Talk:Hans Maharaj

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not understand...[edit]

I do not understand Jossi why you removed the statement that Maharaji became the guru of the DLM. Why? Thanks in advance. Andries 05:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because you are using "guru" as a demeaning term. That is intentional POV and you know it.
Maharaji did not became the guru of the DL, because DLM was an organization. The term guru connotes a relatonship between a student and a teacher. It has nothing to do with an organization. At least not in the case of Maharaji. I will revert it, unless you explain why it is important to make that characterization. -- ≈ jossi ≈ 16:43, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Because every objective outsider would agree that he was a guru. Even David V, Barrett The New Believers Sects, "Cults" and Alternative Religions (page 325) who writes very sympathetic about Elan Vital writes this. I really think you have lost common sense if you think that he was not a guru. I have never read in any English dictionary that "guru" is a pejorative word. If you have an English dictionary that says so then please let me know. Andries 17:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am not arguing that he was a not guru. What I am arguing about is that you are using the word guru in a demaning maner that reflects your POV. I will attempt to write it within NPOV so you can see my point. -- ≈ jossi ≈ 19:17, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
I am asking a question over on the Elan Vital talk page about Prem Rawat's relationship to the Elan Vital organization, and I suspect a similar fact inclusion here would be useful: can we establish and document in this article (and/or in the DLM article) a particular organizational relationship between Prem Rawat and the DLM? Or, if there is a dispute about the nature of that relationship, can we instead document that dispute in the article? --Gary D 21:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wim Haan writes that Hans was a member of the arya Samaj. The article says Brahmo Samaj. Somebody must have made a mistake. Andries 15:05, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Haan is wrong. Shri hans was a member of the Brahmo Samaj. reverted. --≈ jossi ≈ 15:54, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Gary, that anonymous website is just a copy and paste job from and the satpal website. It is hardly worth mentioning in such a short article. I left it but added some clarifications: a) this is not a group, b) clearly the work of a loner, c) clearly a spoof (no one that considers Hans as a true teacher will publish the techniques of Knowledge).

Also, as there is a dispute, it is important to show some of the achievements for Prem Rawat. As it reads now, the article is imbalanced. I am puting back some of the text. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:25, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Hans Ji had two wives[edit]

He had a daughter by his first wife, and speculation is that this disappointed him as he wanted sons, so he married again. I can't remember his first wife's name so I don't intend to edit the article, but just thought you guys would like to know. :-)--John Brauns 20:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did he have a real name ?[edit]

All we know in this article are his titles. Nothing about his parentage, exact birthplace ,education and so on. Maybe Rawat knows but i am not sure. If this information would be available it would be in the article already, i guess.Thomas h 06:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original Dutch.[edit]

Please provide the original Dutch of the alleged quote on the reference as required. If the author provided a citacion for that quote, it would be very useful. Thank you. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 22:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original was English as mentioned in the references incl. author and book title and page nr. but Kranenborg translated it into Dutch and I translated it back into English. Here is the translation from English by Kranenborg.
"In 1966 verklaart Sri Hans hoe machtig hij eigenlijk was [In 1966 Sri Hans declared how powerful he really was]:
"Heer Rama was een incarnatie van God die veertien soorten goddelijke kracht bezat. Heer Krishna was een incarnatie van God, die zesentwintig soorten goddelijke kracht bezat. Maar ik ben geheel volmaakt en de meester van al de vierenzestig goddelijke krachten."
The quote is unambigous and I don't think there is any room for translation mistakes. Andries 22:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does Kranenborg provides a sourve for the quote? I am just curious to know the source. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 22:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the source is Messer. Please read the references. Andries 22:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am just looking for the source. Or is this another example of a circular reference? Where did Messer sourced the quote from. Also, please avoid adding your interpretations of what Shri Hans said. The quote speaks for itself and does need your help. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 22:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know where Messer got the quote from. Andries 23:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry about it. I am looking at this. Hopefully I can find out from were this quote came from and if possible the original Hindi. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 23:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss your edit here and not in the summary. My argument is that you cannot add your own interpretation of quotes. According to your citacion from Kraneborg, that addition is incorrect. Deleted. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 22:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will move the quotes to wikiquote where they belong and will make a summary of his claim to be more powerful than Krishna. This is a notable fact that Kranenborg mentions. Why do you want to deviate from this? Andries 23:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not agree with your assertion that I provide and interpretation of the "more powerful than Krishna quote". I provide a short accurate summary. That is something different and fully allowed in Wikipedia. Andries 23:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Andries, despite our obvious differences, we can edit these articles if we remain calm and proper. You first add an interpretation that was not sourced, then you claimed that Kranenborg said it. Then I asked for the citacion only to prove that it was not said by Kraneborg. Then you try and "fix" it. I would say that it is difficult to edit in an environment in which I cannot trust my fellow editors. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 23:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some quotes are useful in WP articles (you were the first one to add a quote). No need to delete and move to Wikiquote. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 23:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not make an interpretation of the quote. I made an accurate short summary which is fully allowed and makes the article easier to read. Andries 23:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the quote
"Lord Rama was an incarnation of God who possessed 14 types of divine power. Lord Krishna was an incarnation of God who possessed 26 types of divine power. But I am fully perfect and the master of all the 64 divine powers"
and here is my version. "In 1966 he claimed to be more powerful than Krishna" Is this an interpratation or an accurate summary? To me, it is clearly the latter. Andries 23:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if I had something to hide then I could easily have omitted Kranenborg's introduction of the quote. I have the right as an editor to make this logically correct and accurate summary of the quote. Please tell me what in the summary of the quote you find inaccurate. Andries 23:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is that it is not needed. The quote speaks for itself. I do not see any reason for summarizing a self-explanatory quote. Unless you are editorialzing, that is. Please leave the quote alone. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 23:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will think about it but I think I will disagree. Short summaries are easier to read than longer quotes. Andries 23:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am glad that you chose to think about it. These minutae edits take a lot of our valuable Wikitime. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 23:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is the original English quote that I found on the internet on the anonymous website.

"As Maharaji has said: "You know not the value of this human frame. It is the greatest blessing of God to you. You are wasting your breaths in the pursuits of worldly life. Let every breath be spent in meditation on God. You know not the greatness of the Guru. Lord Rama was an incarnation of God, enjoying 14 types of divine powers. Lord Krishna was an incarnation of God, having 16 types of divine powers. But I am all perfect, and am the master of all 64 divine powers. None can match the greatness of the Guru."

Andries 19:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That quote is from a book called "Satguru", published in the 70's. I am trying to locate the original Hindi transcript of these quotes to confirm the English translation. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 04:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original hindi[edit]

As I suspected, this translation was done by someone that did not respect the original Hindi and added superlatives and exagerations that were not in the original discourse. I have sourced both the manuscript of the transcript as well as the book in which it was published in Hindi. I will provide these with a correct translation in a day or so, and replace with the corrected translation. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 07:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The material under the succession heading is unworthy of an encyclopedia. It says that Bob Mishler, who may or may not be an authoritative observer, heard something from someone else that a particular series of events may have occurred. Perhaps the article should state something like 'The deceased Bob Mishler is purported to have heard someone else say this about the succession...' Given that so much of this material is speculative, it does not contribute anything to an informed discussion (either for or against). Therefore, I will remove/rewrite this paragraph unless any evidence can be provided to support Mishler's claims.

The paragraph following it is unattributed as well. It purports to be factual, but is just a continuation of Mishler's statement about something someone else told him.

It is also worth noting that very little on this website is about Shri Hans or his work and teaching. This needs to be remedied.

++Armeisen 05:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)#Reply[reply]

Maybe you can ask your sources about Hans' real civilian name. Handling only with honorable titles of which there are thousands in India that you can get confused with, would be a worthy entry in an encyclopedia Thomas h 08:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with Armeisen about his wish to exclude Mishler's version of the succession from the article. Clearly the assessment of Mishler's credibility is a subjective thing. In such cases, I think, it is important to give the reader all the background information and let him/her decided, not the editors of Wikipedia. I also disagree with Zappaz' edit that Mishler's version is impossible to verify: people like Satpal who were there have not passed away. Andries 10:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The assessment of Mishler's credibility is not at all subjective. In fact, there is no judgment of his credibility at all. There is no evidence in the article that is credible. It would not matter if Mishler was the most credible person who had ever walked the planet. The fact is that his evidence is not evidence, it is hearsay. An encyclopedia presents facts, not vacuous statements about what somebody heard. Hence, I have deleted this material. ++Armeisen 11:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I do not agree. Let the reader decide whether Mishler is credible, not the editors of Wikipedia. There is every reason to believe that Mishler as an ex-President of the American DLM and confidant of Rawat had inside knowledge. Hence his version should be included. I will revert. Andries 13:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reader can only decide on the basis of the information that is provided. An encyclopedia presents material that can be readily verified; that is accurate. The fact is that, according to Mishler's account, he heard something. Unverifiable. Even Mishler's account is a radio interview. In the real world, the transcript of a radio interview is not a legitimate document on which to base an argument, unless it in itself can be verified against other information. Let us take the example of someone who was once close to you, Andries, say an ex-lover. In a radio interview, that ex-lover reports that he or she had heard from another source that you were a child molester. That ex-lover then died. Would we then leave it to the reader to decide? On the basis of that information alone? I think not, even though some might claim that the ex-lover had inside knowledge. I have reverted. ++Armeisen 20:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are only doubtful sources available for the event of the succession and so we have to live with the doubtful sources and mention them all. If you only want information that can be readily verified and is accurate then please go the article Jesus and delete there 99% and see how quickly you will get reverted. What matters is that the existence and text of the interview of Mishler can be verified. Andries 20:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have to understand that my private life is not important but the succession and the private life of a perfect master are important. Many of those religious founders have an inner circle who have inside information who disseminate important information that is difficult to verify. This is very frustrating for everybody involved but we have to mention this information because it is relevant for the biography. The belief system that they promote hinges around their credibility. Andries 20:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you comparing Jesus with Maharaji? I thought you objected to that? I'm not making that comparison. The life and work of Jesus is verified in many documents. Maharaji's succession is somewhat closer to us. The fact remains that an interview with someone which is alleged to have taken place is not evidence. It cannot be verified. But, even if it were able to be verified, the evidence is hearsay. Mishler did not know that it occurred, but heard about it from an unverifiable source. It's not information, it's gossip.
I do understand that your private life is not important. You miss the point. The point is that anything can be said about anyone. But we don't accept that as a source of action, or belief about someone. In this day and age, that should be obvious. As human beings, we have the responsibility to discriminate. Just because someone says something, does not make it factual. Just because someone said that they heard from someone else is even less believable. To continue to make the statement indicates only the degree to which you want it to be true. ++Armeisen 23:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I continue to disagree. It is not true that there are many documents about the life of Jesus and I think that the comparison is appropriate because the evangelists did not mention their sources and are dead, just like Mishler, but their stories are in Wikipedia anyway. I do not see the difference. Andries 16:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your argument does not provide any information that is useful for this discussion. Please address this:

  1. It is hearsay
  2. From unnamed source

In any other article, this material will not pass the litmus test for inclusion. A short mention would be more than necessary. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 18:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As can be read in the article cult according to Mikael Rothstein, the biography or religiouis founders is often shrouded in mysteries and myths and hence we should use for this article whatever source is available. Exactly the same for Jesus, as I had already argued. Andries 18:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Purported mysteries and myths do not warrant the inclusion of hearsay. Hearsay can be mentioned as such and as a footnote. That is exactly what I have done in my last edit. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 18:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you think that hearsay should not be included then go tell the editors that at Jesus and if you have convinced them of that then I will agree with the removal of Mishler's version. I have no objection to a summary of Mishler's version if it includes all important elements. Unfortunately you ommitted important elements in your summary. I know that a summary is difficult in this case because the story is quite complicated. Andries 21:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The story is onkly complicated because it is hearsay and without any burden of responsibility on the part of the teller for verifiability. He could have said anything he wanted. Hearsay, is hearsay, is hearsay, and there is absolutely anything we can do about this, Andries, unless we can find a direct source, a witness account that is verifiable. So, please stop adding these unverifiable accounts. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 03:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I continue to disagree. Andries 18:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A biographical article which 50% of its content is based on a second-hand account is not NPOV. Added tag. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 13:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, we don't even have Hans' birthname, though you could ask Rawat himself but don't dare to do so? Thomas h 07:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The external link of the Prem Rawat Maharaji website is fully on topic and I do not see any good reason why Jossi removed it. Andries 16:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not useful at all. Better would be to quote directly from Lane's book. As for the interview in a small local station with the hearsay by Mishler on that website, many of us have provided solid arguments why it is not encycloepdic and why it is unworthy of inclusion in this article or on linked external sites. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 18:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jossi, that link is fully on topic and has added value. Please do not remove it again. Andries 21:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC
The link is useless. Please do not add it again. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 03:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know you do not like the information and POV in the external link but please do not censor it. It is a legitimate external link according to Wikipedia:external links that states "4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is. " Andries 18:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. I have restored that link as a ref to Mishler hearsay paragraph. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 04:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The guidelines is about the external links. It does not discuss references. You seem to mix them up. And besides if we include in the article references for the Mishler interview then it should of course be the transcript of Mishler interview, not a short summary of the interview. Andries 10:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have discussed this to death. We have the link to the hearsay story as a reference to a summary of that hearsay. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 10:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, Jossi, may be there is a misunderstanding. What I meant to say is the following.
1. If we provide a reference for Mishler's story then it should of course be the complete transcript, not a summary of the transcript on the Prem Rawat Maharaji Info website.
2. There is a distinction between the external link section and the external reference section. You used the external link section guidelines to change the reference section, which is of course wrong.
You doubt my good faith, but when I try to explain you something then it takes much writing and explanations and quoting Wikipedia guidelines and policies here before you seem to understand. Andries 11:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The complete transcript extends beyond the possible inclusion on scope of this article, that is the succesion story. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 11:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References for Hans Maharaj's legal name[edit]

Jossi, could you please provide references for his legal name. Thanks. Andries 22:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Show me a place in WP in which references are needed for a name. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 03:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why the insistance of associating Hans Ji Maharaj with Sant Mat? If there are sources for that assertion we can pesent that in the bdoy of the article rather than in the intro. The term satguru is the correct one, "perfect master" being just a translation/interpretation of the meaning of "satguru". Satguru is already wiki-linked. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 07:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect Master is NOT the translation of Satguru. You can do better Jossi. Perfect Master is a term widely used with Sant Mat. The frequent naming of the Sikhgurus in satsangs as perfect masters by Hans and the "early" Rawat are pointing in that direction as well. In that kind of groups we have a melting of many influences like Radhasoami and others, which is a typical attitude of Sant Mat, like perfect master lineage and so on. Thomas h 09:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are so knowledgeable, please give us the Hindi, or Sanskrit word for "perfect master". If you find such word, you will see that it is सदगुरू , and that word transliterated is "sadguru" ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 12:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i don't find a word in sanskrit as equivalent to "perfect" such as "sat" or "sad" at the sanskrit- english translation machine at the universtity in colougn. The "perfect master" as established by Sant Mat has its origin in murshid-e kamil, which is probably urdu (and an arab derivate). The blending with hinduism through radhasoami and sat mat might have merged the different meanings of those terms "sadguru" and "perfect master" as it was more comfortable than the foreign tongue. But that doesn't mean that it is the translation of "satguru".As a matter of fact there should be more serious research on that matter instead of preferring the short cut style in favor of Rawat's wishes.Thomas h 17:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are you talking about? What whishes? what nonsense? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 04:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI, the main difference between Sat(d)Guru and Perfect Master is the exclusive lineage concept. Sadgurus may be special but not unique. The Perfect Master concept states that there is only one at a time on the planet. This was clearly proclamated by Rawat and his father, a clear sign of Sant Mat/Radhasoami influence. Thomas h 18:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are evading answering to my question: What is the original sanskrit from which the adjective "perfect master" is tranlated from. I would suggest that before you make assertions such as the one you made, that you first research the subject. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 04:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason why in this case references for the real name are necessary is because his real name is hardly known, unlike the real names in other biographies. Stating the real name without references breaks the rule of Wikipedia:verifiability. Andries 18:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unknown to you, maybe. What makes you think that it was unknown? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 04:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The real name of Hans cannot be found on the internet. Can you please provide sources. Andries 08:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why should I provide sourse for a name? If it cannot be found on the Internet, does not mean anything beyond that there is no website related to the subject. In India, amongst the hundreds of thousands that know about this person, his name is common knowledge. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 09:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is not on the internet then please provide at least a source in book form or pamflet, or whatever. I do not think that this common knowledge, because his monastic name is far more well known. I mean, if it were common knowledge then it must be stated somewhere, but I could not find it. Andries 10:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that you did not find in on the Internet, means only that. BTW, Hans Ji Maharaj is not his monastic name. Hans was is given name, "Ji" is a prefix given to show respect, and Maharaj means "king" or "master" and it is added to many titles of respected persons. So "Shri Hans Ji Maharaj" is just a way to express respect as in "Mr (Shri) Hans Ji (respected) Maharaj (your excellency)". As for "Yogiraj Param Hans Sadgurudev" it means "Master/King of Yoga, ultimate Hans divine satguru". Al flowery way to express repect to a beloved teacher in the cultural context of India. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 11:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I agree with most of your assertions, but the fact remains that the name of "Hans Ji Maharaj" is by far the one commonly used and there is until now no published source for his real name in this article. Can you please provide one? Thanks. Andries 11:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know if there is such a published source in English, but I may check if there is one in Hindi. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 11:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that references for his surname are not necessary, only his first names. After all, the surname of his sons Satya Pal and Prem Pal are public knowledge. Andries 17:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sant Mat/Radhasoami[edit]

I have plenty of references for the Sant Mat/Radhasoami background, but only in Dutch language. May be somebody has English references or German references. German references are somewhat better than Dutch because more people speak it. Andries 19:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are already articles about Sant Mat, Radha Soami, Surat Shabd, etc. These contain plenty of references in English. You may also contact User:RDF (Richard) that is very familiar with the subject. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 04:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides the fact that sadguru and "perfect master" are sometimes used synonymously which still doesn't proof that they are equivalent translations, it is a fact that sadguru and perfect master are used in different religious contextes. The "perfect master" or sadguru of which there is only one on the planet is clearly the sant mat/radhasoami context, Sarupapand was a advait-mat guru which is an early branch of radhasoami and Hans has had another initiation from a sant mat guru, according to david lane.Thomas h 17:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no such as word "perfect master" in Hindi that is distinct from Satguru, that I have found when asking Sanskrit scholars. What I have found is the mention of satguru and satgurudev alongside mentions of perfection as in teaching the perfect knowledge. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 01:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you may be right, yet the development from sadguru to perfect master might not be a lingual one but one of adapting an idea from one religion into another one, like with guru meaning "the one who leads you from darkness to light has no lingual roots but comes more from religious or poetical influence, which is a common phenomena, not only in india. If you consider the equation from zeus/jupiter in the roman empire, it doesn't mean the jupiter is the translation of zeus, but the reason for that lies elsewhere.Yet now you are avoiding the fact that there are different contextes how "perfect master" is used, especially the exclusive one where there is only one living perfect master at a time which points to sant mat and it's derivates, while sadguru in general hinduism are not limited on just one person. To me that states the strong heritage line fom sant mat/radhasoami where there is an obvious connection with hans, as reported by David Lane in his book "The Radhasoami Tradition". Why is that?Thomas h 09:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are incorrect about the ethymology of "guru". As early as the Upanishads: "The syllable gu means shadows. The syllable ru, he who disperses, the guru is thus named." Advayataraka Upanishad 14--18, verse 5. My argument is that regardless of what interpretation is given to "satguru", the fact is that there is no such a thing as "perfect master" in Hindi, other than "satguru". Also note that Lane is not the only person that researched the subject. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 09:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i think you are just proofing my assumptions. Since the Upanishads are not a dictionary and the sanskrit language doesn't serve with that meanings it obviously happened through religious/cultural influence that those meanings were added to those syllables, but can not be derived from original sanskrit. so what about the sant mat context, guckuck?Thomas h 14:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that the following persons have written authorative books about Radhasoami/Sant Mat
Julian Johnson [1] Path of the Masters (1939)
Mark Juergensmeyer Radhasoami Reality: The Logic of a Modern Faith (Princeton University Press, 1991); paperback edition, (1995);
David C. Lane who was Juergensmeyer's student The Radhasoami Tradition.
Andries 10:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jossi can you please give references for your scholars as i foud it puzzling when i step over explanations like this :

The Masters of the Surat Shabd Yoga over the last century are referred to as Sant, Satguru, Param Sant, and Perfect Living Master. Satguru means "True Light Giver." Param Sant means a "Saint from the Beyond."at [2]. What is that? True light giver is synomyous to perfect master? I think those meanings derive solely from religious feelings and are in no way scholarly proofable as derived from language translation Thomas h 14:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can discuss all this at Sant Mat, and not here. There are excellent editors that are experts in the subject. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 07:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of quotes[edit]

I object to the removal of quotes. There is no such guideline. Some quotes are most definitively a good addition as they provide useful context. I also object, as very clearly explained elsewere in this discussion page, to interpretations of quotes, as it is editorializing and uneeded. Also note that I have alreday stated that I found the original Hindi for that quote and said that it is wrongly translated, and that will make that interpretation even more wrong than it is now. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 07:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I have already replied to you objections and I continue to disagree
    • quotes should generally go to wikiquote. I do not see why this article should be an exception
    • I did not make an interpretation of the quote but an accurate summary which is fully allowed
    • short sentences and summaries of quotes are easier to read.
Andries 08:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Show me a guideline that specifies that a few quotes on a biographical article are not to be included and I will oblige. I can, on the other hand show you hundreds of articles in which quotes are included. As for your interpretation, it is such, unacceptable from NPOV, and disallowed. It is called editorializing. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 10:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no, it is fully allowed in Wikipedia and called good practices. Several serious biographies, like George W. Bush, Adolf Hitler, Jesus have their quotes in Wikiquote, not in the Wikipedia article. Andries 10:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem to re-insert the exact wording used by Kranenborg in the biography. This is NPOV because it follows the contents and structure of a scholarly article. I think it is an extreme and rather ridiculous consequence of your prohibiton of inserting an accurate summary of the quote. But if this is what it takes to solve the dispute then it is okay for me. Andries 10:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Note that it could have been more gracious of you if you had omitted characterizations of "ridiculous" and "extreme" in your comment. From these comments to escalate to personal attacks is just a small step, as you well know it. From my side of things, I want you to know that I will not get dragged into such low levels of uncivility as to engage in that kind of behavior myself. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 10:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good faith?[edit]

Andries, please help me in not assessing your contributions to this article as being made in bad faith. So far, your attitude in this article certainly makes it very difficult for me to accept that tey are made in good faith. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 10:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And how do you think that I perceive some of your actions in this article? I think that you systematically and unfairly marginalize and even remove alternative viewpoints, especially in external links and references, not just confining yourself to the main text in the article. Andries 10:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is what my research shows:

  1. The quote cited by by Glock and Bellah is a translation to English of a satsang by Hans Ji Maharaj given at the conclusion of a procession in Bombay in 1966, that appeared in the book "Satgurudev" (1970), Albion Press pp 10-11, that reads:
    "Lord Rama was an incarnation of God, enjoying 14 types of divine powers. Lord Krishna was an incarnation of God, having 16 types of divine powers. But I am all perfect, and am the master of all 64 divine powers. None can match the greatness of the Guru."
  2. Andries, strangely, rather than referencing the "Satgurudev" book, or the original cite by Glock and Bellah, he chose to include Kraneborg as the main reference, while using the translated text from the Satgurudev book. (???)
  3. The original Hindi of that statsang, available in the book named "Hans Puran" (1969), written by Mahendra Gupta (who, BTW, was the shorthand writer that documented most of Hans Ji Maharaj's satsangs), reads quite differently:
    "Only he is the true teacher (Satguru) who can show what are the religious and social obligations (dharma), show God to you, and give you the Knowledge of the holy name (sat nam). And he who can give you the Knowledge of this dharma is completely wise. Satguru is the one who has the perfect wisdom. And other than the Satguru no one has the perfect wisdom. Oh! People of the world! Only a perfect avatar with the sixty-four virtues (kalae) can reveal this Knowledge."

The quote in the "Satgurudev" book, was certainly enhanced, probably to provide context to English speakers that may not have been familiar with the fact that avatars such as Krishna had, according to tradition, the command of 14 vidyas (fields of knowledge, or sciences). But in the original Hindi, there are no mentions of Rama and Krshna in this quote.

The translation of kala as "powers" is also wrong. Kala, (plural Kalae) referes to attributes, virtues, and art forms. See below for the list of all 64 Kalae. Clearly, the "64 kalas" is used as metaphor to denote completness of knowledge, nothing more.

The writer of the Satgurudev book got more things mixed up:

  • The 14 "divine powers" refered to Krishna, are the 14 vidyas, not "divine powers".
  • The date given for the Bombay procesion in Satgurudev, is wrong. The procession took place in March 1966, and not January 1966. This is again, according to the date given by Mahendra Gupta in his Hans Puran, preceding the quote we are discussing.

I will replace the quote with the translation of the original Hindi transcript, in this and other articles in which it is included. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 11:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jossi, I do not mind if you insert the alternative version by Mahendra Gupta in his Hans Puran, but please do not remove the quote by C.L. Tandon's Satgurudev, after all several scholars (Messer, Kranenborg. Glock, Bellah) considered the quote to be authentic. If you consider the quote inauthentic due to your original research then this is okay and your alternative quote can be stated alongside the Tandon/Messer/Glock/Bellah quote. But please do not remove it. Andries 11:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No Andries, we disagree again. What I have done is not original research, but research that lead us to find the correct quote. The fact that these scholars relied on the "Satgurudev" translation that it is obviously mistaken, is maybe the topic for an essay on circular refences by scholars. Maybe we can create a separate article, named "Misinterpertation by scholars based on a wrong translation of Sri Hans words" and then proceed to deconstruct their theories. That could be fun. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 12:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia does not allow deviation from facts that are generally accepted by the majority of scholars, no matter wrong and how misguided these scholars are. Deviation is called Wikipedia:No Original Research. So according to Wikipedia policy I could simply removed your alternative version, but that would be unnecessarily strict. I have to admit that in this case these scholars were probably wrong. Andries 12:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These scholars are citing a book in which the translation is completely wrong. This is not the case of "fact accepted by scholars", but a case of a tainted source misleading these scholars. As this is encyclopdedic, I have added some commentary to this effect as well as the quote from "Satgurudev". ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 12:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia does not care if all scholars are wrong. Wikipedia reflects the opinions of scholars without comments. Andries 12:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the article I am not asserting that these scholars are either right or wrong. I am just providing information, that is the quote from the original Hindi transcript, alongside the quote from the Satgurudev book. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 12:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jossi, you are asserting that they are wrong in the article by stating "incorrect translation." Andries 12:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the assertion is not mine, but the result of sourcing the original Hindi quote. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 12:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You found the satsang date etc. You did the translation yourself. and from these results you concluded that these scholars are wrong. That is original research. I guess you are probably right that they are wrong, but it is not allowed to write down your personal conclusions in the article. Andries 12:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The date of the satsang are in Hans Puran and Satgurudev
  • When you translate from the Dutch your Dutch scholars, you never call that original research. So why are you calling this translation (not mine, BTW my Hindi is minimal) original research? You even translated Kraneborg cite 'in this article! Should we then proceed and remove all citations from Wim Haan, Van der Lans and Schabel, shall we? (just remember you diatribe against Zappaz about your aversion to double standards)
  • I have not written any conclusions. Show me where? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 13:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your comparisons and translations result in a quote that contradicts generally accepted facts by scholars, unlike mine translations. That is the difference. Andries 13:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stop calling this a "generally accepted fact", because it is not. This is a simple situation in which scholars used only one source they had available to make wide ranging assertions about a certain topic. Shit like this happens. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 13:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jossi, how do you know whether Mahendra Gupta and C.L. Tandon are referring to the same satsang? The months are different. I mean this is original research. Andries 12:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is what I mean that it is difficult for me to accept your contributions in good faith. Seems that you would do anything to dismiss the new material that has been found, just because it contradicts your POV. There was only one procession in Bombay in 1966 and it was notable because it was Hans Ji Maharaj's last procession before he passed away (he passed away a few mohths later). Both Tandon and Gupta refer to this in their books.≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 12:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't know. Please do not confusion ignorance with lack of good faith. Thanks. Andries 13:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And please take into account that I have the right (and may be even the duty) to be skeptical as a contributor of Wikipedia when you write down things that contradict generally accepted facts by scholars. In contrast to what you assert, this is not an indication of lack of good faith, but an indication of genuine good faith. Andries 15:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry Andries, but deeds are stronger than words. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 15:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 64 Kalas (arts)[edit]

  1. Histrionic Talents, Drama, story telling techniques, mnemonics etc.,
  2. Making musical Instruments, simple mechanical devices etc.,
  3. Playing Musical Instruments (i.e.) Instrumental music including jalatarangam- creating music with water, percussion and string instruments.
  4. Decorating, Dressmaking, costume making, artful dressing and personal grooming.
  5. Ornaments and head adornments
  6. Singing and Dancing , practicing fine arts
  7. Making beds, Bedroom decorations
  8. Garland making, flower arrangement, designs with grains on the floor like Rangoli
  9. Playing games like dice
  10. Mastering eroticism as per Vatsyayana, erotic devices and sexual arts
  11. Making honey, liquor , beverages and desserts
  12. Plucking out arrows and healing
  13. Cooking, eating and drinking skills
  14. Horticulture, forestry
  15. Breaking and pulverizing hardrock, mining
  16. Making Medicines from herbs
  17. Sorting, Mixing, Isolating


  1. Making and using Astras and Sustras
  2. Wrestling, Boxing, Gymnastics, physical culture, body building etc.,
  3. Making ICBM
  4. Parades , Army Bands and Dharmic warfare
  5. Ratha, Gaja, Turaga wars ( Chariot, Elephantry and Cavalry)
  6. Asanas, Postures & Mudras
  7. Training elephants, horses, birds
  8. Making Vessels of clay, wood, bronze
  9. Drawing
  10. Making Paints & Painting
  11. Architecture, Sculpture, house and temple construction, mosaic tiling
  12. Mixing air, water etc (Air Products and Water Products)
  13. Boats, Ships, Chariots etc
  14. Making threads, ropes etc
  15. Weaving and Spinning
  16. Diamond , Precious Stones and gems-distinguishing them from ordinary ones.
  17. Alchemy, Chemistry , preparing ointments, unguents for charm and virility
  18. Jewellery making including artificial jewelry
  19. Gold Plating, metallurgy
  20. Skinning and Preserving bodies
  21. Leather Technology
  22. Dairy Farming
  23. Tailoring, Sartorial skills and Embroidery
  24. Swimming and water sports
  25. Cleaning houses and vessels
  26. Laundering and Washing
  27. Hair dressing and Shaving
  28. Managing Oil Resources
  29. Having control over others' minds, spells, charms ,Omens
  30. Tilling and agriculture
  31. Handicrafts including Carpentry, furniture making and furnishing
  32. Making Vessels of glass , ceramic and pottery
  33. Drawing water & resources
  34. Gardening and Fencing
  35. Caporisoning elephants etc
  36. Child rearing & Pediatrics including doll making and toy making for kids
  37. Punishing guilty appropriately by Law and Order
  38. Learning Languages / dialects (both native and foreign), literary excellence, semantics
  39. Preparing 'Tambool' etc.
  40. Composing impromptu poetry
  41. Preparing perfumes, cosmetics, playing poetry games, oratory, elocution, prosody, rhetoric
  42. Sorcery, Conjuring, Sleight of hand, Magic, Illusions, Impersonation
  43. Composing Riddles, Rhymes, Verses, Puzzles, Tongue twisters and involved recitations
  44. Making swords, Staffs, Archery
  45. Training fighting partridges and rams, Cock fight, Bull fight etc.,
  46. Teaching parrots, mynas to talk and training animals, Veterinary science
  47. Writing in cipher codes and languages, secret mantras, coding and decoding.

Ref: Ramaswamy, Anbil Hinduism Rediscovered - A Contemporary study of Hindu thought from Vedic roots - Chapter: Sources of Knowledge- Aagamas, Nibandhas and 64 Kalas. The Tiruvenkatam Group, Kuwait (2004)

Thanks I was not aware of the quote appearing in the Satguru book, but please do not remove scholarly interpretations of Hans' life. Feel free to insert your own translations and the Hindi original. Andries 11:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 14 vidyas[edit]

  1. Rig Veda
  2. Yajur Veda
  3. Sama Veda
  4. Atharva Veda
  5. Siksha
  6. Vyakarana
  7. Nirukta
  8. Chandas
  9. Jyotisha
  10. Kalpa
  11. Purana
  12. Nyaya
  13. Mimamsa
  14. Dharma Sastra


Jossi please explain the following/provide references?[edit]

1. Can you please provide references for your assertion that Mishler was interviewed by a small local radio station. Andries 16:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Why do you keep re-inserting the link to the Prem Rawat Maharaji info website as a reference when the original transcript is available? Of course, the original complete transcript is a superior reference. Andries 16:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Why do you repeatedly confuse Wikipedia:External_links with Wikipedia:references/Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style these are normally different sections, but you choose to remove the external link section. Why? Andries 16:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay, after reading the guidelines, I have to admit that you are right in one respect i.e. that only external links are inserted that have not been used in the reference section. Sorry for the inconvenienc. Andries 16:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had missed your reply to my argument that Mishler should be used as a reference, but I continue to disagree that Mishler cannot be used as a reference only because, as you say, that the scope of the interview is broader than the discussion. First of all the Mishler interview has

been indexed so it leads the reader directly to the right place and secondly the scope of nearly all references is broader than the statement that they are supposed to support. The advantage of the quality of the Mishler reference clearly outweighs the possible drawback of the broader scope in this case. Andries 16:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will take my time in responding to the above. I have found, yet again, that dealing with you as an editor is the most tedious, boring and exasperating endeavor. Seems to me that you "feed" on these exchanges, and I will be the last one to oblige. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 02:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has never been my intention to cause you unnecessary work, but the mutual irritation is more or less the natural result when two editors with strongly opposing POVs who distrust each other are working on an article. With regards to the Mishler interview, I still think that this is the superior reference for his assertions about the succession and hence cannot be omitted from this article. Andries 19:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The dispute is a the core of your statement "superior reference". With all due respect to Mishler, his comments on that interview are 100% hearsay ... for the basic reason that he was not there. That 'is tyhe only verifiable fact, and as such the reference is not only poor, but not worthy of mention, besides a small footnote. All other speculation on you part that he must have know because he said that he was a confidant have to be taken with a mamouth cum grano salis. Reverted. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 07:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think Mishler's Interview is a main source. Yet concerning the familiy rift there are other sources e.g. [3] 21:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC) The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas h (talk • contribs) .
Jossi, you are mixing up things. Regardless whether Mishler is credible or not, the best reference for an assertion made by Mishler in an interview is of course the transcript of the interview. I do not understand how any person can disagree with that. I will ask for a request for comments if you keep removing the interview as a reference and if you do not come with additional reasons and explanations. Andries 18:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a source (People Weekly) that can be included if you whish as a reference to the family rift, but to call Mishler a main source, without the adjective "hearsay" is unacceptable. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 07:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact, that source, contradicts Mishler's hearsay:

Upon the death of her husband, the mission's founder, in 1966, she [Mata Ji] endorsed her youngest son, then 8, as "Perfect Master." ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 07:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the article in Peoples Weekly does not contradict Mishler's assertions about the succession. Mishler did not deny that Rawat was accepted by the holy family as the figurehead of the DLM for eight years. Andries 18:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You cannot expect to have a magazine contradicting a 'make believe' story. What the article says is that Mata Ji endorsed her younger son. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 03:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes that seems to be contradictory. Yet as we can see, this is a familiy business, or was and like in any organisation, the presentation to the audience might be always different than what really happened. That should not be the problem of Wikipedia, we can publish both. The interview with sitaram [4] is very helpful to give an insight of how it worked, especially the "invitation" thing that is always purported which is a normal event tactic, and should be named as such if truthfulness is still something that counts in life.E.g. the coordinator comes and says M. is willing to tour if we invite him, blah blah blah, heard a thousand times. Why not name it, as what is is? It would be no problem. Public Relation is Public Realtion, everybody uses it,no proeblem, but why presenting PR as facts and misusing Wikipedia? ? Thomas h 08:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Public Relations? I do not understand what you are talking about. Sorry. As for Sitaram's purported email exchange, I do not see anything in it that changes anything about this article. Please note that O am not deleting the link to Mishler's hearsay story, I am simply linking to one of your websites in which the relevant part of this interview is presented. Reverted. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 11:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't see any PR? The "UN 60th anniversary commitee" thing is an example. I don't see any problem if you use that in your pamphlets or on your websites. In an encyclopedia it should be clearly statet that neither "United Nation 60th anniversary committe" nor "United Nation Association" are organisations or suborganiusations that belong to the UN. The average reader will be impressed by the use of flag and symbols of the UN and might not be able to make a difference. While that might acceptable as an impact to improve ones image, the undocumented use of it here, is an abuse of Wikipedia. Thomas h 12:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can find information about the United Nations Association that organized the 60th Aniversary here and here . The use of the UN shield is not a PR excercise as you claim. And the anniversary celebration was an official event as you can read in these links. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 16:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The use of the UN shield can easily have the impact of an PR exercise, especially if you hide the fact that these orgs are no members of the UN! Thomas h 17:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i found the links before no problem, i find you just in denial and avoiding the points that i made: In an encyclopedia it should be clearly statet that neither "United Nation 60th anniversary committe" nor "United Nation Association" are organisations or suborganiusations that belong to the UN. The average reader will be impressed by the use of flag and symbols of the UN and might not be able to make a difference. While that might acceptable as an impact to improve ones image, the undocumented use of it here, is an abuse of Wikipedia.I state that neither the Committee nor the UNA is an UN organisation, you are hiding away by ignoring the facts!Come on , get your back straight! Thomas h 17:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the event with rawat took place at 24th of June, while the official celebration was 25th and 26th of June. at there is no trace of Rawat. If you search google just for "UNITED NATIONS 60th anniversary committee" [5], you will find that this committee exists only in conjunction with rawat which raises questions. a lot of questions. For example may i ask:
  • How many followers of Rawat are members of the "UNITED NATIONS 60th anniversary committee"
  • What do you really know about it?

Thomas h 18:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

????? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 03:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK forget about the 2 questions. But please answer my paragraphs above. What's this all about. You can straighten this out yourself, i am sure. On the other hand, think, if somebody else finds out how the coherences really are, as what will you appear then? Thomas h 07:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Come on jossi, Kofi Annan was sending his congratulations, that were used by Elan Vital to present it on their webpages, to 60th anniversary 25-26, June 2005. Rawat's address was 24th of June, how could he ever be a part of it? You don't know about Public Relations?
  • These organisations are non-UN orgs
  • And even with them, it looks like Rawat's address wasn't even a part of the actual anniversary 25/26 of June.
  • Abuse of Annan's congrats by Elan Vital
  • Abuse of Wikipedia to spread this by Jossi?

Thomas h 08:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • There is no text in the articles that say that these are UN organizations.
  • Kofi Annan sent a congratulations letter to the event of the UNA of Malaysia to which Prem Rawat was invited to speak.
  • These are verifiable facts
Please remain on purpose. We are discussing this article and not Press Relations, or your negative assessment of Elan Vital and Prem Rawat. For that you have your chatrooms and websites. Thank you. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 09:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right, i transferred the discussion to the Prem Rawat Talkpage[6], were it belongs. Thomas h 09:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

readded Perfect Master, which is frequently and differently(to SatGuru) used by Shri Hans himself in Hans Yog Prakash [7], since the Sant Mat context is clear we also know what stands behind the perfect master and there is a different meaning to it than just the translation of Satguru.Thomas h 19:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You keep getting it wrong, Thomas h. The Hans Yog Prakash includes a translation of Shri Hans ji Maharaj words in Hindi. They translate "Satguru" with "Perfect Master". There is no such a word or term in Hindi. Just Satguru. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 04:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only by devotion to Satguru can you receive Knowledge of the Supreme. All scriptures sing the praises of devotion to the Perfect Master.

Shri Hans Ji Maharaj did not use the term "perfect master", because there is no such a word/term in Hindi, nether in the scriptures. What he said was:

Only by devotion to Satguru can you receive Knowledge of the Supreme. All scriptures sing the praises of devotion to the Satguru.'
≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 04:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong wrong wrong, Shri Hans uses the term "Satguru" AND "Perfect Master" in the Hans Yog Prakash. Read it or show me the Hindi source[8] Thomas h 09:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC) AND Perfect Master is a concept or idea that comes from Sant Mat with all its special meanings. Hindi is not the native language of the Sikhs and the term Satguru as a Hindi term is probably older than the Sikh origin. If it later is used synonymously by adapting through different groups, doesn't mean that there aren't distinctive meanings to it when used in specific context. Thomas h 09:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, mr scholar: what is the language of the Sikhs? What is the term in any Hindo region language from which "perfect master" is translated to? I have done my research and, believe me, I have not found any term such as "Perfect master". Only "Satguru". If you find a Hindo region language that speaks of "Perfect Master" and that is not Satguue, we all would looooove to know. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 16:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To show you something from which the idea of perfect master comes from and was later probably adapted by branches synonymously read this: The True Guru (Satguru) is God (WR 197; GiS 44), from Whom all Truth emanates. The word Waheguru means The Wonderful Lord in the Gurmukhi language and is probably the most popular name for the Holy One in Sikhism, though there are many others as well. Since mortals (generally)require an enlightened person to lead them to God, "Guru Nanak is the embodiment of the Light of God" and is therefore called Guru (SR 262). He was "Murshid-i-Kamek" ('Perfect Master') and "Rahbar-i-Haq" ('Guide to the realm of Truth'). [9] Thomas h 22:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent. So we have now a ref for "Perfect Master" that is ""Murshid-i-Kamek", Is this Urdu? As I said before, I have not found any Hindi word for "perfect master" used by Sri Hans Ji Maharaj. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 22:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be "Murshid-i-Kamil", not "Murshid-i-Kamek" [10]. Andries 00:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is Kamil, not Kamek. As far as I can see it has been translated as "Perfect Saint", or "perfect teacher" (Murshid=teacher), or "supreme spiritual director". ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 00:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that Murshid is in Farsi (Persian language, and relates to Sufism ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 01:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since Sikhism is an amalgam of islamic and hinduistic religion, it does make a lot of sense. The spririual concept of the ever ongoing line of perfect masters may have it's origin through Sufi influence, which is a very interesting matter. Sufism is a much more spiritual aspect of Islam and is settled much more in the persian culture and more open than the orthodox sunnitic version, which is much more exclusive. Thomas h 06:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least the sanskrit syllables mur-sadh kamil encompass-succeed/conquer and completeness/entirety make sense, but i have the strange feeling, research isn't that what certain people are up to here. Since Murshid is a spiritual teacher in Sufism and persian. Persian(at least the old form) belongs to the indo-european language familiy and the meanings might have derived from sanskrit. To contact a real scholar would be interesting i guess. Thomas h 17:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • murshid i kamil at sant mat/radhasoami [11]
  • Also talking of sant-sat guru

thus i state the adaption of the meaning murshid i kamil into satguru has a santmat specific touch. Satguru(Perfect Master) from SatMat has differnet attitudes(only one at time, lineage) than the Satguru let's say in South India( rare,special Master but not unique). Thomas h 18:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know, i know, iam the only one who cares about that, it seems. But just for the record. Old persian is closely affected to Sanskrit with a lot of interchange like greek and latin, with probably sometimes more traces than hindi [12]. So somebody made a little dictionary with sanskrit words were murshad i kamil appears as perfect master used by moslems, which points into the old persian/sankrit or avestan/sanskrit corner [13]. Just for the record. Thomas h 17:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the assertion by Bob Mishler made in a 1979 interview referenced by a transcript of that interview? Or should this transcript excluded as a reference?

Here are Bob Mishler's assertions in the article

"Bob Mishler, an ex-president of the DLM in America, in a phone interview he gave two years after leaving that position to a small local radio station in Dever ,claimed he heard that during that time a group of followers, including one by the name of Mahatma Sampuranand, seized the opportunity of the family and the governing body being involved in a meeting to stage a sort of coup by crowning Prem Rawat as successor. He did not provide sources for such assertions. "

And here is the transcript of the interview [14] The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andries (talk • contribs) .

None of the points made in the Mishler interview have ever been factually disproven and this interview has been publicly available since 1979. For these last nearly 30 years, those who might wish to disprove the factual accuracy of the interview have already had ample time to do so. Two other points. 1. Mishler was not the president of the American branch of DLM. He was the Worldwide president of DLM. 2. As such, he was the undisputed number one assistant to Maharaji from the time of the family rift in 74 to the time of his dismissal as President of DLM by Maharaji in 77 (Lou Schwartz was the American president during these years). Mishler's role in the early DLM seems to me to have been quite central and even pivotal in determining how Maharaji's ultimate role in, and relationship to, the DLM would eventaully unfold and solidify. Back then, this was obviously a key relationship that was in a certain state of flux, in the face of a mother who clearly had a very different plan in mind from the plan that her son, Maharaji, intended to carry out. How was the powerful mother's veto of the marriage of her son at age 16, and the son's disobedience of the mother going to play out? Mishler was clearly the ally of the son in this, and clearly was a key, if not an essential, advisor in enabling the son to carry out his plan of disobedience to Mata Ji, and the eventual total sidelining of Mata Ji in the Western DLM power structure. Scott P. 15:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the above is just speculation and original research.
  • The fact that no one saw fit to disprove a statement made in a talk show on a small AM radio station in Denver, it proves nothing about the veracity of these statements
  • What seems to you about this or that is not citable
  • What the mother did, thought or did not, is again , speculation and not citable
  • The only citable fact is that Mishler was not present at the succession and thus is unequivocally hearsay
  • Another citable fact is that Mishler did not name his sources
  • Another citable fact is that Mishler made comments about the succession that in contradiction with all other sources published, including direct assertions made to the press by members of the Rawat family
  • As such, the interview is citable as a footone and with the explanations needed to give context for NPOV. That is what we have done.
≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 04:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me that this transcript is a very historical and important document that deserves linking to in Wiki. Scott P. 15:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody is disputing that. It is already linked from the Prem Rawat article and the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. The discussion here is about the succession. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 04:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scott, thanks for your contribution to the article. I only removed your POV that there is no verifiable information. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 16:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • No prob. You are right, simple settled facts always speak louder than unsettled suppositions.Scott P. 18:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Scott. Always a pleasure in co-editing with you. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 18:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New source - considerable additions to article[edit]

I located a book in English published in 2000 by DUO in New Delhi (Hans Jayanti), with detailed historical information about Shri Hans Ji Maharaj. Over the next few days and as time permits, I intend to add considerable material to this article, culled from this book and covering the biographical aspects below:

  • Early life
  • Details about Sri Hans involvement with Arya Samaj
  • Encounter and relation with Sri Swarupanand
  • Early work as a teacher
  • Publication of his book Hans Yog Prakash
  • Short chronology of his travel through India
  • Marriage to his second wife (reasons and dates)
  • Hansadesh magazine publishing and forming of the Divine Light Mission
  • Last weeks of Shri Hans life

All the above will precede the succession section.

I am also in the process of requesting a photograph of Shr Hans Ji Maharaj, that could be uploaded with the necessary permission/license for inclusion in WP. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 00:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Added considerable new biographical material sourced from theHans Jayanti book
  • Corrected some facts such as date of death of Sri Hans, names, locations, etc.
  • Removed all titles of protagonists, using their family names instead. Where a title is used, as in the intro, it is presented as such.
  • Provided direct references were applicable to several encyclopedias and books, rather than a website, were it was applicable
  • Some copyedit to the Succession section, in which I removed some dups and added some clarifications for NPOV

≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 16:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great material, nevertheless this seems more or less a summary of the booklet now, relying solely on material of the cult isn't too wikipedian i guess, for this is just information from inside the group. As a logical result, you (as an adherent) scratched the conjunctions with sant mat/advait mat. Since there is clear evidence that Sarupanand doens't belong to DLM and that other groups are claiming heritage(spiritual or material) as well, the statements about Hans are purported by this group. Sarupanand derives from that religious stream(sant mat/advait mat) and so does Hans, this should be mentioned. Material from scholars like Lane still counts, i hope, compared to subjective material above. Thomas h 17:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry If I deleted material that was properly sourced. Note that any worthy additions will be welcome. I tried to find some more information on Swarupanand, but I have failed so far. If you have good material about Swarupanand and other groups that evolved from his teachings that will be great, as I have absolutely no problems in presenting additional information that can enhance this and other articles. On the contrary. Could you please provide the name of the book in which Lane discusses Hans Ji Maharaj and/or Swarupanand? Thanks.≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 19:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 19:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a clarification that I feel is due, please note that I do not have any intentions to "prove" one way or another anything related to lineage (personally I find this whole issue of no consequence, but we need that info for historical accuracy). If there is material about the Sant Mat, Advait Mat or Radha Soami/Radha Soami Satsang Beas lineages, these can go in their respective articles. We can then wkilink from here to the appropriate articles when we discuss the different versions about Sarupanand's succession. FYI, I checked these articles (Radha Soami redirects to Sant Mat, and there is no article on Advait Mat) and could not find any mention of Swarupanand or Sarupanand. As you are evidenty more familiar with the subject, I would suggest that you work on these articles to fill any gaps that obviously exist, so that we can have some kind of historical accuracy with respect to the diverse descriptions of the succession to which we can refer to and link from this article. Don't worry about the English, we can all chip in and help with grammar and copyedit. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 01:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the hint to advait mat is to be found in the appendix of "THE MAKING OF A SPIRITUAL MOVEMENT" by Juergensmeyer. Hummel also mentions the Radhasoami connection.Thomas h 06:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Was not David C. Lane at one time the graduate assistant of Juergensmeyer? Do you have the ISBN for that book?) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 06:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I also found a mention on Vishal Mangalwadi & Kurt Hoeksema's , The World of Gurus (1977). New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House on pages 92, and page 200 (There is also a revised edition dated July, 1992 by Cornerstone Press in Chicago; ISBN 094089503X). Will provide some material from that source soon. I also found that Swarupapand was known by several names such as "Sarupapand", "2nd Master", "Sri Nangli Sahib", and "Guru Maharaj Ji". Swarupanand's teacher was also known by many different names, adding to the confusion ("Dayal Ji", "Advaidanta", "Adwedanta", "Dada Guru", "Maharaj ji") ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 06:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ISBN number is not available, it probably has never got one. There are excerpts and the cover at [15] according to them it was published at
  • SHRI ANANDPUR TRUST P. O. SHRI ANANDPUR Distt: Guna (M. P.) (1975)
  • and is maybe still obtainable from:- ANAND SANDESH KARYALAYA P. O. SHRI ANANDPUR Distt: Guna (M. P.)
  • This book is available at:- UCLA in Los Angeles, California, USA,

09:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Thomas h 09:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ah Jossi, in 2000 or 2001, there was a heritage line portrayed at which was then dropped. I don't know exactly if you did those pages. But there must have been some investigation from "your" side already. Do you still have access to that material (i know the content was saved by several former members, but why not handle that material openly?)? Thomas h 13:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oh no! had been sponsored by Geaves?phew. hard to get independent sources.Thomas h 13:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The more I study this I see a huge confusion in many scholars about Sri Hans lienage. Some place him in the Rahda Soami, others in Sat Mat, others in Advait Mat, and others mix and match. Factual and historical accuracy will be quite difficult to assert, IMO. I see that we will only be able to describe the different interpretations by scholars that made assertions about the lienage. Some of them cite one another making it quite difficult to ascertain the initial source for their assertions... ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 17:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i agree it is a difficult matter. You probably mean the 2 initations by a guru of the direct sant mat line before he met swarupanand. Nevertheless even the advait mat is an early branch out of Sant Mat/Radhasoami which is itself is to be taken synoymously only depending on the different branches, except Kirpal Singh who objected to the use of the word radhasoami to distinguish himself, though he is a successor of the same flavour. According to Hummel who states the same (Radhasoami), and also reports that Hans was heavy relying on the typical Sant Mat figures like Kabir, Nanak, Mira Bai, in his Satsangs. Thomas h 17:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

naming of the kids[edit]

maybe not so important but not accurate. While the naming of Sat pal and Prem Pal are right in the braces. Raja and Bhole are just the titles and not their real names. Raja's real name was something like Dharam Pal or similar and Bhole's i don't know. Can anybody clarify that? Thomas h 07:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New citation format[edit]

I will move all references to the new citation format later today. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article is well sourced. If there are specific aspects that are disputed, please make a comment in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blatant violations of WP:OR[edit]

It is completely inappropriate that tags are being removed, when it is blatantly obvious that there are violations of WP:OR, and whole paragraphs of uncited material. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only blatant thing here is your behavior. The source was cited at the top of the paragraph. I have added it now to all the paragraphs using that cite. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your lack of ability to WP:AGF in this instance, and instead of simply fixing the problem of frankly a very inadequate use of citations, and instead commenting about another editor, instead of focusing on the content is also a "blatant" and disturbing problem. Not to mention your continued activity on these series of articles, in the face of multiple posts from neutral editors to your talk page and elsewhere imploring you to stop editing them - for it reflects very, very badly on this Encyclopedia project. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to cool it, Cirt. Clearly, given you past, you may think that is is appropriate to retaliate in these circumstances. Well, don't.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given your past, you may think it is appropriate to use violations of WP:NPA, instead of dealing directly with an article (an article which is part of a series of articles that multiple other editors have asked you to stop editing due to their voiced concerns of conflict of interest issues) instead of simply dealing with discussions about article content. Well, don't. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will continue editing this article and providing sources, Cirt. If you have any problems with it, you can file a complaint. Just be sure to know that I will not sit idle and allow retaliation from your side in these circumstances, given your past interactions with me and your previous editing behaviors, which I have respected so far in not disclosing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resorting to threats and intimidation instead of simply keeping to a discussion of issues of article content? Interesting. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Focus on article content, instead of mis-using the situation to retaliate. That is not cool. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Focus on article content, instead of false claims about saying: "The only blatant thing here is your behavior. " - when you obviously had to go into the article after I put in the tags, and fix unsourced violations of WP:OR. That is not cool. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still multiple places with poor citing

There are still multiple places in this article with poor citing. All sentences which contain direct quotes need to have cites at the end of those sentences. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagged 2 more instances of blatant violations of WP:OR as well as WP:LEAD in the lead/intro of the article, that are unsourced, and not cited to anything else later in the article itself. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please drop the blatant? It is not helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please drop the issues you have with commenting on contributors, and instead focus on commenting on content? It is not helpful. Cirt (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure I can, and you can start by stopping the use of "blatant" and discussing me as you did above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but it would be best for you to abide by the good advice given to you by other editors (not myself, mind you) from your talk page. For example: William Pietri (talk · contribs), who noted in his edit summary "please stop editing this set of articles". His words, not mine. Cirt (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you two can't edit in a civil manner then I suggest you both stop editing this article. You both clearly have an emotional involvement with this topic and with each other, neither of which is helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good advice, Will Beback (talk · contribs). I will agree to it and stop editing this article, even though I have zero conflict of interest with the subject matter. But will Jossi (talk · contribs) ? Cirt (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, Will. I will take a break. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Sure, Will. I will take a break." is certainly not "stop editing this article" - but I guess it will do for now. Thanks Will Beback (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I am taking a break for now, and I will resume editing this article at any time I see the need to make improvements. You can do the same, if that is your intention (improve the article) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really in line at all with what Will Beback (talk · contribs) was recommending. I will "stop editing this article" as suggested by Will Beback (talk · contribs). Just wanted to point that out. Cirt (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You always want to have the last word, right Cirt? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obvious citing issues and problems in article of lack of cites to back up direct quotes[edit]

Jossi (talk · contribs), direct quotes need citations at the end of sentences in which they appear, not just end of a paragraph. Please do not remove the {{fact}} tags, until this has been satisfied. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A different approach[edit]

All this could have been avoided by stating something like this:

"Jossi, I understand that you have decided not to edit such articles, and I respect that. But stumbling across this article I could not help it but notice that several statements remain unsourced, and as such they may be original research or unverified facts. As you are knowledgeable on the subject, I will be happy to improve the article if you can provide sources that are suitable to support the article text."

This type of approach, I would argue, would have been a much better way to address article quality concerns without resorting to unnecessary drama.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Jossi, I understand that you have decided not to edit such articles..." - But that would be false, because you are editing "such articles". What's the point of making that sort of statement, if it's just not true? Cirt (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding Jossi's text, it's not traditional to treat articles as if they are owned by an editor whose explicit permission must be requested before editing tags are added. Let's just assume that what he wrote is an implicit part of requesting sources. Regarding Cirt's action, editing tags should be used judiciously to address the greatest problems first. Too many tags at once won't speed up the improvements and are unsightly. As for Jossi's intention, he's now stated that he has decided to not edit articles related to Prem Rawat so there's no reason to rub his nose in it. As I said above, both of you appear to have a deep concern for this topic that appears to make it difficult to edit neutrally and calmly. I suggest that both of you stop talking about each other, and maybe even find other topics to edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's all well and good, I'm just saying it is one thing to say you are not going to edit a certain set of articles... Cirt (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... and will not edit a certain set of articles, unless I have very good reasons to do so, and these edits will stand the scrutinity of my peers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either you will edit the articles, or you won't. These open caveats and clauses with your own loopholes make it seem to others that these are half-hearted statements (shown to be the case in this instance, among others). Best to make a much simpler statement, something like: "I will no longer be editing these articles (then list them) ... and will instead make comments and provide sources on the talk page of said articles." This would be something that is even encouraged, for example to foster participation among the public relations representatives of companies on this project, without raising controversy by editing the articles of their companies directly that they represent. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

removal of wikilink?[edit]

The article that redirects from Techniques of Knowledge includes the material we have on this. Why to delete it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the text in question:
  • In 1923, Swarupanand taught Hans the techniques of Knowledge or kriyas, an experience of which...
The linked article was Teachings of Prem Rawat. Prem Rawat was born several decades after Swarupanand taught Hans the techniques. If the article were still at Techniques of Knowledge and focused on the general techniques, then the link would make sense. An editor decided to move the article to "Teachings of Prem Rawat", and re-focus it on the teachings of one individual. If that situation changes then a link to an article about the teachings of Swarupanand would make sense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any doubt that these are the same techniques? No. Read the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the techniques taught by Prem Rawat and covered in that article are the same as those taught by Swarupanand then the article should have a better title, either "teachings of Swarupanand" or "techniques of Knowledge". We don't say that Saint Peter instructed early followers of Jesus in the "teachings of Benedict XVI". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for your admonition to "Read the source", that's hard since the sentence has a "[citation needed]" tag on it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but I'm afraid that source isn't carried by any local libraries, Google, or Amazon so I can't read it. Does it say that Swarupanand imparted the teachings of Prem Rawat or that Rawat's teachings in 2008 are the same as Swarupanand's teachings in 1923? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither. One source says that Swarupanand taught Hans Ji Maharaji the techniques of Knowledge, the other source says that Shri Hans Maharaj was a disciple of Swarupanand, a guru in the lineage of Shri Paramhans Advait Mat centered in Guna, a district in the state of Madhya Pradesh. And that is what the article says. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that article is about the "techniques of Knowledge", the techniques that go back to Shri Paramhans Advait Mat, then why is it called "teachings of Prem Rawat"? Why is it a part of a boiogpahy of a living person rather than a standalone article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My understading is that the techniques go way back to Totapuri and even beyond that. Maybe the reasons is thatthere are no published sources about the techniques pre-Prem Rawat? If there are, we could create an article. That would be great. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When that article is written we can add a link to it in that sentence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And until that time, there is no harm in wikilinking to the article that contains such information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What information about Swarupanand's teachings does it contain? I don't see much of anything in there about the "techniques of knowledge". A better solution may be to undo the merge and have a standalone article on the topic. Right now the "teachings of Prem Rawat" is almost entirely about Prem Rawat, which is understandable given the title. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another source[edit]

I just came across this: Vrijhof, P. H. (1979). Official and popular religion. Walter de Gruyter. p. 739. ISBN 9027979987, 9789027979988. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

It's mostly available on Google.[16] The book has about 6 short pages on "Hams Ji", his teachings, and his organization. This may be a suitable sorce for the DLM article too   Will Beback  talk  18:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hans Ji Maharaj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]