singer and her colleagues would prepare for the American Psychological Association, would in turn be injected into the court process in the late 1980s and lead to the rejection of the "Singer hypothesis" by U.S. courts and a series of reverses by the Cult Awareness Network and indeed the whole anti-cult movement in the 1990s.

(Singer had noted in her Psychology Today article that her view of the new religions had been almost totally formed by her sessions with ex-members, the great majority of whom had come to her only after being deprogrammed.) Among the issues rarely discussed was the assumption that many (hundreds if not thousands) of the new religious movements existed but data about and attacks upon "cults" was limited to a relative few groups. Only five groups, the Unification Church, the Divine Light Mission, The Way International, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and Church of Scientology, were regularly mentioned with less than twenty additional groups also cited on rare occasions. Galanter's analysis had the effect of reducing the significance of the observed abnormal behavior reported among former members. He also suggested an alternative means of understanding otherwise inexplicable behavior in members and ex-members without considering them as suffering from psychopathology. Galanter's work, along with that of several other psychiatrists who saw members of new religions in nonpathological terms,(30) provided the substantial challenge to the Singer hypothesis from the psychological community.

While Galanter's work was being read by psychiatrists and psychologists, on a popular level, Conway and Siegelman were making broad sweeping claims of pathology among the members of the reputed thousands of cults operating in the West. Though lacking any medical or psychological credentials, in Snapping, they posed the existence of an as yet unknown disease caused by membership in a cult. This "information disease," as they termed it, was produced by the manipulation of information by cult leaders. In essence, they suggested that the individual nervous system is fed by information flowing into it. The practice of various spiritual disciplines (from prayer and meditation to chanting and yoga) shut off the flow of information for long periods of time and created a disorder of awareness. Going even further, they suggested that the amount of time needed in rehabilitation was directly related to the amount of time a member had spent in group rituals and spiritual practices. Conway and Siegelman stated in blatantly popular language what Singer had been saying in much more staid terms: membership in cults caused significant pathology and former members required extensive psychological therapy. And while the approach of Galanter and others suggested nonpathological perspectives for understanding ex-members, clinicians such as Singer continued to see pathology in most ex-members. This pathology was initially seen as an "atypical dissociative disorder" and also as similar to the "delayed stress syndrome" often experienced by Vietnam War veterans. (31)

If Conway and Siegelman's work did anything, it spurred research in that most difficult of work areas, ex-members. While members of new religions could be contacted and studied relatively quickly, former members tended to fade into the larger population and required some effort to locate. However, researchers quickly noted that Conway and Siegelman's samples, like those used by Singer, had been drawn from that relatively small group of former members who had associated with the anti-cult movement, some because they had left due to a bad experience in the group, but the great majority because they had been deprogrammed. These people constituted but a tiny percentage of former members (10 to 15%), and were drawn from the same relatively few groups upon which the anti-cult movement was focused.

Attempts to survey and study ex-members was pioneered by J. T. Ungerleider, D. K. Wellisch, Trudy Solomon and Stuart Wright, whose works helped to break many of the stereotypes of former members. Ungerleider and Wellisch (32) were among the first to point out significant differences between ex-members who left voluntarily and the those who were deprogrammed, the later group usually going on to become involved with the anti-cult movement and in the practice of deprogramming others. Solomon and Wright extended the consideration pointing out that those former members involved with the anti-cult movement represented only a very small percentage of former members. Solomon, found in her study of former members of the Unification Church, that attitude toward the Church were directly related to their method of severing membership (voluntary or forced) and their subsequent level of contact with the anti-cult movement (low to high), with the later option correlating with a negative assessment of the Church. (33) In like measure, Wright found that those who voluntarily left the various controversial new religions rarely adopted brainwashing language to discuss their experience. (34)

Then, spurred by Conway and Siegelman's rather blatant assertions James R. Lewis and David G. Bromley took the research one step further and tested the claim of harm done to members by cults in their study of ex-members, "The Cult Withdrawal Syndrome: A Case of Misattribution of Cause" (1987), (35) reprinted below. This study largely laid to rest the continuing issue of pathology among former members of new religions. Using a more representative sample of former members, Lewis and Bromley measured the presence of the various pathological symptoms that Conway and Siegelman had discovered in their sample of former members (an extension of the symptoms discussed elsewhere by Singer). While disconfirming many of Conway and Siegelman's assertions, such as that people who had been in groups longer would show more symptoms, Lewis and Bromley were able to pinpoint the major source of dysfunctional symptoms among ex-members, the process of leaving the group. Lewis and Bromley considered the presence of symptoms relative to the type of exit from the group. They divided the sample into those who left voluntarily and received no counseling by individuals associated with the anti-cult movement, those who left and then received some form of voluntary deprogramming (usually termed exit counseling), and those who were involuntarily deprogrammed. While the entire sample showed significantly lower levels of dysfunctional symptoms than the one reported upon by Conway and Siegelman, it did show a dramatic relationship between the method of leave-taking and the presence of symptoms. Those associated with the anti-cult movement had measurably higher levels of symptoms, but those who had been deprogrammed had a radically higher number of symptoms than the general sample."

In other words, there is a direct correlation between "dysfunctional symptoms" (inability to maintain a train of thought, etc) and association with the anti-cult movement and so called "deprogrammers." Those who had not been exposed to the anti-cultists and deprogrammers showed dramatically lower levels of dysfunctional symptoms. Moreover, Conway and Siegelman's flawed research was based only on this small percentage of involuntary "leave takers" who had had the misfortune to encounter the anti-cultists and deprogrammers such as Patrick.
For a far more detailed account see, http://www.cesnur.org/testi/melton.htm

Larry Shinn, Professor of religion at Bucknell University states, "My first encounter with the extent and power of the cult fear in America was as a spectator in a Santa Monica courtroom in June 1981. I watched a family tragedy unfold as a young woman, Rebecca Foster, testified to the physical and psychological abuse she underwent at the hands of deprogrammer Ted Patrick during his kidnapping, false imprisonment, and forced deprogramming of her. What had inspired her mother, brother, and sister to attempt to force Rebecca out of her year-old Hare Krsna faith by hiring Patrick? By their own testimony, the Foster family's fear of the cults stemmed from reading Patrick's book, Let Our Children Go, Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman's Snapping, and Jack Spark's The Mind Benders.

As I sat in the courtroom after the trial, mulling over the court's verdict that Rebecca's family was guiltless, I realised that there was something going on in the minds of the jurors that I did not understand fully. Only later, when I read juror-interviews that talked of Rebecca's zombie-like state and her 'robot' appearance on the witness stand, did I begin to realise why they had refused to believe her testimony. The foreman of the Foster jury said after the trial, 'Her testimony was quite plastic. She was like a puppet with strings being pulled by someone else.' In a similar fashion one cannot believe the testimony of witches."
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/melton.htm

Shinn's essay explores the way in which deprogrammers such as Patrick and anti-cult writers including Conway and Siegelman have exploited anti-cult paranoia. I'm tempted to add, "for their own financial gain" however, both Melton and Shinn stop just short of that probably out of fear of litigation.

I conclude that the flawed work of Conway and Siegelman is based on a widely discredited theory. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Conway and Siegelman's book, especially the self published 2nd ed, does not meet this criterion. For the same reason, Ted Patrick's attempt to justify his criminal behavior has no place in this article. The inclusion of such material uncontested would mislead readers and seriously degrade the quality of the article.

Will, would you please provide a link to the discussion which resulted in the removal of that earlier version of the text. Zanthorp 14:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)

Hmm. Given the apparent mispunctuation of the quotation above, we can't tell how much of it is from Melton and how much is OR. Sources including http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m06.html and others indicate that Melton is a totally discredited intellectual whore who has taken money and free perquisites from the Unification Church in exchange for selling out the integrity of his discipline as well as his own professed religion.

Regardless of the source, it misses the rather obvious point that those "religious converts" who are the most messed-up are the ones whose parents are mostly likely to call the deprogrammers in the first place. Did the subject live in an ashram or premie house, for example? If he/she wasn't that far into the mind-control practices in play, he/she wouldn't be as messed-up as someone wo was. Someone who just tried the meditation for a day or two, got nothing much from it, and went back to his LSD wouldn't be impacted very much. This chain goes back even further, of course, but that's enough for this purpose. Patrick, as well as Conway and Siegelman have expressed well-based negative opinions about Maharaj Ji's meditation practices, and those should clearly be included. Wowest (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is all more competently discussed here: http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist23.html Wowest (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Galanter isn't the best source either. http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Galanter.html criticizes his shameless promotion of Alcoholics Anonymous with an anecdote about a member who benefited. The criticism is that he omitted the other nineteen members who checked AA out at the same time and left without stopping drinking. It seems that AA has a FIVE PERCENT success rate. Galanter has also been discredited for his favorable opinions on cults, in general, although he also opines that Maharaj Ji runs one. . http://www.skepticfiles.org/can/can-bbs.htm . Wowest (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind admitting I'm out of my depth here. Obviously I have a lot more reading to do to bring myself up to speed. If the objective is to produce more or less stable, believable article, and I'm assuming that's the aim of these discussions, from what I've seen so far I think it would be best to stick to the most reliably, hopefully credible sources and avoid discredited theories. I'll get back to you in a few days when I get time to absorb all of this. Zanthorp 09:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to restore the earlier version posted above. If the sources have been "discredited" then that information belongs in the articles about those individuals. If we have information that directly contradicts these assertions then that belongs here. While some may disagree with Patrick, Conway, and Siegelman, they represent singificant points of view, without which this article is not neutral, per WP:NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is slandering Melton. Melton took money and other favors from $cientology and/or the Moonies. He's also up to his neck in CESNUR. Therefore, he has NO credibility when it comes to cults. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nobody believes his opinions in those areas except cult zombies, e.g. current Moonies, $cientologists et al. Why don't you call up to Westmont College and ask Ron Enroth, who happens to be a real sociologist of religion (as opposed to a cult shill with an opinion an a footnote) about Mr. Melton? Besides, we aren't talking about Maharaj Ji's religious beliefs or his personal criminal behavior. We're talking about these self-destructive so-called "meditation techniques" he, his organization and his father have been promoting. Nobody in his right mind would engage in such practices. And we're talking about the related ideas promoted by his former organization, Divine Light Mission, e.g. Prem Rawat is "The Lord of the Universe," the world will end on November 8, 9 or 10 of 1973, the meditation is free but you have a moral obligation to give all of your money to Rawat and/or his organizations, to make substantial spiritual progress, you should kiss the guru's feet due to the "spiritual polarity" of the human body, the Mind is Satan (Rawat himself actually documentedly used the word "demon"), you should only listen to the "music" on the right side of your head (Dr. Thelma Moss was LIVID when she heard THAT one. That practice measurably shifts the body's energy fields to one side. She said that anyone doing that "couldn't even think right." ). Well, who am I gonna believe? The author of The Probability of the Impossible or some fat, ugly teenaged guru with a substance abuse problem and an ulcer who frequently claims to have a Superman comic book? Unfortunately, we can't put that in the article per se, although it's all either documented or obvious, but it's important that the editors are aware that we're dealing with a "religious" scam that dates back a century or thereabouts in India. Oh. Let me correct that. It isn't up to date. Rawat is no longer teenager.

Anyway, so O.K. We cite the FIRST edition, which is not self-published, but also note the page numbers in the second-edition, which is virtually identical but easier to locate. That should satisfy everyone, don't you think?

I notice that certain editors are attacking Seigleman's and Conway's "academic credentials," (a Rhodes Scholar and a PhD in communication) and "discredited theory." We aren't interested in their theory. We are interested in their observations and in the distinguished former premies they quote. It isn't everyone who is willing to come forward and confess that they used to be suckers. We aren't interested in the former premies' opinions about the living Fat Guru of our Times. We're interested in their expressed experiences as former consumers of an inherently flawed product or service, the "meditation" pushed by their former Messiah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 04:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

These constant arguments over which scholars and journalists are most reliable is unproductive. Essentially all of the printed sources available for this topic are reliable by Misplaced Pages standards. (And probably most web sources are unreliable.) Melton and Conway/Siegelman, et al., all have viewpoints and none of them are really extraordinary, given the subject. Let's just do our best to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, without negating legitimate sources and viewpoints.   Will Beback  talk  08:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I unequivocally support what Will Beback has proposed – further if other editors are intent upon a battle of source v source then we will have to move immediately to mediation. The appropriation of WP policies to support particular argument are especially unhelpful; the application of ‘exceptional claims’ to a situation where one source differs from five or six sources appears wholly specious, while invoking CESNUR as a ‘representational body’ without acknowledging a comparable contra body such as the ICSA amounts to POV pushing, even if that is not the intent. Also when invoking a particular source, care has to be taken that the scope of that source is relevant to the article under consideration, as opposed to the general subject area. In this respect Galanter says almost nothing about Rawat’s teachings, indeed he hardly even comments upon the meditation; Galanter’s work was focussed on the socialising impacts upon individuals living in the cultic context of the then Divine Light Mission. Galanter is certainly a valid source for other Rawat related articles, but to have relevance to the Teachings article, Galanter’s work would need to be contextualised in relation to what Rawat ‘taught’ in respect of ashrams, festivals or other communal activity – I am not aware of any sources that provide such contextualisation.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure we're on the same page, and I apologize for getting a bit emotional yesterday. This business of claiming that critical sources are "discredited" in order to censor their observations annoys me quite a bit. There were old newspaper and popular magazine articles that mentioned the multi-paged "ashram application," which made a point of asking about trust funds and possible inheritances. In 1973, the only "teachings" of Maharaj Ji were the meditation techniques and the "mahatma stories" with their uniform messages: "you aren't worthy," "the guru is giving you a discount," "monkeys are pretty stupid," and "Guru Maharaj Ji is just like Jesus (or whomever)." Even now, nothing the Guru says seems to have any real content apart from being a sales pitch for "the Knowledge." There is no intellectual content. Krishnamurti, in his later years, after he abandoned claims to being the new Messiah, at least said things that made sense, such as considering the relationship between desire, in general, and war. Even the claims noted below are highly questionable, as far as any sort of objective observation could be involved. Wowest (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Just for a feel of the impact of Conway/Siegelman vs Melton on present-day scholarship, cf. , , . (That is not to say Conway and Siegelman can't or should not be cited here, btw.) JN466 18:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that's pointless. Misplaced Pages has a threshold for reliable sources. So long as the sources we're using meet that threshold then the debate over which scholar is cited more often, or whose theories are no longer popular, is a quagmire in which we already wasted countless thousands of words. Enough already.   Will Beback  talk  19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pergamino, you made some major changes to the text without discussion. Since there's no reason given for the changes, which were called "copy-edits", I'm going to restore the previsous version. Among other problems, the material quotes former followers so labeling it "deprogramming" is deceptive and incorrect.   Will Beback  talk  02:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Other changes were not discussed either. And BTW, either an edit is good or is bad; there is no need to "discuss" everything, is it? Pergamino (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Er, yes they were. Have you read this thread? The material in question was discussed here. Now you've deleted it entirely, with no apparent reason or explanation. That's disruptive. As for the need to discuss significant changes, please review the headers at the top of this page, and the article probations that I've allerted you to previously. I request that you revert yourself and restore the neutral, sourced, discussed material that you deleted.   Will Beback  talk  05:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
        • What is "disruptive" is you breaking the rules set forth in the arbitration. You added a section, I edited in good faith to make it better, and you added your version again within five days. I request that you revert yourself and restore the edit I made, and explain what was wrong with it. Pergamino (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
          • The section was already there. Zanthorp removed it because he disagreed with how material was summarized, so I restored the original version which correctly summarized the cited sources. That edit was thoroughly discussed in the thread above. Your edits are your responsibility and the burden is on you to justify them. You didn't and so I restored text. Now you've deleted he text outright and again you've provided no justification for the deletion.   Will Beback  talk  05:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
            • You broke the rule "Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period" You did not provide a justification for your deletion of my edits. Pergamino (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for restoring the text that we've all previously discussed. Would you like to discuss changes to it?   Will Beback  talk  18:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Undo your deletion of my edit, and I will explain it. Otherwise you are in violation of the arbitration rule. Pergamino (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
      • What is the violation? I reverted once. As for the changes you'd like, you can discuss them before making them. It's more helpful to seek consensus first, especially on a contentious topic.   Will Beback  talk  19:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
        • The violation: You added a new section on 16:58, 18 May 2009. I edited that section on 11:20, 23 May 2009. You re-added your section in its entirety on 19:19, 23 May 2009. That is a violation of the rule. Please add my edit back and we can talk. Pergamino (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
          • There's only one revert. We can discuss your proposed edits without restoring them. I don't think that holding the discussion hostage to the restoration of your edits is a helpful ploy. Please say why you think that the section should be renamed and re-written to focus on "deprogrammers" rather than on the quoted former followers.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
          • The section Will restored was originally edited to death, without consensus or discussion, by a premie in order to prevent the criticism from being read. Will has merely restored what which was improperly censored. Now, what about the current version would you like to change, Mr. or Ms. Pergamino? Wowest (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
            • If Will restores what I edited, which basically was a few copy-edits, the addition of information about Ted Patrick, and a re-arranging of the subheadings, you'll be able to see it for yourself. Pergamino (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
              • The changes in question are here: . Please explain why they're necessary or how they'd improve the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
                • If you don't play by the rules, why should I? Pergamino (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • You haven't correctly identified any rule violations by me. The unfounded accusations are simply derailing an actual discussion of editing this article, and are unhelpful. If you think that I've violated any rule on Misplaced Pages then I invite you to bring it up in an appropriate venue. Meanwhile, let's stick to discusing improvements to the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • Mine are not unfounded accusations: you broke the rule: "if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period". You made a change, I made an edit, and you added the **same** change again. Pergamino (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
                      • Where was my original change reverted? The only time it was reverted was when you deleted the text I'd added, but you restored that text yourself so that's moot. The only thing I reverted was your undiscussed change. So now let's get back tothe topic at hand - those changes. Please explain why they're necessary or how they'd improve the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read this long thread again, and I can see that there are substantial arguments against the paragraph from Patrick and Conway as added twice by Will over the last 5 days (in violation of the arbitration ruling), so I'd think that putting back what was there originally is the way to go. Pergamino (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why the section you added is necessary, in comparison with the summary that was there before, or how that would improve the article. Pergamino (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For that information please re-read this thread starting with the initial complaint by Zanthorp. This material has been discussed at length. The faulty edits by user:Janice Rowe were made without discussion, and it's too bad that it took us this long to identify the problems and correct them.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of these discussions if people do not follow the rules? There is no agreement for the content added twice by Will and once by Wowest. See you next week, and I hope that by then you have decided to play by the rules. Pergamino (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to discuss your proposed changes then please do so. You've been invited repeatedly.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The material has been discussed at length, but I don't see any consensus emerging about it. I will resume discussing this next week, if you don't mind. That way you'll have time to re-consider playing by the rules, and will give other people the opportunity to weigh-in. Pergamino (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the timeline, please discuss significant changes to this material before making them.   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't lecture me on behavior: What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why don't **you** discuss significant changes before making them, and get some kind of agreement for these changes? Pergamino (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Former Followers section

I think we need to find more information from former followers. Wowest (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sophia Collier would be a good source for her own views of the teachings. Rennie Davis has made statements in the last decade, but I'm not sure any of them are in reliable sources. John MacGregor is another possible source, though I'm not sure if we want to open that can of worms again. Jacobs would be a great secondary source, as he focuses on "deconversion". I'm sure we can expand the section to give a greater variety of viewpoints.   Will Beback  talk  20:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Collier has a great description of receiving Knowledge and her views of the teachings in Chapter 9. Chapter 17 also has some reflections and observations. Rudin & Rudin quote another deprogrammed former follower, Barbara Fabe, who also mentions hypnosis. Enroth quotes pages of commentary from Jim Ardmore, another deprogrammed member. McDonald has a very brief mention of the teachings. Jacobs focuses on one couple who eventually left the movement, and their views of the teachings are covered extensively.
If we're going to have a "former followers" section then a "current followers" section might be suitable too. Anthony, et al.'s "Patients and Pilgrims" 1978 (in Richardon's Conversion Careers) has several quotations from then-current followers. Levine's Life in the Cults has a lot about the practical teachings and regulations of followers. Galanter also discusses the views of followers in Cults: Faith Healing, and Coercion. And of course Downton has lengthy interviews with four different followers.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As a committed libertarian I welcome Wowest's participation, even though I usually disagree his views when I know enough about them to have an opinion. I also welcome Nik and Will Beback's participation, and if any of Mr Rawat's followers would like to participate they too would of course be very welcome. But when it comes to insertion of POV into this or any other article, and the flouting of Misplaced Pages's policies as a means of doing so, that's where I draw the line.

Will Beback was admonished for his behavior by the recent ARBCOM. Now that its over, is he reverting to the behavior that earned him that admonition? I hope not. "... from Rawat's cult..." is not acceptable because it is derogatory. A neutral expression would be, "...from the DLM..." Anyway, Ted Patrick's book is a questionable source], therefore, material from it is unsuitable for use in this article.

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties."

The Marcia Carroll quote is not "seconded by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman..." The C and S quote from an unnamed former follower mentions nothing about "self-hypnosis", it being "painful to think" or "whatever they tell you, you do..." At first glance there appears to be a possible correlation between inability to maintain a train of thought and being less able to reason. But in fact, if you read C and S quote carefully it is obvious that its about the trauma resulting from deprogramming. Even if it is interpreted as some kind of reference to dysfunction resulting from meditation, it is presented in a non-neutrality way because it is made to look more credible than it is.] No mention is made of research showing that reported dysfunction in such cases correlated to sustained physical and mental abuse at the hands of deprogrammers, not the former cult or group or whatever. And there's nothing in it to tell readers that C and S were widely discredited. If it is decided to go ahead and include it in the article, to overcome the problem of undue weight], we should add quotes from practitioners of the meditation. Its interesting. The undue weight section talks about flat earth theories, and C and S have about that much credibility.

Will and Wowest, please read the quote from C and S more carefully. You will see that it refers not to the meditation, but to the trauma associated with being deprogrammed - forced detention, sleep and food depravation, physical and mental abuse and so on. It confirms the research of psychologists Lewis and Bromley, cited in Melton.

"after my deprogramming, it took several weeks before I was able to maintain a train of thought and make two sentences go together without having the whole thing erased."

The next bit might be about using the meditation as some sort of defense mechanism but the meaning is not clear. Not surprising after such an ordeal. "Meditation had become a conditioned response. My mind just kept doing it automatically."

Nik mentioned having a platform for discussion. Wouldn't it be better to use this page for that instead of the article? IMO, if we discuss and develop new material here, there is a lot less chance of it being reverted after it goes in the article. Personally I think that would be a more pleasant and professional way to proceed. For all of the reasons I've given here I have reluctantly decided to delete the former followers section. I hope that from now on we can discuss such contentious additions civilly here on this page to produce something neutral, properly sourced and worthy of inclusion in the article. --Zanthorp 10:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)

Zanthorp, you advocate discussion yet you've twice deleted entire sections before discussing them. I don't see you proposing alternative text to replace the text you deleted. Please do so, or restore the text pending a new version. As it stands now the article is missing an important set of viewpoints and unless those are reflected then the article does not comply with WP:NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, to correct Zanthorp's mataken characterization oft he RfAR: I was admonished about edit warring. I have not edit-warred since that finding. Please avoid making personal remarks on this page.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
As for Patrick's book, please explain why it is questionable.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only you did "edit-warred", you broke the rule that calls you not to do the same changes more than once in a period of seven days. And if you were admonished, you should be even more careful. Pergamino (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Lede

The teachings of Prem Rawat are based on his central claim that peace resides in every
     human being and that the human quest for fulfillment can be resolved by turning inward 
     to discover the contentment and joy within.

I think that's inaccurate. I think that the teachings of Prem Rawat consist of meditation instruction and, at this point, nothing else except for a one page list of commandments including "leave no room in your mind for doubt," and "constantly meditate and remember the Holy Name." The part about the Guru being God (or greater than God, on one poster), the Mind being "Satan" and the ... moral obligation to give the guru and his organization all of your time and money now seems to be being blamed on the Divine Light Mission organization. Something should probably be said, though, about the premies who signed over all of their trust funds, money, property and "potential inheritances" to enter the guru's ashrams only to be thrown out on the street, penniless, when they became older and the ashrams were closed. Wowest (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Misplaced Pages is not about what anyone 'thinks' - it is an encyclopedia, otherwise it would be crammed full of personal points of view. The content must be referenced to appropriate sources, and in the case of a living person, extra care is required. This topic should not be a blog for personal points of view on Prem Rawat. Terry Macro (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Please don't play semantic games with me. Nothing appears in print anywhere unless someone "thought" it first. I think we need a definition of "teachings" at this point. Some premies have said that his only teachings are the meditation -- and that he promotes no beliefs. Currently, the lede starts with an expressed belief. What is accurate, and how do we know that? Wowest (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
So are you saying that his teachings are not "based on his central claim" and are you seeking to justify that by what some of his followers say? Are these followers anything like the guy with the "bad phone connection trying to listening to his own thinking in his own head" or are they somehow able to think coherently? Zanthorp 15:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanthorp (talk • contribs)
  1. ^ Drury, Michael, The Dictionary of the Esoteric: 3000 Entries on the Mystical and Occult Traditions, pp.75-6, (2002), Sterling Publishing Company, ISBN 1-842-93108-3 "Maharaj Ji meditation upon the life-force. This meditation focuses on four types of mystical energy, known as the experiences of Light, Harmony, Nectar, and the Word. These allow the practitioner to develop a deep and spiritual self-knowledge."
  2. ^ Chryssides, George D. Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements pp.210-1, Scarecrow Press (2001) ISBN 0-8108-4095-2 "This Knowledge was self-understanding, yielding calmness, peace, and contentment, since the innermost self is identical with the divine. Knowledge is attained through initiation, which provides four techniques that allow the practitioner to go within.
  3. ^ Hunt, Stephen J. Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8 "The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them. Knowledge, roughly translated, means the happiness of the true self-understanding. Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self, which brings a sense of well-being, joy and harmony. The Knowledge includes four meditation procedures: Light, Music, Nectar and Word. The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher. Hence, the movement seems to embrace aspects of world-rejection and world-affirmation. The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion, but the adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full."

These "Sources" ....

  • Drury mentions "mystical energy," which is not a term I've ever heard attributed to Rawat. "These allow the practitioner to develop a deep and spiritual self-knowledge" is rather questionable." The practices, as presented in 1973, were closer to suppression of all of the "meditator's" thoughts and feelings through intense concentration on the sound of his own breathing, during all waking hours when he was not singing devotional songs to the guru's picture or practicing the other three "techniques."
  • Chryssides alleges "calmness, peace, and contentment, since the innermost self is identical with the divine." Critics would call it "intellectual vegetation ... and contentment." There is no evidence either that "the innermost self is identical with the divine," or that tasting "snot" in a non-hypnotic environment leads to an experience of "nectar." Is snot God? "God is everywhere" doesn't seem to be an adequate answer.
  • Hunt parrots "a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full" which somehow fails to explain the observable practices of giving the guru large sums of money and standing in long lines in order to kiss his feet. This was formerly called "darshan," but now gets labeled "reception."

Since there appears to have been a transition in "Rawat's" teachings, there should be an explanation for that. The old "ashram rules," under which many premies lived during the 1970's, precluded eating meat, alcohol, drugs or sex. Asked about the meat back then, Rawat said that the purpose of the meat restriction wasn't to make you more spiritual, but to make you "less aggressive." Also, none of the descriptions of the meditation techniques laid out in the website cited two paragraphs up is like that used in Knowledge Sessions in the early 1970's. Each description is significantly different. Wowest (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

These "sources" is what has been used. If you have other sources, list them; otherwise, you are wasting your time as personal opinions (negative or positive) don't count here. Pergamino (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
We have plenty of sources available from the 1970s and 1980s that describe the meditation techniques. If those descriptions differ from descriptions in the 2000s then perhaps the techniques have changed, or maybe it's just the way they're described. Either way, we should summarize the sources and present all significant points of view, per WP:V and WP:NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
A big help with previous issues has been to collect citations from reliable sources in a sub-page. That makes it easier to assess the field and give appropriate weight to all significant viewpoints. In this case, we're dealing with perhaps two distinguishable aspects of the teachings: the meditation techniques themselves, and the other teachings. Perhaps a separate page for each would work best.   Will Beback  talk  20:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the changes you just made, Will. I'd like to see something about the earlier sources and their descriptions of the meditation techniques. I don't have access to the Detroit newspapers from the summer of 1973. An article there was pretty revealing. Wowest (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The online archievs of the Detroit Free Press don't go back to the 1970s, but there is a microfilm archive at the Detroit public library that covers the period. In the meantime, we can compile sources at /sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Useful Source

from Gallagher/Ashcraft, Greenwood Publishing, section written by Ron Geaves. Note: Geaves was one of Rawat's earliest disciples. Jayen466 12:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. Patrick, Ted with Tom Dulack, Let Our Children Go!: By the man who rescues brainwashed American youth from sinister 'religious' cults pp. 214-215 (1976)E.P. Dutton & Company, ISBN 0-525-14450-1.
  2. Conway, Flo and Siegelman, Jim, "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change Second Edition pp 159 f (2005) Stillpoint Press, ISBN 0-38528928-6.
Category: