text:
William Roberts (painter)

William Patrick Roberts (5 June 1895 – 20 January 1980) was a British artist.

In the years before the First World War Roberts was a pioneer, among English artists, in his use of abstract images. In later years he described his approach as that of an "English Cubist". In the First World War he served as a gunner on the Western Front, and in 1918 became an official war artist. Roberts's first one-man show was at the Chenil Gallery in London in 1923, and a number of his paintings from the twenties were purchased by the Contemporary Art Society for provincial galleries in the UK. In the 1930s it could be argued that Roberts was artistically at the top of his game; but, although his work was exhibited regularly in London and, increasingly, internationally, he always struggled financially. This situation became worse during the Second World War – although Roberts did carry out some commissions as a war artist.

Roberts is probably best remembered for the large, complex and colourful compositions that he exhibited annually at the Royal Academy summer exhibition from the 1950s until his death. He had a major retrospective at the Tate Gallery in 1965, and was elected a full member of the Royal Academy in 1966. There has recently been a revival of interest in the work of this artist who always worked outside the mainstream.

Early years
Roberts was born into a working-class family in London's East End on 5 June 1895. The family were then living at 44 Blackstone Road in Hackney, and his father was a carpenter; they later moved to 4 Blanchard Road (by October 1898) and 20 London Fields West Side (by April 1911) nearby. From an early age Roberts showed an outstanding talent for drawing, and this was encouraged by his parents and by his school teachers. He left school at the age of 14 and took up an apprenticeship with the advertising firm of Sir Joseph Causton Ltd, intending to become a poster designer. He attended evening classes at Saint Martin's School of Art in London and won a London County Council scholarship to the Slade School of Art – freeing him from the obligations of his apprenticeship. He joined the Slade in 1911, studying under Henry Tonks and Wilson Steer. His contemporaries at the Slade included a number of brilliant young students, among them Dora Carrington, Mark Gertler, Paul Nash, Christopher Nevinson, Stanley Spencer, David Bomberg and Bernard Meninsky. The Slade's emphasis on the importance of drawing and sound structuring of composition would inform Roberts's later work. In 1912 he won the Slade's Melville Nettleship prize for Figure Composition.

An English Cubist
Roberts was intrigued by Post-Impressionism and Cubism, an interest fuelled by his friendships at the Slade (in particular with Bomberg) as well as by his travels in France and Italy after leaving the Slade in 1913. Later in 1913 he joined Roger Fry's Omega Workshops for three mornings a week. The ten shillings a time that Omega paid enabled him to create challenging Cubist-style paintings such as The Return of Ulysses (now owned by the Castle Museum and Art Gallery in Nottingham). After leaving Omega he was taken up by Wyndham Lewis, who was forming a British alternative to Futurism. Ezra Pound had suggested the name Vorticism, and Roberts's work was featured in both editions of the Vorticist literary magazine BLAST. Roberts was a signatory to the Vorticist Manifesto that appeared in the first edition of the magazine. Roberts himself preferred the description "Cubist" for his work of this period. Two large-scale oil paintings exhibited in the 1917 Penguin Club Vorticist exhibition in New York, and purchased by John Quinn, were subsequently lost, but the radical nature of Roberts's "Cubist style" is evidenced by The Toe Dancer (owned by the Victoria and Albert Museum) and the recently rediscovered Boxers – both exhibited with the London Group in 1915.

First World War
In 1916 Roberts enlisted in the Royal Regiment of Artillery as a gunner, serving on the Western Front in the Ypres sector, north of the Menin Road and at Arras. Having been on active service for the best part of two years, he successfully applied to the Canadian War Records Office for a commission to paint a large-scale war subject. In April 1918 he returned to London as an official war artist, with the proviso that the work should not be in the Cubist style. The outcome of the commission was The First German Gas Attack at Ypres, a powerful expressionist work that is on permanent display in the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. Roberts was subsequently commissioned by the British Ministry of Information, for whom he painted A Shell Dump, France (1918–19), now in the Imperial War Museum collection along with twelve watercolour drawings of his experiences at the front They rival the bitterness and social realism of the German artists Otto Dix and George Grosz. In 1978 Roberts published a memoir of his experiences at the front – 4.5 Howitzer Gunner RFA: Memories of the War to End War 1914–1918.

1920s
Roberts had met Sarah Kramer (1900–92) in 1915 through her brother Jacob Kramer, who also had studied at the Slade. Roberts had been writing to Sarah from the front, and shortly after the war was over they set up home together and had a son, John David Roberts (1919–95). They moved into rented rooms in Fitzrovia and were married in 1922. Roberts exhibited with Wyndham Lewis's Group X, and Osbert Sitwell was an early patron.

Alongside his dramatic Cubist work, Roberts was a talented portrait painter. He honed his skills with portraits of Sarah – she would be his model and muse for the next 60 years. In 1923, while Roberts was preparing for a one-man show at the Chenil Gallery, Chelsea, the artist Colin Gill put Roberts in touch with T. E. Lawrence, who commissioned a series of portraits for his book Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Finally shaking off his association with Wyndham Lewis, Roberts had evolved a unique and highly recognisable 'English Cubist' style. His subject matter turned to urban life in London with paintings such as Bank Holiday in the Park and At the Hippodrome, which were exhibited with the London Group, and The Cinema – later acquired by the Tate Gallery. At this stage his oeuvre was quite broad, including scenes from 'Greek Mythology [and] Christian Mythology', as he put it. Lawrence commissioned further illustrations and decorations for Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and there were also commissions of literary portraits and cover designs for private presses – such as a portrait of H. E. Bates for the New Coterie magazine in 1927. It was the purchase of a number of his paintings by the Contemporary Art Society for major provincial art galleries that kept Roberts financially afloat. He supplemented his income by teaching a life class with Bernard Meninsky at the Central School of Art for one day a week from 1925 – a post he held until 1960. Towards the end of the twenties his work became less down-beat. For example, The Tea Garden (1928) and The Chess Players (1929) provide a light take on social interaction and were perfectly in tune with the fashionable Art Deco style.

1930s
In the 1930s the angular style of Roberts's earlier work was replaced by a rounder, more sculptural approach. This change in style is, for example, apparent in the double portrait of John Maynard Keynes and Lydia Lopokova in the National Portrait Gallery, London. Keynes became an important patron of Roberts through the London Artists' Association, and the paintings that Keynes purchased are now in the collection of King's College, Cambridge. While Roberts was critical of the financial support that he received from the London Artists' Association, it is difficult to imagine how the family would have survived without this patronage. Later he would describe the thirties as "the years of economic struggle". A number of striking large-scale canvases were undertaken in the early thirties, such as The Masks (1934) and The Playground (The Gutter) (1934–5), both works being exhibited at the Carnegie Institute, Pittsburgh, and in New York. Despite their financial position the family occasionally took holidays: they travelled to Spain for the first time in the early 1930s and went on a cycling holiday to Brighton that apparently inspired Les Routiers. Andrew Heard suggests that Roberts may have used a French title for this work as a nod towards the work of Fernand Léger, whose "tubist" forms have some similarity to Roberts's figures.

1940s
Soon after the Second World War broke out, in September 1939 William and Sarah left London for Oxford. Roberts was too old for combat service, but enquired about the possibility of getting 'some pictorial propaganda work to do'. He was frustrated at being offered only minor assignments for the War Artists' Advisory Committee. However, he did complete two commissions documenting life on the home front – Munitions Factory (1940) and The Control Room, Civil Defence Headquarters(1942) – both now in Salford Art Gallery. William and Sarah eventually spent most of the war years in a flat in Marston on the outskirts of Oxford. Roberts managed to get a one-day-a-week teaching job at Oxford Technical College. Throughout his life he drew inspiration from his surroundings, and a number of watercolour drawings from this period show rural scenes on the River Cherwell and a nearby Gypsy camp.

In 1946 he and Sarah returned to London and took a room at 14 St Mark's Crescent, a house in multiple occupancy backing on to the Regent's Canal, near Primrose Hill. When other tenants moved out the Robertses took over additional rooms, and eventually, with financial help from a friend of Sarah's, they were able to buy the whole house. This house remained their home for the rest of their lives and the neighbourhood would provide Roberts with subject matter. The Roberts's son, John, joined them. He had studied physics at University College London, and became a poet and guitar scholar. In 1948 Roberts showed work at the Royal Academy summer exhibition for the first time – a self-portrait and a portrait of Sarah in a headscarf as The Gypsy – and he would show work there in every subsequent year until his death.

The Royal Academy and the "Vortex Pamphlets"
In the 1950s, when cutting-edge British art was abstract, Roberts's work was in danger of seeming out of date. Roberts re-evaluated the Royal Academy as an exhibiting opportunity, as it attracted large and diverse crowds that were generally more interested in representational art than in abstraction, as well as press coverage. From this point on Roberts's annual contribution became increasingly sensational – spectacular in scale, in use of colour and in dramatic subject matter. The Temptation of St Anthony (1951), Revolt in the Desert (1952) and The Birth of Venus (1954) dominated the walls of the RA and were a talking point in the press and with the public. Roberts now had a new patron – Ernest Cooper, who ran a chain of health-food shops under the banner of the London Health Centre. As well as purchasing a large number of these Royal Academy paintings, Cooper commissioned Roberts to design illustrations for his mail-order catalogues and instructional pamphlets.

In 1956 the Tate Gallery held an exhibition entitled Wyndham Lewis and Vorticism, with 150 works by Lewis and a small selection by other artists to give "an indication of the effect of his immediate impact upon his contemporaries". Roberts was offended that the catalogue "would lead the uninitiated to suppose that the artists designated as 'Other Vorticists' are in some way subservient to Lewis", and published a series of "Vortex Pamphlets", in which he railed against the exhibition, the catalogue, the press coverage and the account of his own career contained in Modern English Painters by the Tate's director, John Rothenstein, which appeared at about the same time. Targets of earlier visual satires had included Walter Sickert and Roger Fry. To publicise his own work he also published Some Early Abstract and Cubist Work 1913–1920 (London, 1957), the first of a series of collections of reproductions of his paintings, with somewhat polemical prefaces.

Late recognition
In 1958 Roberts was elected an Associate of the Royal Academy, and two years later, when he turned 65, he retired from his one-day-a-week teaching position at the Central School. However, his output as an artist over the next fifteen years remained prolific. In 1961 he was given an award by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation "in recognition of his artistic achievement and his outstanding service to British painting". In that same year he began painting The Vorticists at the Restaurant de la Tour Eiffel, Spring 1915 (completed 1962; now in the Tate Gallery), a nostalgic recollection of a boisterous Vorticist gathering in 1915 that can be read as an attempt by Roberts to build bridges following the "Vortex Pamphlets" debacle. A major retrospective of his work, organised by the Arts Council of Great Britain and curated by Ronald Alley, opened at the Tate Gallery in 1965, and a smaller version was also shown in Newcastle and Manchester. In the same year Roberts was offered, but rejected, an OBE. He was, however, pleased to be elected a full member of the Royal Academy in 1966. While still tackling a variety of subjects, Roberts became somewhat obsessed with the self-portrait, and a number of his self-portraits would be exhibited by the National Portrait Gallery in 1984.

Roberts was often described as reclusive, and he was very wary about interviewers – especially after an Observer journalist who visited him produced an article that Roberts felt was concerned more with his rather spartan lifestyle than with his work. "What kind of art critic is this, who sets out to criticise my pictures, but criticises my gas stove and kitchen table instead?" he asked.

In 1974 the Arts Council exhibition "Vorticism and Its Allies", curated by Richard Cork, recognised Roberts's important role within the group; however, when Cork approached him for an interview Roberts was uncooperative.

Unsurprisingly, in his eighties Roberts's draughtsmanship deteriorated, but he continued working until the end – Donkey Rides was "pinned to his drawing board on the day on which he died [20 Jan. 1980]".

The fate of his estate
Sarah Roberts died in 1992 and her and William's son, John, died two and a half years later, intestate. John had set up the family house, 14 St Mark's Crescent, as a "house museum" with a changing selection of his father's paintings on show to friends. It was estimated that there were almost 475 paintings and drawings in the house at the time of his death, and the Tate Gallery agreed to store them for safe keeping. The fate of these works was of concern when The Guardian in 2004 revealed that the Treasury Solicitor, who had control of John's estate, refused to lend to the major Roberts retrospective, curated by Andrew Heard, at the Hatton Gallery in Newcastle upon Tyne and the Graves Art Gallery in Sheffield. Since then the collection has been saved, with 117 of these works having been allocated to the Tate in lieu of inheritance tax, and the Tate continuing to house the remainder until the period when claims may be made on the estate has expired, when they too will enter the Tate collection. A number of the drawings allocated to the Tate went on display at Tate Britain in 2012–13. In 2004 William Roberts: An English Cubist by Andrew Gibbon Williams, the standard monograph on this painter, was published.

Between 1998 and 2015 the William Roberts Society furthered the appreciation and promotion of Roberts's work, being established as a registered charity in 2002 and publishing regular newsletters and occasional pamphlets.

English Heritage unveiled a blue plaque at 14 St Mark's Crescent in 2003. A short film William Roberts: An Artist's House is accessible on YouTube. In 2007 Pallant House Gallery staged an exhibition William Roberts: England at Play, curated by Simon Martin. The sale of the Evill/Frost collection at Sotheby's in London in 2011 saw unprecedentedly high prices for Roberts's work, and in the following year The Chess Players (1929–30) was sold for over £1 million, also at Sotheby's.

title: William Roberts (painter)


text:
David Croll

David Arnold Croll, (born Davud Avrum Croll; March 12, 1900 – June 11, 1991) was a Canadian politician. He served as the mayor of Windsor, Ontario twice. He entered provincial politics in the 1930s, and served as minister of public works and municipal affairs in the Mitch Hepburn government. He won election to the House of Commons of Canada in 1945. In 1955 he was appointed to the Senate of Canada, becoming the first Jewish Senator. He served as a senator until his death, on June 11, 1991, a few hours after what would be his last senate sitting.

Early life
Croll was born in Moscow, Russia and was brought to Canada with his family as a young boy, at which point his name was anglicized. Croll became a lawyer and entered politics serving as mayor of Windsor, Ontario from 1931 to 1934 during the worst days of the Great Depression. He made his reputation as a social reformer when he insisted the city go into deficit in order to provide relief programs for the unemployed and destitute.

Provincial politics
Croll won a seat in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as a Liberal Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) for Windsor—Walkerville in the 1934 election that brought the Liberals to power under the leadership of Mitchell Hepburn. Croll became Canada's first Jewish cabinet minister when he became Minister of Public Welfare. He later also added the portfolios of Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister of Labour. He and Attorney-General Arthur Roebuck broke with Hepburn over the Premier's opposition to the United Auto Workers strike against General Motors in Oshawa in 1937, and resigned from cabinet saying "I would rather walk with the workers than ride with General Motors." He remained a provincial Liberal backbencher until 1943, as well as serving again as Mayor of Windsor.

Military service
He served in the Canadian Army during the Second World War, enlisting as a Private in the Essex Scottish Regiment and rising in rank to lieutenant-colonel.

Federal politics
He was recruited by the Liberal Party of Canada to contest the Toronto riding of Spadina in the 1945 federal election. The Liberals feared that Tim Buck, leader of the communist Labor-Progressive Party was poised to win the riding. The popular Croll was seen as the only Liberal who could defeat him. After Croll was nominated, Buck instead ran in a neighbouring riding, leaving Sam Carr to be the LPP's candidate. Croll handily won a seat in the House of Commons of Canada, becoming Spadina's Member of Parliament (MP) and Tory Toronto's sole Liberal MP. He was re-elected in the 1949 and 1953 elections.

Despite being regarded as one of the most talented Liberal MPs and, until 1950, the only Liberal MP from Toronto, Croll was never summoned to the Canadian Cabinet where he would have become the first Jewish federal cabinet minister. Instead, he was appointed to the Senate of Canada in 1955, becoming Canada's first Jewish senator. In the early 1950s, Croll drew attention when he attacked the early release of Nazi war criminals. "'We are still dealing with a people who are undemocratic and unrepentant, who consider themselves unfortunate and whose chief objective at present is to figure out the winning side and get on it. Fears of the rearming of Germany were not allayed when we read of the reappearance on the present scene of left-over and warmed-up Nazi generals and some of the manifestations of Fascism. Ex-German generals, former Nazi leaders and war criminals are starting to roll off the Allied amnesty assembly lines.'"

Croll was the author of the influential 1971 "Report of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty" which began with the words "the poor do not choose poverty. It is at once their affliction and our national shame. The children of the poor (and there are many) are the most helpless victims of all, and find even less hope in a society where welfare systems from the very beginning destroys their chances of a better life." The report moved the Trudeau government to triple family allowances in 1973 and institute the Child Tax Credit in 1978. Aside from his work on poverty, he was also responsible for Senate reports on aging. In 1990 in recognition of his contributions, he was sworn into the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, an honour usually given only to federal cabinet ministers.

He remained an active senator until his death, even taking his seat in the "Red Chamber" a few hours before his death. He died of heart failure in the Château Laurier Hotel, a few hours after attending an afternoon senate session on June 11, 1991. At the time, he was the oldest serving senator, as he was appointed at a time when appointments to the senate were for life.

In his honour, the Senator David A. Croll Apartments, a seniors' residence in Toronto was named after him. The irony is that the building was originally the focus of Toronto's late 1960s youth counterculture, infamous Rochdale College, built by Campus Co-operative Student Residences (Campus Co-op) in 1968 as a student co-operative residence. The building was selected, as a pilot project, for installing Canada's first rooftop combined heat and power system.

Archives
There is a David Arnold Croll fonds at Library and Archives Canada.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: David Croll


text:
Indiana, São Paulo

Indiana is a municipality in the state of São Paulo in Brazil. The population is 4,879 (2020 est.) in an area of 129 km². The elevation is 479 m.

History
The municipality was created by state law in 1948.

Media
In telecommunications, the city was served by Telecomunicações de São Paulo. In July 1998, this company was acquired by Telefónica, which adopted the Vivo brand in 2012. The company is currently an operator of cell phones, fixed lines, internet (fiber optics/4G) and television (satellite and cable).

title: Indiana, São Paulo


text:
Bobby Deol

Vijay Singh Deol (born 27 January 1969), known by his screen name Bobby Deol, is an Indian actor who primarily works in Hindi cinema. A member of the Deol family, he is the younger son of actor Dharmendra and brother of actor Sunny Deol.

After appearing as a child artist in Dharam Veer (1977), Deol had his first lead role in the romance Barsaat (1995), which won him the Filmfare Award for Best Male Debut. He subsequently appeared in the commercially successful action thriller films Gupt (1997), Soldier (1998), Badal (2000), Bichhoo (2000), Ajnabee (2001), and Humraaz (2002). The last of these earned him a nomination for the Filmfare Award for Best Actor. It was followed by a career downturn, during which his commercially successful projects were the ensemble films Apne (2007), Yamla Pagla Deewana (2011), Race 3 (2018) and Housefull 4 (2019).

Deol has since starred in the streaming projects Class of '83 (2020), Aashram (2020–present) and Love Hostel (2022). He then played a villainous role in the top-grossing action film Animal (2023), which earned him a nomination for the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor.

Early life and family
Deol was born as Vijay Singh Deol on 27 January 1969 into a Punjabi family in Bombay. He is the second son of Bollywood actor Dharmendra and Parkash Kaur. He is the younger brother of Sunny Deol and also has two sisters Vijayta and Ajeeta who live in California. His step-mother is Hema Malini, through whom he has two paternal half-sisters, actress Esha Deol and Ahana Deol. His cousin Abhay Deol is also an actor. He is the paternal uncle of Bollywood actors Karan Deol and Rajveer Deol.

He married Tanya Ahuja in 1996; the couple has two sons.

Early success (1995–2003)
Deol made his acting debut as an adult alongside Twinkle Khanna in Rajkumar Santoshi's 1995 romance film Barsaat, where he played a naive but intelligent young man who moves from a small village to the big city and gets caught up with corrupt police and criminal gangs amidst falling in love. The film was a superhit at the box office and garnered him the Filmfare Award for Best Male Debut. He replicated this success with his next starring role in Rajiv Rai's suspense thriller Gupt: The Hidden Truth (1997) alongside Manisha Koirala and Kajol, as a man alleged of murdering his stepfather over an engagement proposal and wrongly imprisoned. Besides commercial profitability, Gupt was highly acclaimed for its storyline and soundtrack. His other release of 1997 was Aur Pyaar Ho Gaya alongside Aishwarya Rai, which flopped at the box office.

Deol's first release of 1998, Vidhu Vinod Chopra's Kareeb, became his second consecutive flop. He teamed up with Abbas–Mustan for the first of many collaborations in the military thriller Soldier (1998), co-starring Raakhee and Preity Zinta, in which played the son of a man who was convicted of arms smuggling. Soldier received highly positive response from critics and proved to be his third clean hit, post Barsaat and Gupt. His sole release of 1999 was the unremarkable love triangle Dillagi, directed by his brother Sunny Deol.

Deol began the next century starring with Rani Mukerji in the financially successful action dramas Badal and Bichhoo (both 2000). In Badal, set around the 1984 riots in engulfing parts of Punjab and Delhi, his character witnesses the massacre of his family and villagers by a corrupt inspector and grows up to be a dreaded terrorist. In Bichhoo, Deol's role as a young middle-class guy who falls in love with a wealthy woman was panned although the film hailed good box-office returns. He was later paired with Karisma Kapoor in Hum To Mohabbat Karega (2000) and Aashiq (2001), both flops. Deol next essayed a married guy entangled in a web of deceit and extra-marital affairs, in Abbas–Mustan's thriller Ajnabee (2001) alongside Kareena Kapoor, Akshay Kumar and Bipasha Basu. The film was an average grosser, but garnered praise for Kumar and Deol's performances.

He reunited with Sunny Deol for the failed historical drama 23rd March 1931: Shaheed (2002), where he and his brother portrayed the roles of freedom fighters Bhagat Singh and Chandra Shekhar Azad respectively. Set in British India, the film depicts the events leading up to the hanging of Bhagat Singh and his companions Rajguru and Sukhdev on 23 March 1931. With the film receiving polarising reviews, Rediff.com believed the movie had plenty of good moments, and plenty of bad ones and believed the film was superior to that of the original on Bhagat Singh, although they believed the agony of Bhagat Singh's fight was underplayed, diminishing the brutality and anguish suffered in the real-life event. While Deol was praised for some scenes, he was criticised for his loud acting and Rediff.com believed he was overshadowed by Ajay Devgan in The Legend of Bhagat Singh remarking, "In terms of performance, Devgan is clearly the winner, with the advantage of a stronger script and a better director. Devgan, who reportedly lost weight to look the part, is today emerging as one of India's finest actors, willing to try out different roles. Deol tries his best, but it is difficult to shout and act simultaneously."

Later in 2002, Deol was nominated for the Filmfare Award for Best Actor for his role as a suave, wealthy shipping businessman in Abbas-Mustan's romantic thriller Humraaz, where he was involved in a love triangle with Ameesha Patel and Akshaye Khanna. The film was moderately successful but received positive reviews from critics, with Chitra Mahesh of The Hindu saying, "Deol spends the entire first half looking moony eyed and spaced out, but overcomes the stupor towards the end where he actually gives a good performance." His final act in 2002 was of a small-time crook who gets his hands on some diamonds worth millions, in David Dhawan's Chor Machaaye Shor alongside Shilpa Shetty, Bipasha Basu, Paresh Rawal and Om Puri.

Career setback and hiatus (2004–2017)
After a one-year gap, Deol returned with Kismat (2004) pairing Priyanka Chopra. He went on to play army officers in his next two 2004 releases, Vikram Bhatt's Bardaasht and Anil Sharma's Ab Tumhare Hawale Watan Saathiyo. While the former dealt with themes of police brutality and corruption and justice, the latter was an ensemble film starring Amitabh Bachchan, Akshay Kumar and Deol (in a double role). All these films did not perform well commercially. However for the lattermost, he received praise for his role which had him wear a pugh/turban, which gave him more of an audience from the Punjabi crowd, and inspired comments saying he looks better in a turban.

Deol reteamed with Vikram Bhatt for the thriller Jurm (2005), hailing praise for his role as a wealthy businessman who suspects his wife of having an affair with Rohit. Rediff.com remarked "Bobby Deol, Bhatt's schoolmate, does his alma mater proud with his controlled performance. There's a sense of maturity about his candour, which is good news." He also essayed a trooper operating in the northeastern Indian province fighting Bodo militants in Upper Assam alongside Sanjay Dutt, Suniel Shetty and Ajay Devgn in Mani Shankar's war film Tango Charlie and an ambitious Indian living abroad with Chopra and Basu in Suneel Darshan's love triangle Barsaat (both 2005). Neither of these films resurged his commercial appeal, with Ziya us Salaam of The Hindu concluding for Barsaat, "A moth-eaten love triangle with all the stereotypes Bollywood survives on – a devoted wife with her karva chauth ki thali, the other woman with her mini-skirts, a joint family, songs, festivities..... No shower of rejuvenation, this Barsaat is just drenched in mediocrity." She was equally unimpressed with Deol's performance, remarking, "The girls are ready with their curls and curves, the guy just appears lost, making you wonder if Bobby has grown even an inch as an actor since he made his debut in Rajkumar Santoshi's film of the same name."

His final role of 2005 was Dosti: Friends Forever with Akshay Kumar, Lara Dutta, Kareena Kapoor and Juhi Chawla, which underperformed in India but was a major success in the United Kingdom. In 2006, Deol reunited with Ameesha Patel in the romantic musical film Humko Tumse Pyaar Hai, where his characters falls in love with a beautiful blind woman who has a talent for shaping pottery. Their pairing was hugely hyped and had been labelled as the "Bollywood equivalent of Hugh Grant and Renée Zellweger". Although the film became his eighth consecutive failure, critics praised Deol's performance with Taran Adarsh commenting, "Bobby Deol is only getting better as an actor. He manages to register an impact in a film that belongs to Patel and Rampal primarily."

In 2007, Deol had a record 6 releases, including two cameos. The first, Shakalaka Boom Boom, was shot in South Africa and addressed the themes of envy, jealousy, insecurity, anxiety, manipulation and anger. Co-starring Upen Patel, Kangana Ranaut and Celina Jaitley, it was praised by critics, especially for its choreography; Taran Adarsh of IndiaFM.com said after viewing the film, "Both Bobby and Upen get fabulous roles and the two actors make the most of it. Bobby is one of the most under-rated actors around. His work has been consistent all through, but one tends to overlook this talented actor's abilities all the while. Watch him go negative in Shakalaka Boom Boom and you'd agree that he's amongst the best in the business today. His outburst in the end is remarkable." He next featured in Shaad Ali and Yash Raj Films's Jhoom Barabar Jhoom opposite Abhishek Bachchan, Preity Zinta and Lara Dutta. The film had a hit soundtrack but received negative reviews for its "shallow screenplay", and even Deol was believed to have been overshadowed by Bachchan and Zinta. Both films failed to do well, continuing the streak of decline for Deol.

Deol finally found a commercial success in Anil Sharma's boxing drama Apne (2007), a family affair in which his father Dharmendra played a disgraced retired boxer who trains Deol and his brother (Sunny Deol) to become champion boxers but in doing so creates a rift within the family. He reteamed with Abbas–Mustan for his last release of 2007, the romantic thriller Naqaab, with Akshaye Khanna and Urvashi Sharma. Deol received mixed reviews for his performance. For instance, Raja Sen of Rediff.com praised several of his scenes, remarking, "Bobby gets a considerably meaty role, and there are a couple of moments when he genuinely works the audience", but describes his character as "sensitive to an annoying hilt". Naqaab was a major commercial disaster.

In 2008, Deol starred as an orphan raised by a Naxal leader opposite Priyanka Chopra, Danny Denzongpa and Irrfan Khan in Kabeer Kaushik's crime drama Chamku, set in the interiors of Bihar. Kaushik initially approached him to play the lead role in his debut film, Sehar, but despite liking the script, Deol had turned it down because at the time he was not prepared to work with a debutant director. He worked in another failed ensemble film Heroes (2008) as an army officer with Salman Khan, Preity Zinta, Sunny Deol and Mithun Chakraborty. Heroes was filmed in Ladakh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Delhi. Deol had a special appearance in the Karan Johar-produced romantic comedy Dostana (2008) starring Chopra, Bachchan and John Abraham. Dostana is the first Bollywood film to be filmed entirely in Miami, United States and went on to become the eighth highest-grossing film at the Indian box office in 2008.

The following year, Deol portrayed an orphan-turned-assassin wrongly accused of a politician's murder in the unnoticed Ek: The Power of One (2009). His next film Help (2010), shot in Mauritius, too failed to make an impact. In 2011, Deol had starring roles in the comedies Yamla Pagla Deewana (co-starring Dharmendra and Sunny Deol), which spawned a sequel later in 2013, and Thank You (co-starring Kumar, Irrfan Khan, Suniel Shetty and Sonam Kapoor). His following release, the heist film Players (2012), featured him as a master of illusions. Neither of these films except Yamla Pagla Deewana were critically and commercially profitable.

After a slew of commercial failures, Deol went on a hiatus of three years due to lack of work. He later spoke on Koffee with Karan where he confessed, "“I gave up. I started pitying myself and just took up drinking a lot. I was just sitting at home and I used to keep cursing and saying ‘Why don’t people take me? I am good.’ I think I became very negative about everything. I used to sit at home, my wife would work. And suddenly I heard my son saying ‘Mom, papa sits at home and you go to work everyday.’ And then something snapped in me and I said ‘No, I can’t do this anymore’.”"

Following the hiatus, he tried to make a comeback with Shreyas Talpade's Poster Boys (2017) alongside Sunny Deol. However, the film turned out to be another failure and failed to re-establish Deol.

Ensemble films and streaming projects (2018–2022)
Deol had a supporting role in the action thriller Race 3 (2018), alongside Salman Khan and Anil Kapoor. Despite receiving negative reviews, it grossed ₹303 crore worldwide becoming the sixth highest-earning Hindi film of 2018. The threequel Yamla Pagla Deewana: Phir Se was his second release of the year, which tanked miserably at the box office repeating the fate of Yamla Pagla Deewana 2.

The ensemble comedy Housefull 4 (2019) co-starring Akshay Kumar and Riteish Deshmukh, was Deol's subsequent film. It grossed ₹295 crore worldwide and became a superhit. He played a police officer in the Netflix film Class of '83 (2020). His performance earned him a Filmfare OTT Award for Best Actor in a Web Original Film nomination. In 2020, his web series Aashram premiered on MX Player original series where he played the character of Baba Nirala. Deol's role of an antagonist earned him much critical praise and two nominations for the Filmfare OTT Award for Best Actor in a Drama Series, and this made him repeat villainous roles in his next films Love Hostel (2022), which also featured Sanya Malhotra and Vikrant Massey, and Animal (2023).

Career expansion (2023–present)
Deol achieved a significant turning point in his career portraying the main antagonist alongside Ranbir Kapoor and Anil Kapoor in Sandeep Reddy Vanga's action drama Animal (2023). The film emerged as a major commercial success at the box-office, grossing over ₹917 crore worldwide. Despite the film's mixed reception, his portrayal of a mute psychopath was praised although several critics felt that his part was too brief. Firstpost called Deol's performance "menacing" and a standout element of the film, praising that "[Deol] showcases remarkable emotive skills without the use of dialogues, leaving audiences in awe of his ability to convey emotions through expressions alone." Animal solidified Deol's comeback in Hindi cinema.

Deol will continue playing villianous roles in his next films, including his venture into South Indian cinema with the Tamil big-budget period film Kanguva, the Telugu action film NBK 109 and the Telugu two-part period actioner Hari Hara Veera Mallu. He will enter the YRF Spy Universe with a villainous role in an action film Alpha (co-starring Alia Bhatt, Sharvari and Anil Kapoor) and play an integral role in Aryan Khan's directorial debut web series Stardom.

title: Bobby Deol


text:
Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 9

ENTRIES BELOW THIS WERE ORIGINALLY ON THE /TEMP1 TALK PAGE
'These entries were moved over when the /temp1 page was moved to the main article

Thanks Richard for your contributions. The prose in the article needs work and I see you have a good style. I will continue adding more facts during the next days. --Zappaz 21:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * No, thank you and Andies and Gary for the calm rational approach. This Jim character is toxic and I will not devolve into his namecalling and bullying. I simply will not respond to this. Perhaps his goal is to make it as unpleasant a process as possible so that neutral POV is not present, I just don't know. But he seems to argue every minor point to death and frankly in such an unpleasant way that I can't help but think he has some deep emotional issues with this whole thing. When did he leave the "cult"? Maybe he's just going through something, I don't know....

 * Thomas raised a question that your efforts are "service" to Rawat. I don't really know what that means. Is he saying you are being paid to contribute? If so, you should disclose that, in my opinion. Or are you just a volunteer? No offense meant, of course. Richard G. 15:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edits/Rationale
First cut and creating a more flowing piece, adding citations where appropriate. Trying to make this thing less vague and more specific, especially about the Knowledge, but not being a practitioner, it's a bit tough...doing my best here, though, and I'm sure we'll have many edits.

Looking for the resume on his website...can't find it. Anyone have the URL? Richard G. 18:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Added link to the web archive where you can find his resume. You may need to turn-off javascript in your browser to read it.
 * Also added to the intro a small paragraph to state that there is controvesy and criticism
 * You could attempt to take a shot to summarizing the criticism from the Critcism of Prem Rawat article abd putting it in the Criticism section.
 * 64.81.88.140

Edits
Thanks Richard for your contributions. I thing the article is shaping up nicely. There is still more work to do, as always... hope to find some more time for this, now that Criticism article is almost completed.

Andries: we had an agreement: You were supposed to be editing Prem_Rawat/temp2. Please afford me and other editors to develop an article as agreed.

--Zappaz

Type III Apostates
Good work on the critics sumamry. That was a great find, Richard. I quote here the paragraph about the Type III apostate:
 * Type III narratives define the role of the apostate. In this case, the ex-member dramatically reverses his or her loyalties and becomes a professional enemy of the organization he or she has left. "The narrative," in Bromley’s terms, "is one which documents the quintessentially evil essence of the apostate’s former organization chronicled through the apostate’s personal experience of capture and ultimate escape/rescue."[8] The former organization could easily label the apostate a traitor. However, the apostate—particularly after having joined an oppositional coalition fighting the organization—often claims that he or she was a "victim" or a "prisoner" who did not join voluntarily. This, of course, implies that the organization itself was the embodiment of an extraordinary evil. Having been socialized into an oppositional coalition, the apostate finds a number of theoretical tools (including powerful brainwashing metaphors) ready for use, which help to explain precisely why the organization is evil and able to deprive its members of their free will.

 * Massimo Introvigne is wrong in the case of ex-premies who admit that they joined voluntarily and deny having been brainwashed. Andries 22:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * John Brauns says that. Other expremies (type III apostates), speak to the contrary and say that they were victims. They also resort to other theoretical tools, including Brauns discourse about the reasons for joining.--Zappaz 22:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the critics' main focus is on concrete complaints instead of theoretical tools such as "mind control", and indoctrination. Apart from that people naturally try to understand their understand their own experiences and then resort to "theoretical tools". Introvigne's article hardly applies to this case. Andries 22:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another quote from same paper shed light on the discusssion about number of ex-premies and their representation:
 * A distinction may be established here between visible and invisible former members. Most former members are invisible insofar as they do not care to discuss their former affiliation. In fact, their very existence can often only be discovered through quantitative research that is able to access a group’s membership records. They are less likely to be available even for qualitative sociological work, although this should not be ruled out entirely. Visible former members are primarily apostates, and the oppositional coalitions they have since joined make every effort to assure their visibility. In a much smaller proportion, defectors may also become visible, and can occasionally be mobilized by those organizations attacked by the apostates. They may also spontaneously come out of their social closet to defend their former organization as being unfairly criticized or misrepresented. This means that, although apostates (and defectors) may constitute only a minority of former members of several organizations, no matter how controversial, they may well constitute the majority of visible ex-members. This is a risk run also by mainline and relatively noncontroversial organizations. Vocal apostate ex-priests are much more visible than the quiet majority of former priests who prefer not to go public with their defector-type narratives. The almost exclusive visibility of apostates may also become the rule for controversial organizations such as some new religious movements.

--Zappaz 20:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Before you go out on a limb using this text from Massimo Introvigne, which can be found here: http://www.cesnur.org/testi/Acropolis.htm you might want to note that this excerpt is taken from an article titled: "Defectors, Ordinary Leavetakers and Apostates: A Quantitative Study of Former Members of New Acropolis in France."  For more information about the controversy that Introvigne himself has been embroiled, you can look here:   http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/storia/gb04.htm and here:  http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/storia/gb05.htm

 * I'm not making any judgments either way about New Acropolis or any other of Introvigne's affiliations. However, Introvigne is not necessarily an unbiased researcher of New Religious Movements and his credentials as a sociologist are also questioned.

 * For more information you can investigate this website called "Apologetics Index." In particular, this page called "What you Should Know about CESNUR."

 * http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c10a01.html

 * If CESNUR (Introvigne - founder) is to be used as a scholarly reference for this and other Wiki articles on NRMs, then its scholars also must be researched fully and critically in order to to verify their credibility and personal motives.

 * Here is another article about Introvigne: http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist16.html

 * Thank you. Cynthia Sept 9, 2004
 * Addendum: I've edited the resources section to show the entire title of article. Cynthia 9/9/04

 * Cynthia. Please write your comments at the bottom of the page. Othwerwise is hard to follow. Thanks.
 * Regarding the credentials of Introvigne, clearly he will be challenged by the anti-cult movement as CESNUR and the many scholars that support that organization around the world, are the target of their discourse. The anti-cultists call them apologetics and have invented a barrage of accusations against them in an attempt to reduce their credibility, that is very substantial. Rick Ross, Hassan and others do not have the rigorousness of research as shown by Introvigne and other scholars. IMO, Rick Ross bigotry is simply disgusting, and regarding Kelebek, don't get me started.. --64.81.88.140 16:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gary D's second thoughts
Zappaz, you have kindly asked me to come over and give temp1 a copyedit. I'm of course very flattered, and I do want to help out. Upon reviewing the article, however, I see a problem: to be honest with you, I think the PR article (any of the current alternative versions of it, in fact) needs fundamental rework, of the tear-down-to-the-bones-thrash-structurally-and-reapply-new-meat variety. This is the kind of thing I could attempt (as painful as that might be) with the main version when all factions are represented and not feel like I was stepping on any toes, as I could simply be brutal in my editing in the name of a better final product. In contrast, though, temp1 was explicitly set up to give the pro faction a chance to construct an article version in peace, and while frankly it was expected that the resulting product might tend toward a pro-PR bent (just as it was expected temp2 might tend toward an anti-PR bent), it would represent a finished product that the pro faction could use as their benchmark and as a resource for contributions to the final article. In other words, temp1 was explicitly set up as a haven for a pro-PR editing stance where no one was going to come in and fundamentally thrash your work into unrecognizability. I fear, though, if I perform the copyedit that the little editor voice in my head starts describing when I scan through the current article, that is precisely what I will be doing to your efforts. That would mean my brutally thrashed, practically unrecognizable article sitting atop your temp1 edit history. You would then be faced with whether to revert large portions of it to recover your original effort, which might be personally awkward for you because you and I are enjoying a cordial relationship and you wouldn't want to seem ungrateful after asking me to come over here in the first place. In other words, I would characterize your gracious request to me as being to come over and polish temp1 before it is thrown to the wolves, but I must now make clear to you, my friend, that I am one of the wolves. With all that in mind, I am disposed to backing away from a temp1 edit. However, I am your servant and will do what you like with regard to your version. I could attempt a style-only edit, but most of the text already looks reasonably readable, and the boundary between stylistic and substantive editing can get fuzzy, especially for me once the adrenaline starts pumping. I would be more than happy to do the full edit, but you now understand what that would entail. I suppose I could do something on yet another temp page. To minimize any personal awkwardness for you, I am adopting "standing down" as my default position, so that you need do nothing; unless I hear from you affirmatively otherwise, I will simply suspend my plan to copyedit temp1. I'm sorry for any inconvenience. --Gary D 08:37, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you Gary for the honesty and candor. Much respected and appreciated.
 * I have "saved" the current revision at Prem_Rawat/temp1/Rev_a, so this is my humble request to you:
 * Go ahead, get the editor-"wolf" in you loose, get the adrenaline flowing, and copyedit temp1 mercilessly.
 * One condition, thought: Do the edit within my proposal of two separate articles, i.e. Summary of criticism with link to Criticism of Prem Rawat
 * Looking forward to see the results of your work on temp1, if you agree with the above :).
 * (I hope that Richard G, who has contributed to this version as much or more than me, will agree to this, if you don't Richard, just say so...)
 * --Zappaz 18:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gary, dunno why you say you're a "wolf." From what I've seen you're one of the more disspassionate chaps around here. I have no objection at all. Go for it. Richard G. 13:08, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alrighty, then, in the face of such a welcome (for which I thank you), I'm happy to give it a shot. I've started with a portion of an outline, so you can see what you're in for. My available time may be somewhat spotty right now, so it's hard to say how fast it will go. You certainly shouldn't hold off editing to wait for me; however, be warned I have assembled a vision and an editorial bulldozer to get us there, so text will fly, including what you may add. As a hint, I anticipate that the final product will be quite unvarnished toward the guy (this may hurt), yet the net result will not be unsympathetic toward him from a western sensibility. I think there is a story to be told here, a fascinating one, in terms human rather than divine, one that—frankly—both factions have mostly missed. --Gary D 22:05, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Good start, Gary. I may be posting some raw text in some of the new sections (as bullets maybe), just some facts that you can weave into the story. I agree that there is a story to be told here. BTW, I do not think that PR needs "varnishing"... his story since he was 4 years old, including the controversy, provides quite a bit of fascination already..... Look forward to working on this. Maybe Richard can chip-in as well with some more facts and data. --Zappaz 04:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lineage
Gary: There are many other accounts of these early beginings other than Mishler. It woud be appropriate to weave these as well. I will look for these and send you refs. For example:
 * Young Prem and not Satpal will often "open" the events in which his father spoke. Prem did this since he was three years old. The first written account of this took place when he was 4 years old.
 * His father will often send greetings and blessings to the whole family, but special "pranams" (postrations) for Prem
 * The day his father died, it was Prem and not Satpal that took the satge and told the weeping devotees not to cry and to remember that the love of Sri hans could not day and was still with them. In that scenario, the devotees recognized the spark of the teacher in Prem.

--64.81.88.140 15:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Below is Prem's only known  auto-biographical words. These are from the first website at maharaji./org in 1999. You can access some of these pages athttp://web.archive.org/web/*/http://maharaji.org. I think that it is facinating and worth considering. --64.81.88.140 15:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Preface

"Know thyself" has echoed through the ages. This simple statement has been revised and updated, but has never lost its charm or intrigue.

We all, in our own ways, want to better ourselves, be it in our career, our family, our friends, our skills—whatever our chosen endeavor may be. So we should, and to this end many avenues are available to us.

However, one cannot forget one’s self. Knowledge of the self is important—to some, indeed, paramount. Knowledge of the self begins with the self. Your universe resides within you, waiting to be discovered. What does it take? It takes a sincere desire, an earnest thirst. Understanding is a wonderful surprise. That which didn't make sense all of a sudden does. My efforts have always been to help people understand and feel the feeling within. People through the years have tried to place me in a mold, and from the very early years I have not been able to oblige them. When I was very young, people were looking for the "old silver-haired Guru with flowing white robes." I was only eight. When people were flocking to India for their search, I was in the West. When people were looking for sophisticated discourses, I spoke of simple things. When people wanted nirvana, I said, "You need peace." When people said, "Tell us of the scriptures," I said, "Look within you." When people asked, "What is your qualification?" I said, "Judge me by what I offer." To this day, some people see me the way they want to. After all, I guess it is rather inconvenient to see things as they really are. I have evolved, but my message stays the same. Externally, I have changed but within me, something stays the same.

Journey

Every time I sit down to write something, a reminder comes. Keep it simple. This is neither a biography nor a history session. I sincerely believe in moving forward.

Ever since I can remember, I have been surrounded by people who had a thirst and an inspiration for life. It was and is wonderful. After all, to know that every day can promise something new is a challenge of life itself.

It all started for me when I was quite young. Mornings were my favorite time of day. I couldn't wait for the new day to begin and to visit the dew covered grass. Every part of it was magical.

I lived in a lovely neighborhood of Dehra Dun with my Father, mother, stepmother, three elder brothers, and my half sister in the summers. The household included a staff of seven to eight people.

The air was clean and the skies were dauntingly dark blue. Magnolias, night blooming jasmine, and Indian roses perfumed the morning air, and I would be greeted by the bustling calls of Indian myna birds.

I loved to awaken the staff by reminding them to practice the techniques of Knowledge imparted by my Father. We were all very close. Everyone respected each other and we all loved my Father.

I know that for many kids a father is very beautiful. My Father was very special. He was a Master, His majesty magnificent. He worked hard to give all of us the best care possible, and indeed, we were all very well taken care of. To please Him was a delight. To this end, everyone did what they could.

When I was eight years old, my Father passed away. After Him, I accepted the challenge and the grace of continuing to disseminate Knowledge. This was, of course, unusual for I was the youngest in my family and not the eldest.

Attending school and traveling extensively to speak at public events was a mixed batch at best. I remember often being interrupted from doing my homework because some people had traveled a long way and they wanted to meet me. As events gained momentum in India, it became harder and harder to keep up with school, even though, to their credit, my friends and some of my teachers made it as tolerable as possible.

Not all were sympathetic or understanding of what I was venturing to do. A huge task lay ahead of me, and neither I nor anyone else had any idea as to its immensity. For me, it was simple. I received the techniques of Knowledge at a very young age when I was neither plagued by the problems of the world nor had any concept of salvation. But Knowledge worked!

To disseminate Knowledge to those who were seeking the inner experience of the self, who were thirsty for it—that was the objective and still is. One thing that has always been very clear to me is that you can't sell Knowledge. After all, this is a very personal experience, something that can only be justified or verified by each individual. Not everyone shared the same feeling. Quite a few people wanted to see me as a figurehead. I didn't want to be one and I am not one. A few others saw me as a leader, and I didn't want to be one and I am not one.

God gave me the ability to speak from my heart, and that is what I wanted to do—speak to those who wanted to hear me, impart Knowledge to those who sought it. "If you like what is given, practice it; if not, leave it." This statement, to me, is simple, yet profound and has been echoed since the time of my Father.

In 1971, during my summer vacation, I came to the West, arriving at London's Heathrow with barely £25 in my pocket. I had no concept of time zones and no idea what I was walking into.

My Father had envisioned that I would go abroad and spread this possibility. And there I was, 13 years old—enthusiastic, exhausted, fascinated—a young boy with an old message. I think a lot of people couldn't handle my age. I remember when I was six and would speak, some people claimed it was a tape recorder. That was never the case, but it did make a bad impression on me that those who simply couldn't understand resorted to bizarre explanations. That was the start of the controversies.

I love this quote: "When you do something right, there will always be those who criticize you; when you do something wrong, there will be no one around to stop you." There I was with a very simple possibility. All the old ways of doing things were yet to be exported to the West. As a young boy, I needed help with disseminating Knowledge, but it was a very different kind of help I was about to encounter.

I wanted things simple, yet they weren't. The effort to simplify continues.

When I came to the West, the possibility of Knowledge existed in one country. Now it exists in 81 countries. Since there was and is no blueprint for accomplishing this, I find myself in the continuous process of simplification, rediscovery, and reinvention.

I love hard work and I love to work hard. Changes happened; evolution was afoot and still is. The changeable changes; the unchangeable stays. The challenge grows ever more challenging and beautiful. I look forward to it.

Thanks for these refs, 140, and keep 'em coming! I will definitely work them in. I have been frustrated that the current PR and EV websites don't seem to have much definite historical material to draw from. I also have plans for developing an initial, "pre-transition" section. BTW, I appreciate everyone's patience with what might look like an initial anti-PR take, but I think this will come home to roost in a balanced "payback" when we get to the section where the family departs and PR starts making changes. --Gary D 19:09, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Other early accounts
There are other early accounts. These are excerpts from a historical account by one Mahatma Gyanbaraganand in 1973.--64.81.88.140 19:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * ... Maharaj Ji since his very childhood used to practice meditation. He was always in meditation and he  was very reserved in his speech. He was not like an  ordinary worldly child, he never wept and he was just  very reserved in manner. On very special occasions, on a  rare occasion, he would make speeches, and each one was  always very meaningful, very significant and to the  point.

 * Although Shri Bal Bhagwan Ji, Shri Bhole Nathe Ji and Shri Raja Ji are the elder brothers of Maharaj Ji,  they used to pranam to him. Although in the Indian  culture the younger brother salutes the elder, all the  three elder brothers used to salute the youngest. In  their childhood, the four brothers used to play very  exceptional games. They were extremely playful, but their  play was special. Shri Bal Bhagwan Ji, Bhole Ji, Shri Raja Ji ordered the mahatmas to bring bricks, and  they collected many any bricks. With these bricks they  used to make a stage for Maharaj Ji, a very high  pedestal. Then they would make all the arrangements and in the end Maharaj Ji would come and sit on the  stage. He would say, "Okay, now everybody sit, take your  seats." And then Shri Bhole Ji was just very humble and  with folded hands he always asked Maharaj Ji,  "Maharaj Ji, what should I do, what should I do, what  service should I do?" From his high pedestal Maharaj  Ji used to give satsang and what he used to say was that,  "This human body is only for meditation, so you people  should do meditation." Then he himself used to  demonstrate how to do meditation.

 * Notes:

 * Bal Bhagwan is now called Satpal, the eldest brother
 * pranam means "prostrations" and used in India as a show of respect
 * satsang means "company of truth" and refers of a speech made by a master or teacher

Current edits
Good work, Gary. I enjoyed reading the article even if it is not complete yet. ... And thanks tprf.org for the picture of young Prem Rawat, and .140 for the small corrections. I can see that the edit is progressing unencumbered and it is looking good. I look forward to see the treatment of the rest of the article. --Zappaz 06:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Zappaz. Another edit pass performed today, with moves of material out to other articles, as the biographical material itself just about fills the 32K allotment. Next in sight is a redo of the criticism reference section; I have just about abandoned my former "integrated article" position, because the damn thing is just too big. Will next be pulling in more fill-in material from all over other sources, making sure to balance the viewpoints, and then plan to promote this version as a candidate to take over wholesale the current online main article. --Gary D 11:04, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a good plan. Only comment would be that the article is relying maybe too heavily on Mishler's account. So far I have not seen any objections to this, but worth considering if to add other sources. Regarding the criticism article, I have not seen any substantial additions by the ex-premies lately, but I propose giving them little more time to see if anyting else surfaces. I looked at the ancillary articles but do not see much that can be added at this stage. I thought doing an article on the elder brother Satpal, but I find very little about him and mainly from his own website. Richard has been absent for a while, hopefully just giving you the space to complete your editing. Hope he joines us again for the last stages. --Zappaz 20:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I would love to add other sources. Mishler remains central because he is about the only one specifically addressing what happened during these time periods; there is almost no specific information given on the organizations' websites and in the favorable newspaper reports that address the big "W questions" of who/what/when/where/why. Technical difficulties have prevented me from pulling all the old website versions off the Internet Wayback Machine, but there doesn't appear to be much specific stuff there anyway. It is frustrating. I don't get the sense the book "Who Is Guru Maharaj ji?" would plug the hole, but John Brauns has a copy, so maybe he can check it for stuff. If PR wrote an autobiography and talked about his history, his account would probably go first, but apparently that one short piece is all he ever wrote. I think .140 is currently attempting to hunt up some "pro" sources; if you have anything I would sure appreciate it. --Gary D 01:51, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Gary, Zappaz, Richard and other contributors, seems we are getting there! I am taking a back stance for now and awating for the "final" revision (if there is ever a final one) before I make my comments. All in all it is looking the best I have seen so far.--Senegal 21:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

sorry...been busy
First week of school is always ugly...

Very clean, guys, but it seems awfully biographical rather than substantive about what rawat propounds, the message of peace, etc.

Let me noodle that around and get back in a day or so? Richard G. 01:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Indeed it has become more biographical, with the material on the techniques moved out to Kriyas. Now we're bumping up against the 32KB prescribed limit. If there is a body of material focused on the message that is encyclopedic, I would propose we consider folding that into the Kriyas article, or it may be fodder for a new article, along the person's-life-versus-person's-doctrine demarcation lines of, say, Aleister Crowley versus Thelema, Madame Blavatsky versus Theosophy, Edgar Cayce versus Edgar Cayce on Karma etc. --Gary D 02:01, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Biography
I see the article so far as a valiant attempt by Gary (with Zappaz and Richard contributing) to write a biography of Prem Rawat. I will state my concerns below with the hope that you will address them:
 * 'Thank you, and welcome back, jossi! I'll put my responses in this font after each paragraph. This method forced me to rework your numbering. --Gary D 03:55, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

1. Succession is taking too much space IMO and too much based on a second hand account. The fact is that regardless of a succession or not, Prem Rawat's work since he was very young has been remarkable by all accounts. It is not of such importance to warrant so much space to the lineage discourse.
 * 'Concern over the second-hand account has been noted a few times, but we just don't have anything from the PR camp that addresses this period of history in detail. I did try to put in some PR and mahatma material about the pre-succession and succession periods, what little there was of it. As to inclusion of the succession itself, its details are independently encyclopedic, as the events surrounding any transfer of dynastic power, especially an unusual one in violation of Hindu primogeniture, would be of general interest. Considering we're bumping up against space limitations in this article, though, it may be worthwhile to move the bulk of this account out to the Shri Hans article, and just summarize it here.

 * Once you complete the criticism summary, you may evaluate the space situation. If you are bumping against 32 KB, a summary with a link to the Shri Hans article will do nicely.
 * 'Yeah, let's put that on the "probable to-do list."

 * One thing that is important and missing is the fact that Maharaji received Knwowledge from his father when he was four years old. This means that he became at that early age a student of his father, now his teacher as well.

2. What is the source for the report of eight million followers and 2,000 mahatmas? This seems strange...
 * 'These figures are from the 1973 New York Review of Books article, a few paragraphs down from the top.
 * I must say that these figures are a total exageration, the number of people that Maharaji has spoken to since he arrived to the West is 6.5 million (1 million + in 2003), so this figure of 8 m studdents in 1973 does not compute. Regarding the number of mahatmas, that is also an exageration. The number of Mahatmas never passed more that a couple of hundred at its peak. Either the journalist had a knack for exageration, or he interviewed a person with a grand imagination...
 * 'I'm not married to these numbers, especially as the NYRB reporter didn't attribute them. It would be nice to have some numbers generated by the organization during that time period, though (as opposed to modern numbers relating back to then); any suggestions for a source on that?
 * I am working on this to see if I there is any published figures for that time.
 * This sentence The organization continued to grow, claiming as of 1973 two thousand mahatmas who were authorized to teach the Knowledge techniques, forty thousand followers in the U.S., and eight million around the world. is incorrect. There were never so many mahatmas and the number of premies could not have been eight million in '73. I do not tink that there are any published stats of that period. I would suggest that it is removed from the article. Thanks. --64.81.88.140 23:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 'I've now killed these numbers, since nobody thinks they're correct, and we have no attribution for them. Would still like to get some better contemporaneous numbers, tho'.

3. The account of the pie-throwing incident and the unfortunate comment allegedly made to a reported, don't have IMO any biographical value. Given the shortness of this article, to feature this incident in the section named "follower's devotion" paints a distorted view, and forces a POV of devotion as extremism.
 * 'Here again, the pie throwing incident and consequent assault are independently encyclopedic; they are, for example, some of the few things I as a member of the general public heard about PR at that time. Hence, they would deserve to be in the article even standing alone, but I liked being able to tie them into the point about premie devotion, as a segue into the discussion of followers' divinity beliefs. While "extreme" would be POV, the consensus of all the contemporary journalism was that the premies' devotion was remarkably strong, I don't think that's in dispute, and it needs to be captured here. To the extent that devotion was driven by an erroneous personal divinity belief on the Westerners' part, I think the article does pretty well at airing the viewpoint that this was not necessarily PR's personal fault. Now, the one premie's comment is a bit different. Using that strong an example was a quick way to make a point about the level of devotion evident at the time. It is not necessarily the only example we could use, but using other, less stark examples would take more words to set up an explanatory context, while this one delivers the point even standing alone and in just a few words. I did try to soften it with the hyperbole aside.
 * I still think that it is an unfortunate choice to portray the premies devotion. Devotion is love, and a love that is most sweet. I know that the pie incident is a "juicy" story, but this is not a newspaper article. I do not have a problem if you want to keep it, but in the current placement it throws the NPOV so carefuly crafted. I do not negate that there was a strong devotional aspect at that time, just that the choice of example is a poor one.
 * 'I sometimes think of an encyclopedia as a distillation repository of all the persistantly significant tidbits from newspapers. The pie incident and assault, as notorious public incidents, really do have to stay. I'm happy to use a different premie quote(s), though it may cost us a few more words.

That sentence about slitting throats is just malicious. That reporter was looking for a juicy story. I have removed it. Hope that will not be put back. I do not have a problem at all with saying that devotees at that time made quite outrageous claims ... We did ... But hey, that was the 70s :-)

4. Seventy percent of the article is mostly dedicated to the 60's, 70's and some of the 80's. There are just four paragraphs about "the movement today" that skim over the most important years of Prem Rawat's work thus far. If this is a true biographical account, as it seems to be portrayed as, it should certainly include the last 20 years as well. Maybe the current article can be shrunk to allow for the inclusion of the last 20 years of Prem Rawat's life-work.
 * 'If there are biographical happenings over the last twenty years, they definitely should be included here. I presume he was fairly constantly traveling, lecturing, and teaching the techniques over this period, but if there are significant events that mark milestones in the life of a man or an organization, their place is here. Again, there is precious little history coming from the PR side; it seems like the critics have a monopoly on telling the specific stories. I have .140 and Zappaz digging for "pro" history material; maybe you can join that effort.
 * OK, I will see what I can put together about the last 20 years. What is missing in the article IMO are the most important years of Maharaji's work. Maybe a short summary of that period with a link to the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" page will cover it.
 * 'Look forward to whatever you can dig up.

5. There is very little about the teachings, and the Techniques of Knowledge article covers just one aspect. Hopefully someone will undertake the writing of an article Teachings of Prem Rawat.
 * 'As I have suggested over on the Criticism talk page earlier today, I think an article on PR's doctrines would be a good thing.
 * Good. We we shall see if there any volunteers to undertake that article. I will certainly assist, but I am not a writer... :) --≈ jossi ≈ 04:29, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * 'Yeah, that really is an article I cannot write; happy to copyedit it, tho' ;-)

≈ jossi ≈ 15:22, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to take this version online as the main Prem Rawat article
Okay, I think I have this one close enough to completion that this version can now be taken online as the main Prem Rawat article, and I propose to do so in one to two days. The items currently in discussion between jossi and me can be dealt with either before or after that. As I mentioned recently on the Criticism talk page, I humbly (yeah, right) believe this version blows the doors off the other versions. Also as mentioned on the Criticism talk page, due to page size limits I propose that this page handle neutral biography, the Criciticsm article handle criticism in-depth, and another to-be-created article handle PR's doctrines in-depth, with references given in this main article to both the Criticism article and Doctrines article.--Gary D 22:45, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed alternative opening paragraph
Gary. I propose an alternative opening paragraph as follows:

 * Current
 * Prem Rawat (born December 10, 1957 in Dehra Dun near Haridwar, India) is a sometimes controversial inspirational speaker who brought to the West and promotes in both the West and India four meditative techniques or kriyas that he collectively calls the "techniques of Knowledge" and which he claims bring inner peace. He was for a time known in the West and is still known in India as Guru Maharaj ji, and is now known to his Western students as Maharaji.

 * Proposed
 * Prem Rawat (born December 10, 1957 in Dehra Dun near Haridwar, India) is a sometimes controversial inspirational speaker who promotes inner peace, that he claims can be achieved via four meditative techniques or kriyas that he teaches worldwide and that he collectively calls "Knowledge". He was for a time known in the West and is still known in India as Guru Maharaj ji, and is now known to his Western students as Maharaji.

--≈ jossi ≈ 00:38, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * Jossi, I don't think we can go this far in an unattributed statement, and I believe the opening paragraph should if at all possible be left completely unattributed. The problem is that the statement "PR promotes inner peace", or even "PR intends to promote inner peace" is not agreed on by everyone, but is actually controversial. The ex-premies would say PR is promoting his own self(ish) interest; the Christian anti-cult movement would say he is promoting demonic heresy. By contrast, the ex-premies and the Christian anti-cultists would agree PR is promoting the four techniques; that much is agreed on with consensus. Hence, the current paragraph, which directly states without attribution that PR promotes the techniques is WP preferable to the alternative paragraph, which directly states without attribution that PR promotes inner peace. With this article now online, this is obviously ripe for group discussion, but unless the "anti" editors would agree PR promotes inner peace, I think the opening paragraph should remain as is. --Gary D 07:00, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Volunteer for Teachings Section
My girlfriend Lexy is a premie and she volunteered to do it. It'll be a week or so before she gets clear from her day job and registeres and gets up to speed on Wiki-land (!) but looks like we have a winner. Richard G. 19:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Richard, does your girlfriend still refer to herself as a premie? That would be interesting to know.

Another Ex-Premie 13:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Okay, I have set up a preparatory stub, Teachings of Prem Rawat. Let fly. --Gary D 23:54, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Image rights problems
We need the folks who uploaded the PR images on this page to help us out with some rights questions and clearances:
 * The top image, MAHARAJI_WIKIPEDIA.jpg, is fine, its image page says we have a GNU FDL license on that.
 * The second image, T_ym2.jpg, says the copyright owner has consented, but doesn't specify the license terms. Do we have a GNU FDL license from the owner on that one? If so, the image page needs to be updated to reflect this.
 * The third image, Prem_Rawat_biography.jpg, we don't have any information on at all. Has there been any permission to use this image, and do we have GNU FDL license terms on it? Its image page needs to be filled in as well regarding this. Also, not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but it's pretty darn small. Can we get a larger version of this image (again licensed as GNU FDL)? --Gary D 07:09, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ashrams
Any premie who was accepted to live in a DLM ashram was required to live a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience. These ashrams were considered by both community and ashram premies to be Guru Maharaj Ji's ashrams. The ultimate obedience was to Maharaji himself, but it also filtered down from the ashram "House Father or Mother" and community coordinator for day to day activities. It was required that Arti be sung twice per day to a photo of Maharaji that was set up on a altar in the ashram medition room or in the main room of an ashram that also had an altar set up with a chair for Maharaji, a pillow for his feet, and a large photo of him. Because Arti was usually sung after nightly satsang meetings in the community setting, singing Arti at night was not repeated when an ashram resident came home to the ashram after evening satsang.

A vegetarian diet was not an option but was a requirement. No meat, fish, or eggs were allowed in the ashram diet. Another requirement was that no ashram premie use alcohol, drugs, or tobacco. It must be noted that a community premie had to be accepted into the ashram -- one couldn't simply move in at will -- there was an approval process, usually conducted by the community coordinator who had to be an ashram premie, and sometimes in conjunction with a traveling Initiator/Instructor. This was how the ashrams were managed from 1976-77 in the U.S. through the time the ashrams were officially closed by Rawat. Another requirement and full understanding was that any premie who was accepted to move into one of Maharaji's ashrams was that they were making a life-time commitment to Maharaji by doing so.

Another Ex-Premie 13:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Inspirational speaker?
I have never heard Maharaji call himself an "inspirational speaker", neither any of his students will make such comment about him.

Maharaji is a teacher and guide. In India, you would call this perosn a "guru". In the West that word is loaded with negative connotations or at least associated with Hindu or Sikh religion. Calling it a "teacher" does not cut it either, because a teacher is only such for his students, not for others.

Making the comment that he is a "sometimes controversial inspirational speaker" is misleading. I agree that he is controversial, as would be anyone challenging the status quo. But to say that he is an inspirational speaker is wrong.

I am changing it to "controversial figure"

I also removed the disputed label, as it no longer needed given that this is a well referenecced biographical account. --64.81.88.140 15:57, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph is just false
''Rawat in this speech attributed great power and possibly divinity to "The Lord, Guru Maharaj Ji," apparently referring to his father. The fact that Rawat himself also came to be called "Guru Maharaj Ji," may have led to confusion, whether intentional or unintentional, in the minds of Western followers between Rawat personally and this called-upon figure of divine power. It may be that during the 1970s as praise and divine connotations were further heaped upon "Guru Maharj ji", those in charge maintained in their own minds a distinction between the young living man, his deceased father, and the lineage title itself, although that distinction appears to have been lost on the most devoted Western followers.''

This is absolutely false. It was very clear during the 1970s that when Rawat said things about "Guru Maharaj Ji" he was referring to himself. He almost always referred to himself in the third person in his satsangs, and anyone who denies this is a liar or wasn't there. During the 1970s premies were not "confused" about this. Rawat, when referring to his father, more often than not would say "My Guru Maharaji" or he would refer to his father as "Shri Maharaji." Rawat didn't get up on stages, dancing bare-chested with flower-malas around his neck wearing a Krishna crown and say "I'm dressing up like my father." He did this until at least age 23. His message at the time was quite clear. Rawat himself never said "don't worship me," "Don't call me the Lord," or "Don't kiss my feet," or "Don't sing Arti to me personally, or to the altars in your homes/ashrams." Rawat never, ever said that premies should worship his Shri Maharaji either. Shri Hans was Rawat's "Maharaji" and he was very clear about it. When Rawat said "Pray to Guru Maharaj Ji" he meant himself, not his father.

Has anyone who isn't a premie writing here noticed how much effort has gone into this article to blame premies for Rawat's own claims of being the Lord, or pass off Rawat's other claims of divinity by saying the premies were confused? Isn't this a bit strange that everyone BUT Rawat is at blame for his own actions and words during his past? He's been an adult much longer than he was a child guru!

Rawat was dressing up as Krishna as late as 1980. That's age 23. During 1979, he dressed up many times on stage as Krishna during the week-long Hans Jayanti Festival. There were approx. 20,000 premies at at Kissimmee, Florida festival from around the world. At one point, he sat in a flower decorated cart, dressed up as Krishna, and his Initiators hauled him around the camp grounds like they were horses. Premies by the thousands were bowing down to Rawat, not Shri Hans -- Prem Rawat himself. Rawat didn't say "Don't do that." He's was the messager and was quite clear about who he wanted premies to surrender to and who he was: The Lord, or Perfect Master. Here's the url to EPO that shows a photo of Rawat in that cart. The person on the left is Mike Donner.

http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/Private.htm

The photo is at the bottom right of the webpage.

It's this kind of blaming of others and "explaining away" type of baloney that is a major complaint of former followers. In 1995 or 96 at Long Beach, CA, while talking about death and the breath and "last breaths" he actually said: "When you are dying, think of me!" And the audience definitely "got" what he meant" and intense applause and crowd roaring took place. See if you can obtain a tape of that speech from Elan Vital. Long Beach, CA, 1995 or '96.

Another Ex-Premie 12:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The 1973 glossary of the DLM supports your view/experience. Andries 13:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Don't need the glossary. I was there! I wasn't confused, either. One didn't get to be in the ashram if one was "confused" about Rawat being the Lord and the main ingredient of that was surrendering ones entire life to him by living in the ashram (for life).  Rawat was quite clear about who was the Lord and who was the "Boss," especially when it came to ashram premies and it definitely was not his father. In fact, he discouraged anyone from expressing worshp towards "his" Shri Maharaji because he was dead.  Thie whole point was a "living Lord."  The entire focus of this "NRM" was the worship of and surrender to Maharaji (Prem Rawat) as the Lord during the late 70s.  Again, anyone who denies this is a bald-faced liar or wasn't there.

 * Another Ex-Premie 13:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Another_Ex-Premie, I believe you but your anonymous testimony here at this talk page can not serve as a basis for this article. That is why the glossary is important. Andries 13:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Understood. However, if the issue is anonymity, then why are "anonymous" PWKs allowed to write these lies and spin?  There's no back-up for this paragraph at all.  Also, it doesn't seem to matter here when people have used their real names.

 * Additionally, DLM periodicals that were published by DLM, such as "And it is Divine," and "Divine Times," and later "Elan Vital" were produced by premies, but contained mostly transcripts of Rawat's satsangs, along with photos of him and his brother, wife and kids.

 * By the mid to late 1970s premies weren't attached to all those hindu "trappings." Premies did what we were told to do by Rawat and that was to obey him and be attached to him -- only. We still practiced kissing his feet (darshan) and singing Arti, (Rawat never said "Don't do that.") and donating money and worshipping him as the Lord. In communities across the U.S. premies dressed in normal clothing like other mainstream people of the time, held down jobs and did not appear as hippies or eastern Indians. In particular, the community introductory programs (from 1976 on) were westernized long before the 1980s. On stage, it was Rawat and his brother, Raja Ji, his wife Marolyn (Durga Ji) and sister-in-law, Claudia, who dressed up in saris (for the women) and Indian clothing for Rawat and brother.  This was on stage -- even as late as 1979 -- not when Rawat was a child.

 * Another Ex-Premie 14:48, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Listen, ex-premie: I was in similar festivals and programs and for me Maharaji was always my teacher, my master but never my "God". I had then and have still an great respect and love for Maharaji. I also lived in the Ashram for 3 years, and I did that from an understanding that I wanted that type of life and stay focused in all aspects of Knowledge. I paid my respects to Maharaji in darshan lines then, and if i had the chance to pay my respects today, I will do that as well. When Maharaji spoke about "Guru Maharaj Ji" he was clearly speaking about his Master, his father. The krishna dresses was all harmless fun, we all loved it. Indian stuff was "cool". Yes... we had great fun playing games with Maharaji then, including Holi (in which he dosed us with gallons and gallons of colored water), one of the most fun times I ever had. As they say: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". And yes, If I need to remember anything when I die, is to remember the power of my breath, the beautiful Knowlegde, and my gratitude for the one that showed me the value of my life. :--64.81.88.140 15:27, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Did you live 3 in years in the ashram and sang arti every night just for fun? That means, rawat is relying now on former fulltime bongos like you are. That is fun. Thanks for making my day.Thomas

 * That's not what Maharaji said. What he said was this:  "When you're dying think of ME."  He didn't say, think of your breath or meditate on Holy Name.  He said think of ME when you are dying. I suppose he slipped up and didn't say "Think of Shri Maharaji when you die!"  LOL! I never liked Holi, personally, because it was always a dangerous game because the water guns were/are so powerful and the crowds surged towards the front.  I also know of a couple of "practice" Holi's Maharaji did during the late 70s when he injured people by blowing them against brick walls.  I was there and those premies were afraid to say anything because, gee, he was the Lord and it was Maharaji's Lila. It wasn't Shri Han's Lila. And Maharaji was there and saw it because he was aiming those water guns and he was above everyone on that pedestal.  He never even asked "Are you okay?"  I know a premie who still has back problems today due to her injuries from 25 years ago being thrown against a wall by those water guns.

 * As far as the ashram is concerned, if you didn't believe that Maharaji was the Lord you weren't an ashram premie. You just lived in a house that was called an ashram and went through the motions. There were a few premies in the ashram like you, though, I do admit that -- people who just thought it was "playing aroung for fun." The ashram was considered by Maharaji to be a life-time commitment, not a passing fancy. Did you ever attend one of his ashram-only meetings at those festivals?  He was quite clear in those satsangs to ashram premies what he expected of us. And it had nothing to do with his father and you know it.

 * I don't know where you lived, but wherever I lived in an ashram (and I was transferred a lot) everyone considered ourselves to be living a life where the goal was complete physical, emotional, and spiritual surrender to Maharaji, our Lord, personally. And not his father. It wasn't "innocent" fun.  It was quite a serious commitment and I'll come up with the quotes to prove it.

 * As far as darshan lines are concerned, I have a question. Does Maharaji still give Holy Breath to new Knowledge initiates when they pass by in darshan lines, or did he "discontinue" that practice, too, except in secret?  Explain Holy Breath away to the readers here and see how much spit and polish you can manage put on that one.

 * Tell the truth premie! I'm going to start posting here some some of the "hit" devotional songs that were sung to Maharaji on stage at those festivals -- not the Hindi ones by Mahatma Charanand Ji, the ones by Australians, like One Foundation, plus the American bands too.  Remember?  One band on each side of the stage?  Were those devotional songs "kidding around and a joke" too?  Funny, because if Maharaji says they were "kidding around," then he's lying, because I was around when he personally directed the recording of those songs in a studio by One Foundation. And we weren't swaying in a trance-like state in a crowd of 20,000 singing to Shri Maharaji!  Tell the truth, premie!

 * Another Ex-Premie 16:36, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I have difficulty to understand how anyone can seriously believe that Prem Rawat spoke about his father when he used the words Guru Maharaji Ji. See http://gallery.forum8.org/INSPIRATION1.jpg where the "International headquarters" writes both of his father, Hans and Guru Maharaji Ji. He writes that Hans transferred spiritual power to Guru Maharaji Ji. The latter can not have been anyone else than Prem Rawat. This opposing view should be more clearly reflected in the article. Andries 16:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Whay are you guys always so verbose? In any case... You believed in him as your Lord and you dedicated your physical, emotional, and spiritual life, because you believed in that. That was your belief. Don't assume that is was the belief of others.  I was in the Asharm and had a fantastic, jolly time. Enjoyed the comunal and simple life, enjoyed practicing Knowledge two hours in the morning and two hours before going to sleep. Enjoyed telling people about my experience. As for Maharaji,  he was and still is my beloved teacher, guide and friend.
 * In regard to the article, your grievances and the grievances of other ex-premies are well presented in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. Given that you are such a small group, to have a full page in Wikipedia dedicated to your kind, is more than you could ever ask. --64.81.88.140 17:13, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Who "guys" are verbose? Are you talking about Ex-Premie, lying-our-butts off, apostates? You're real good at persuasion, 140, I have to hand you that.

 * You're pretty amusing, too, 140. Your response is predictable, pure apologia.  What I mean by that is this:  Premies have avoided answering any direct questions for years. I asked you about current practices, like, does Maharaji still do the Holy Breath thing. Yes or no?  That's okay, I understand if you're forbidden from answering.  Really, I completely and sincerely understand.  I lied plenty of times on behalf of Prem Rawat personally.  It's part of being a premie/student/devotee.  You just do as you're told.

 * What's wrong with being verbose? It is so difficult to read some words; this is an encyclopedia!  It's the internet...words, words, and more words!  Or are you just so used to watching videos of Prem Rawat your attention span has been dramatically reduced?  You ought to check that out, it could be a side-effect of your "NRM," and it's leader, Prem Rawat. I mean no offense because really, I do understand the strain of trying to square that circle.  I had plenty of practice when I was a premie.

 * The "Criticism of.." article may as well be entitled "Criticism of the Critics." So, anonymous or using real names, we apostates lie.  Good work, 140!  Like I said, you're real persuasive.

 * Another Ex-Premie 17:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, what ABOUT "Holy Breath"?
Another ex-premie asks an excellent, important question. How could we forget? Rawat used to "seal" our role as devotees with "Holy Breath". Now how in the world could anyone who wasn't "Holy" simply breath into someone's ear and thereby open the gate for them to walk towards God-realization (which is exactly what Knowledge used to be sold as)?

 * Hey apostate, thank you for the compliments. Regarding holy breath, I do not know because I have not seen than since the 80s. I am a free preson and no one forbids me from anything. Quite the contrary. All Maharaji ask me to be is true to myself. What's bad about that? Your verbosity is IMO, just sheer obsession. How else you explain, ex-premie, that after 20 years you are still banging the same old battered drum? Give it up, let go, make ammends with yourself and your past, and strive to have a happy life. That is a worthwile endeavor, rather than yap, yap, yap...!  (Don't you ever get tired of that?) And by the way, I don't lie on behalf of enyone, why would I? You guys got this all thing of conspirancy theory worked out right? Well, I am sorry to tell you that thre is no such a thing.  Concerning my attention span, I think that it is in pretty good shape, thank God. :)

 * BTW, let me remind you that Knowledge was never sold. It was and still is given freely. What you feel and what you realize is yours. regardless of what any other person says about it. I know what Knowledge is for me, thorugh my own experience. It is my right as a human being to pursue that. Neither you, nor anyone else have a right over that freedom.
 * --64.81.88.140 18:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * do you remember the satsang from maharaji were he told us that the time will come where he will hide, and the devotees will hide with him. you became good in that. but in comparison to zappaz you are nobody and he is not even a premie. learn more from him, your chararcter has already transformed to something strange. i don't care so much about you or the article. but when ever rawat will mention "devotion" to be directed to him we will be there.Yet another ex-premie

A reminder: This is not USENET
I kind reminder to another-ex-premie, .140 and others: This Talk page is not Usenet, or a discussion forum. You may want to take these interesting discussions to the many forums available for that purpose or to Usenet. Thank you for your consideration .--Zappaz 18:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Critics POV
Critics POV need to go in the Criticism of Prem Rawat page. If anyone wants to make a substantial change to this page, it needs to be discussed and agreed here. --≈ jossi ≈ 22:10, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Jossi, it is considered a bad form in the manual of style if all the criticism goes into one paragraph or article. Only if the criticism is too much for one article it should go into a separate article but that does not mean that the original article can not contain criticism. The subject has been extensively discussed on this talk page. Andries 22:25, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Regarding the reverted sentence in dispute, I can live with it, I can live without it. On balance, Jossi, I would tilt toward urging you to let Andries retain it, since it can be seen as balancing the rest of the paragraph, if one views the uncertainty cited in that paragraph as pro-PR, and with a few words it stands in the stead of a lot of potentially cluttering raw "anti" citations. --Gary D 23:23, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Re-wrote the paragraph a little bit to incorporate Andries request. My feeling is that it was better as per Gary's original edit. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:17, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

 * Double standards are used. The Criticism of Prem Rawat article is full of rebuttals and the supporters POV, including irrelevant ad hominem attacks. I do not think I am overdemanding when I insert that sentence in the "false paragraph" i.e.
 * "On the other hand, critics and some others assert that there can be no doubt that Rawat intentionally referred to himself when using these words."
 * Andries 10:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * That sentence has you wrote it is not NPOV, Andries. a) the use of "some others"; b>the use of "no doubt"; c) the use of "intentionally". I have changed it as follows: Critics assert that, in their view, there can be no doubt Rawat refrerred to himself when using these words.. --≈ jossi ≈ 15:33, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 9