Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat

See also:

• Talk:Techniques of Knowledge
• Talk:Techniques of Knowledge/Archive 1
• Talk:Techniques of Knowledge/archive2
• Talk:Current teachings of Prem Rawat
• Talk:Current teachings of Prem Rawat/Archive 1
• Talk:Current teachings of Prem Rawat/Archive 2
• Talk:Past teachings of Prem Rawat
• Talk:Past teachings of Prem Rawat/Archive 1
• Talk:Past teachings of Prem Rawat/Archive 2

Orphaned references in Teachings of Prem Rawat

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Teachings of Prem Rawat's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hunt":

• From Techniques of Knowledge: Hunt, Stephen J. Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. 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. In turn, this brings a sense of well-being, joy, and harmony as one comes in contact with one's "own nature." The Knowledge includes four meditation procedures: Light, Music, Nectar and Word. The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher. Hence, the movement seems to embrace aspects of world-rejection and world-affirmation. The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion, but the adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full."
• From Prem Rawat: Hunt (2003)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up the lead

This sentence (2nd last of lead) is a repeat of the first sentence of the lead and should be removed - "The core of Rawat's teachings is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy within. And the last sentence does not accurately reflect the article and should be removed - "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses".Momento (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The latter sentence is well-sourced and thoroughly discussed. It is required for NPOV and removing it would be a serious violation of policy. This topic is under probation.   Will Beback  talk  02:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the article says- "His first western discourses were criticized by some religious scholars as evangelical and lacking in substance and for stressing direct experience over intellect or religious dogma". And it is surely beyond doubt that the second last sentence of the lead is a copy of the first.Momento (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss one thing at a time.   Will Beback  talk  02:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In checking the history, I see that, probably due to conflicting edits, the "intellectual content" was accidentally deleted by me from the body of the article.[1] I've corrected that error.   Will Beback  talk  02:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look at the sources you cite, Melton and Schnabel and can't find anything about Rawat's talking. If Kent is the only source it should be removed from the lead and his full quote included in the article.Momento (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about?   Will Beback  talk  06:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely it's clear. You have used Melton and Schnabel as sources for your edit and I can't see anything in their material that refers to Rawat's talking.Momento (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

First, I reinstated material that you added, which I accidentally deleted as part of another edit a few minutes later.[2] Second, we've discussed this material a few dozen times. I don't want to be rude, but I really think you need to review the past discussions rather than bringing up everything all over again as if the past never occurred. It's all in the archives.   Will Beback  talk  07:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The past is long gone. Please provide sources for this - "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses". or I will delete it from the article and the lead..Momento (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about, it's cited right in the article, with page numbers of a reference even! If you remove this without a better cause, I will revert immediately. FYI, there's also an additional reference from Downton which no one's bothered to include, probably because it's unnecessary to add more to a common criticism of Rawat. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you checked the sources? Only Melton says "The teachings of the Mission, particularly the public discourses of Maharaj Ji, were condemned as lacking in substance". There's nothing in Schnabel and Kent also says " I listened incredulously as my companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received. In fact, they were so moved by the guru's words that they made tentative plans to return the next day to pay homage to him by kissing his feet. I was flabbergasted, stunned." Barret says "The experience is an individual, subjective experience rather than a body of dogma, and in its Divine Light days the movement was sometime criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect. Hunt says "For Elan Vital, the emphasis is on individual, subjective experience, rather than on a body of dogma." So why do we only have the criticism of Rawat's talks in the lead and none of the context? And none of the praise? Momento (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As you know because you've quoted it before, Schnabel wrote what can be translated as :

• The intelligent, ever-changing Bhagwan who gives daily performances is not more a charismatic leader than the pampered materialistic and intellectually quite unremarkable Maharaj Ji.

So we have sources that say the teaching is "intellectually quite unremarkable", that they "were condemned as lacking in substance", they were criticized for stressing "emotional experience over intellect", they "emphasized formal structure without substantive content", and that his parables are "banal". There is a source that says "The real problem, from this humble observer's perspective, was one of content, or should we say, lack of content. They didn't have much to say, and they said it over and over again. [..] He's ... far from eloquent, and ... you hear repetitive, empty aphorisms." So there are plenty of sources to support that simple summary.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There are three sources cited for the lead sentence. Schnabel in comparing Rawat to Bhagwan disqualifies him as a source for the sentence, since compared to a midget Rawat is tall but we can't say "Schnabel says Rawat is tall". The fact that Kent describes that his companions "spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received. In fact, they were so moved by the guru's words" means that must also be included in any quote of his. And Melton only talks about "as lacking in substance". Of the two sources quoted in the article Hummel says "1975 in Orlando/Florida, he spoke in a language similar to American evangelical campaigners". And Kranenborg doesn't mention Rawat talking. Not one says "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses". And please don't confuse what "they said" , the lead sentence clearly says "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses". The only source of any value is Melton for "lacking in substance"and one source is not suitable for a place in the lead.Momento (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I just quoted material from six different sources. It sounds like you're discounting a scholarly source (Schnabel) simply because you think he should not compare Rawat to Osho. We've been over this material over and over.   Will Beback  talk  08:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not one of your sources say "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses". The closest is Melton's "lacking in substance" and if that's all there is, it shouldn't be in the lead. Perhaps you know of some other sources.Momento (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento, your arguments are specious and circular; and as Will points out, the material has been discussed beyond all reasonble limits. Unless you have new material to bring to the discussion you simply are not going to achieve any concensus for change - the fact that you don't like what is currently in the article is not a basis for further discussion.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If any of our sources had the exact same phrase then we'd be plagiarizing them. It's a fair summary of the half-dozen sources.   Will Beback  talk  11:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Back at the Rawat article there are seven sources that describe Rawat with exactly the same word - "charismatic" and you are trying to stop that from being in the lead. Here you can't find one source that links "Rawat" with "intellectual content" and yet you insist that it should be in the lead. "Intellectual" comes from something the DLM was criticised for ( Divine Light... the movement was sometime criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect). As WP:SYN says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources". Momento (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Service, Satsang and Meditation

I finally found a source who talks about these things as central to his teachings. It is Reinhard Hummel. Shall I put it in? Rumiton (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think what would be best is of you put your proposed changes here so that everyone can see what exactly you would like to change/add/alter. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is reasonable. I was just testing the waters before I spend some time translating it. Rumiton (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. He writes that the "three principles [are] Meditation, Service and Satsang". Before that he talks about Prem Rawat's charisma as a Heilsmittler (a word which I cannot think of a way to fairly translate) and the attraction many found in his command to serve society and those in need. It gets difficult after that, because he seems to be suggesting that the DLM organisation got in the way of "service to society and the needy" and made "working for the organisation [the] preferred form of service." It's a bit ambiguous, but what is clear is that he promoted Service, Satsang (company of truth) and Meditation as his "principles". Rumiton (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And now where to suggest inserting these principles into the article? The article has developed by concentrating on Knowledge (the meditation techniques) but anyone who was there will agree with Hummel that it was a three-fold path. I think this is important. I'll keep looking for a way without a total rewrite. Rumiton (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

How about a new section in the main body:

Service, Satsang and Meditation

According to Reinhard Hummel, the three principles of Prem Rawat's teachings are Selfless Service, Satsang (company of truth) and Meditation (the Knowledge.)

Then a short reference to this in the lead. Rumiton (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

How about it, guys? Can we do it? Huh? Can we? Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the exact change/addition you'd like to make to the lead? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't know that until we get the Hummel info into the article in a form that is acceptable to everyone. Then we can make a summary of that for the lead. You know, the normal stuff. Rumiton (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In the absense of further comment, I shall make the change. Rumiton (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Obvious problems with that edit. It was undiscussed. I asked you above to show what exactly you'd like to add, you said you didn't know. Later, you waited 3 minutes (at what was 4am for me) after calling for further comments before making an edit. You created a section with a header that consisted of 1 sentence. None of that seems like a good idea to me. However, since you seem to have found something you'd like to work with, perhaps *now* you could post it here in talk, where it should have been first, so we can discuss it, and make the necessary changes. thanks. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Maelefique. The Service, Satsang Meditation material should be integrated into the "Teachings" section as per "Techniques of Knowledge".Momento (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Geez, Maelefique, and we were getting on so well! I posted it above. The heading and sentence is what I put up for discussion three DAYS, not minutes, before I put it in the main body. And as I said, the summary for the lead should reflect what we end up with for the article. I am perfectly open to suggestions about that. Rumiton (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, my even-handed and collegial spirit has won out. I can see that my post was misread. Service Satsang and Meditation was the heading of this section, but it was also the heading I wanted to put in the article, with an expandable sentence under it. Please read again in that light. Rumiton (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you combine Hummel and Galanter?Momento (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have Galanter. What does he have to offer? Rumiton (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote it a few paras up.Momento (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm confused, and still not ok with this going into the article undiscussed, but here's the timeline I see...

First, I ask:

• What is the exact change/addition you'd like to make to the lead? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

To which you reply:

• "I can't know that until we get the Hummel info into the article in a form that is acceptable to everyone... Rumiton (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)"

followed by:

• "In the absense of further comment, I shall make the change. Rumiton (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)" That's just after midnight on July 1.

then this:

• "Revision history of Teachings of Prem Rawat 04:32, July 1, 2010 Rumiton (talk | contribs) (37,571 bytes) (→Teachings: added the 3 principles.) "

I'm not sure where my 3 minutes came from, but that doesn't look like 3 days to me either... just after midnight, and then the change was made 3 hours later (maybe hours instead of minutes? but still, in the middle of the night?!) Both on July 1, and after I had asked you here explicitly to show me what you wanted in the article, and you said you didn't know. Further, the result isn't good enough either, since it leaves you with a 1 sentence section. I'm going to revert again until it's discussed, not because I'm so strongly opposed to the text (although I believe it still needs work), but I'm strongly opposed to not following the process. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit surreal. I suggested including the Hummel material on 28 June (in the middle of the night? Whose night are we talking about?) You say, "perhaps *now* you could post it here in talk." Have a look above, I already posted it on 28 June. See the line: How about a new section in the main body: and what followed. There was no discussion, which I took for agreement. I explained that I didn't think the lead should be changed until the article had become stable with the new information. Will someone perhaps explain to me where I went wrong? Rumiton (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, read it all three times... is this what you're saying is the edit you were proposing? "According to Reinhard Hummel, the three principles of Prem Rawat's teachings are Selfless Service, Satsang (company of truth) and Meditation (the Knowledge.) Then a short reference to this in the lead. Rumiton (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)" It had no context to it whatsoever, I thought this was a topic you wanted to discuss, not a verbatim edit you wanted to perform. Also, I see where I asked what you wanted to specifically put in the article, and I mentioned the word "lead", because I was still dealing with the lead issue over at PR, and because you referred to it as well. I was talking about the same thing you were. I didn't realize from what you said that you were suggesting that actual sentence should be in the article, and it doesn't appear that Momento did either. I don't see where you started out your comment with something like "I would like to add this to the article, in a separate section, "blah blah blah" (I'm paraphrasing) :) , and that's why I didn't see where you had proposed it. Having said that, while I have no problem with putting the info into the article, I still think that leaves us with the problem of format. I'm still not feeling happy with the single sentence section idea. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Once again I agree with Maelefique. Rumiton you need to be a bit patient and read what people write. You ask me above about Galanter's material which is five paras up from your question about it, so you obviously didn't read my contribution to this discussion. And therefore ignored my input and a valuable source. To summarise, I agree S,S & M should be in the article if RSs are found. There are two RS so far which should be summarised and proposed for inclusion in the article. When there is general agree as to its inclusion and form then you put it in. The next question is "Should it go in the lead" and my feeling is that two sources in the article for two sentences are barely enough for inclusion in the lead but I know there are many other sources that refer to satsang and service individually if not as part of the S,S and M platform.Momento (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I missed that. It's Mealefique's fault, he was really ticking me off and I lost concentration. :-) I'll have a look now. I don't see any urgency to even think about the lead right now, don't know where that came from. Let's try to make the article body more informative first. Rumiton (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be difficult to combine the two, they would need to be cited separately, I think. Galanter seems to be saying that service was exclusively assisting the organisation in spreading the Knowledge. Hummel, while acknowledging that this happened, describes it as a narrowing of the universal idea of service "to society and the needy," the practise which led to Prem Rawat's father becoming known as "the guru of the poor." He states that Prem Rawat taught the same ideas that his father had taught, and this narrowing of definition stemmed from the Divine Light Mission's coming to regard their master as "Satguru" and the "Perfect Master of the Time" and ascribing to him the role of "Saviour" (not the exact translation). I will think some more of a way to put this which is true to both sources. Rumiton (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

On second and third thoughts, perhaps they are complimentary. Galanter is describing the same phenomenon as Hummel...the idea that service was only considered service if performed directly for the guru. But Hummel describes this as a weakening of his and his father's message of service to humanity and the poor. He attributes it to the view of Prem Rawat which was popularised by the Divine Light Mission, that he was Satguru, the Perfect Master and Saviour of the Age. He states (these are my words) that this religious attitude was "calculated" to undermine the central tenets of his message "from the start". It's interesting stuff. I don't think some people are going to like it. Rumiton (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) It's getting hard to follow the conversations in this section, but in reference to "ok, no problem" above, I don't think we need to blame anyone, if I get the chronology right and the intent now, I can see it was a misunderstanding of who was saying what and when, and what they meant by it. If we're all on the same page now (no pun intended), I think this information could go into the article as soon as we flesh it out a bit more. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, no one is blamed. Let's proceed with the fleshing. Rumiton (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I need to consult a native German speaker about the translation of certain of Hummel's words and phrases. I'll get back here soon. Rumiton (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There's also some material somewhere about DLM settings up medical clinics etc that were cut back because of the Millennium debt.Momento (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you remember where that material is? Perhaps it is connected to info on the old World Welfare Association, which was a charity he started in the early 70's. Rumiton (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of English-language sources.

• Only Maharaj Ji has the key to it and only his appointed mahatmas or initiators may give Maharaj Ji's knowledge. This crucial fact that knowledge may only be revealed by Maharaj Ji, legitimates the leader's supremacy to the believers and ensures that seekers achieve these benefi ts from a single source. This immediately creates a bond between tbose who have knowledge and sets them apart from those without. This membership bond is an essential precondi tion for organization. Two other requisites cement the collectivity of premies into a social organization. Not only are all premies enjoined to practise meditation on the knowledge, they are also required to do service and attend satsang. Service is concerned with any kind of endeavour which promotes the work of Maharaj Ji and his mission. All officials and volunteers at functions are doing service; any premie who earns money to donate to the mission or to Maharaj Ji is doing service; even work done with a loving and giving heart is so regarded. Satsang literally means 'holy discourse' or 'the company of truth'. Satsang takes place whenever a premie speaks to someone else 'from within his heart' about the experience of knowledge, the love of Guru Maharaj Ji or the necessity of meditation. In practice, premies tend to meditate according to private schedules, to do service when called upon by those who do the organizing (a service too) and to hold Satsang together regularly, several times a week. This is what is expected of them by Maharaj Ji and the mission functions partly to bring premies together for Satsang as often as possible.
  • The Divine Light Mission as a social organization. Sociological Review, 27, Page 279-296/1979 By Maeve Price
• Anctil described the mission as "a group of individuals who live autonomously, practice a meditation and do selfless service. The Maharaj Ji is a spiritual inspiration for those people who do meditation."
  • Associated Press
• Meditation, satsang (which is discourse on the Knowledge), and service are salient spiritual practices in the Mission. These practices, as well as devotion to the guru, are thought to bring the premie into closer contact with the spirit. Thus, premies believe that the most promising way to make a fundamental change in themselves and to break out of the cycle of war, hatred, and violence in the world is to cultivate a deeper relationship to God through spiritual practice and surrender.
  • An Evolutionary Theory of Spiritual Conversion and Commitment: The Case of Divine Light Mission* JAMES V. DOWNTON, JR Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1980,19 (4): 381-39
• The Mission fortifies this inclination by offering the Truth within, the bliss that comes with practicing the meditation techniques, attending satsang, and doing service.
  • Worshiping the Absurd: The Negation Of Social Causality Among The Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji Daniel A. Foss Ralph W. Larkin Sociological Analysis, 1978, 39, 2:157-16
• Devotees are told from the beginning that Sat Sang and service are as necessary as the meditation to the realization of the knowledge. At this juncture all three activities begin to overlap, and in this context one is able to observe the activities of this burgeoning religious movement as a social movement with potential implications for the rest of the social order. This, then, is where one begins to look at "manifestations of the knowledge" on the group level. [..] Most hold full-time jobs outside the ashram and put in two hours of service in the evening; all adhere to a rigid schedule of Sat Sang, service, and meditation from 5:30 to 10:30.
  • Guru Maharaj Ji and the The Divine Light Mission JEANNE MESSER
• Besides, there are very few specific regulations. Meditation, satsang, and service are the three musts for a devotee. But, aside from the somewhat rigid schedule of those who live in an ashram, it is left to the individual to determine the amount of time allotted to these obligations. The three are placed in a personal context for they all have the Guru as their object. Meditation is on that Knowledge given by Guru Maharaj Ji; satsangs frequently dwell on the grace the Guru has bestowed so generously on the devotee; and service is primarily directed towards the Guru or to activities to which the Guru has assigned priority.
  • THE GURU: PERCEPTIONS OF AMERICAN DEVOTEES OF THE DIVINE LIGHT MISSION John A. Saliba HORIZONS 7/1 (1980), 69-81
• ... the central activities of satsang, service, and meditation, which, for members, provide the whole rationale and basis for the organization.
  • Jim Kemeny, COMMENT On Foss, Daniel A. and Ralph W. Larkin. 1978. "Worshiping the Absurd: The Negation of Social Causality Among the Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji." Sociological Analysis 39, 2:157-164.

Based on these sources, it may be more appropriate to characterize it more as a requirement than as a mere teaching. It's not clear if it was only related to the DLM period, or if this continues to be a current "teaching".   Will Beback  talk  04:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Will. It seems this article needs quite a lot of work, focused as it is on the meditation techniques. I agree the word "teaching" doesn't do it (he really has never taught anything) but I can't suggest how else to describe SSM. The word used above, "enjoined", comes pretty close, but it isn't in everyday use. "Requirement" isn't quite right. "Recommended" is pretty close -- if you didn't want to do it, you walked. And yes, he hasn't changed his advice. Most current premies do their service through the TPRF, either as direct supporters of his work or in its international charity projects. Rumiton (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Requirement" seems to be correct, based on the sources. ("required", "necessary", "musts", etc) If one didn't engage in SSM, could one still be a part of the movement or a student of Prem Rawat? FWIW, I believe I saw that the brother also teaches (or whatever) SSM. While it'd be nice to say more about this topic, there don't seem to be many sources that go into much detail. Does anyone have better sources than those I've quoted above? If not, then there's might be enough here for a couple of sentences, which will be partly redundant with what we have in the DLM article.   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't much mind "requirement". Re your question; yes, quite a lot of people never seemed to do anything at all, but they stayed around and still show up whenever Prem Rawat is in town. They are definitely considered students. The ashrams were different, of course, if you went in there you had to work hard and behave very strictly. Hummel is a good source for this. I have asked a translating colleague for some advice, as Hummel uses some academic terms I am not 100% sure about. Rumiton (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding his brother Satpal, I am sure he would be teaching exactly what their father taught them, but I have never read anything in English about his work. Rumiton (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you use a foreign-language source, could you please provide the excerpt being cited in its native language?   Will Beback  talk  11:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In reviewing the sources, it appears that most of them refer to the mission or to the practices of followers, and all of them are from before 1981. Would it be better to expand the existing coverage in the DLM article and just have a short summary and link from this article?   Will Beback  talk  07:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are suggesting. Rumiton (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The DLM article has a section titled "Beliefs and practices" which already covers SSM. I'm suggesting using these sources to expand that section. For this article, a sentence or so saying the Rawat and the DLM advocate/require/recommend SSM, and a brief description. Before we do that, are there more recent sources that discuss SSM and Rawat?   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a small problem with that. The DLM is a long-defunct organisation, as Elan Vital soon will be. His teachings (if we have to call them that) were not part of DLM and have not changed, so they require their own article. The only relevance for newer sources might be regarding the formation and progress of TPRF, an organisation formed to help him spread knowledge and to provide service to humanity. Quotes regarding his current day teachings about service, etc. are abundant on their website and show their continuity. Rumiton (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Look at the sources - Do any of them discuss Elan Vital, or WOPG? No, they are all from before 1980. Thirty years ago. We don't have any sources that even say this is still a part of the program. "His teaching were not part of the DLM"? That makes no sense to me. SSM is closely connected to the DLM, so if those weren't Rawat's teachings then they certainly don't belong here. If there is a recent self-published website that describes SSM then we can use that here, but I don't see any. The other sources all seem to refer to DLM and the DLM era. Our job is to summarize those with the neutral point of view, not to impart the truth we know.   Will Beback  talk  20:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is my 4th attempt at replying. I need to go offline for a few days to sort out my computer problems. Rumiton. 114.77.242.145 (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am back with a working computer. The problem I see is that to attach SSM only to the DLM article is to suggest SSM were a defunct organisation's teachings rather than Prem Rawat's. Sources such as the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance tell us that TPRF was founded by Prem Rawat to "to promote and disseminate to the general public the speeches, writings, music, art and public forums of Prem Rawat; to support, fund, and promote humanitarian initiatives for the relief of physical hunger and thirst through practical and tangible means; and to provide relief to natural disaster victims worldwide." This is Satsang and Service; the Meditation is in the Keys. It seems to me this continuity can and should be reflected in this article. Rumiton (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back to Cyberia. All of the sources talk about the DLM, or date from the DLM period. The BBB source is obviously a second-hand, though still reliable, primary source for TPRF's self description. If we want to cite it for the fact that TPRF is intended to "to promote and disseminate to the general public the speeches, writings, music, art and public forums of Prem Rawat;.." then we can do that. However that is not SSM by name, and we shouldn't decide on our own that it is and call it that in the article. Prem Rawat didn't invent SSM. At a minimum, he inherited it from his father and the DLM. It's also taught by his brother, Satpal, IIRC.   Will Beback  talk  13:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss the 2nd part, about service to humanity? Of course he didn't invent the concept, but he has been teaching it consistently since arriving in the west, at least. If we don't want to call it SSM, we can draw synonyms from the sources. The link still needs to be made. Rumiton (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I got that. The general point is that most references refer to the DLM, so that material should go in the DLM article. The BBB/TPRF self-description is usable, but we can't draw any conclusions or make any linkages. At most, we can place it next to a discussion of SSM, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. But the problem is that since TPRF has no direct connection to Prem Rawat, we'd be discussing what it does rather than what he teaches, so I don't see how we could even frame it for this article.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see his connection to TPRF as problematic, they describe him as "the founder of TPRF." But I don't have a problem with saying that he started that charity in the same paragraph as his teaching SSM. I am still working on the translation of Hummel, which gives a bit more light on this subject. Clarifying some ambiguities is proving more difficult that I thought. The thrust of Hummel's research is the suggestion that PR has continued his father's work as "the Guru of the poor," but that the guru-devotee relationship which was fostered by the organisation worked to narrow that focus down to doing service only to him, not to humanity. Rumiton (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll be interested in seeing that when it's ready.   Will Beback  talk  10:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Satsang, Service, and Meditation were taught by Prem Rawat, but I never, ever, not even once, heard that "Service" was supposed to be "service to humanity," or in anyway anything remotely close to serving anyone other than Guru Maharaj Ji, or Prem Rawat himself. The closest thing to "Service to humanity" was to support Rawat's work and he has never spoken about giving money or selfless work to other people. To try to finesse the wording in this teachings article, to make it appear that the teachings of SS&M, (which are terms that have long been obsolete in this NRM and are no longer used by Rawat) is to rewrite the true and realistic history of this NRM and the teachings of Rawat. It would be a distortion of Rawat's core teachings to describe "Service" as anything but service to Rawat alone. "Service" was always taught by Rawat as "service to Guru Maharaj Ji," period, the end. Btw, there probably isn't a reference to it, but the other part of the teachings besides SS&M, was Darshan. So Rawat didn't just demand that "premies must do Satsang, Service, and Meditation," he also taught they must also go to see him, whenever they could. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember the World Welfare Association? I recall him talking about relieving the suffering of people when I was an aspirant, but the idea we should try to do something outside of service to him was poo-pooed by my coordinator. Anyway, it is what Hummel says that is relevant, not our recollections. The problem I am having there is that he makes his points over several pages, so I can't just grab quotes out. (I also agree that darshan was an important part of it.) Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Many of the scholars discuss darshan, but the main source would obviously be Lucy DuPertuis How People Recognize Charisma: The Case of Darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission Sociological Analysis 1986, 47, 2.111-124.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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