Talk:Divine Light Mission

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Will Beback (talk | contribs) at 23:33, 10 July 2008 (→‎Ashrams: already covered prominently). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.

Notes and References

Please keep this thread at the bottom of the page. Start new sections above it. Thanks.

Notes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Barrett, David B. (1996). Sects, cults, and alternative religions: a world survey and sourcebook. London: Blandford. ISBN 0-7137-2567-2.
  • Beckford, James A. (1986). New religious movements and rapid social change. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. ISBN 0-8039-8003-5.
  • Edwards, Linda (2001). A brief guide to beliefs: ideas, theologies, mysteries, and movements. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 0-664-22259-5.
  • Hunt, Stephen (2003). Alternative religions: a sociological introduction. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8.
  • Galanter, Marc (1999). Cults: faith, healing, and coercion. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512369-7.
  • Geaves, Ron (2002), From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage (Parampara), paper delivered to the 27th Spalding Symposium on Indian Religions, Regents Park College, Oxford, 22–24 March 2002
  • Guiley, Rosemary (1991). Harper's encyclopedia of mystical & paranormal experience. [San Francisco]: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-250366-9.
  • Juergensmeyer, Mark (1996). Radhasoami reality: the logic of a modern faith. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01092-7.
  • Langone, Michael D. (1993). Recovery from cults help for victims of psychological and spiritual abuse. New York: Norton. ISBN 0-393-31321-2.
  • Lewis, James P. (2004). The Oxford handbook of new religious movements. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-514986-6.
  • Miller, Timothy (1995). America's alternative religions. Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0-7914-2397-2.
  • Sutton, Robert Mize (2005). Modern American communes: a dictionary. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-32181-7.
  • Wilson, Bryan (1990). The social dimensions of sectarianism: sects and new religious movements in contemporary society. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-827883-7.

Page protected

I have fully protected this page until mediation has ended, any administrator can freely undo this at their own will without it being a wheel war. Cheers, Chetblong (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What?

Article content: The Divine Light Mission has been described in various and sometimes conflicting terms. It has been called a new religious movement,[167] a cult,[168] a charismatic religious sect,[169] an offshoot of Sant Mat,[170] an alternative religion or spin-off from other traditional religions,[171] a Radhasoami offshoot,[172] an orthodox Sikh community,[173] an Advait Mat related tradition,[174] a proselytizing religion ("Guru-ism"),[175] and a defunct religious movement.[176]

Lead: The movement, which some sources say was influenced by the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, was, in the West, often labeled as a new religious movement, a sect or a cult. Officials of the DLM said it was not a religion.

???????? The lead needs to, at least, describe the conflicting aspects of their "labeling" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is a short, summary version of the article. It can't and shouldn't have all the details that the body of the text has. What change are you proposing? If it's significant we should use the proposal system. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am making a complaint about the summary of the labelling. It needs at a minimum to explain that there where conflicting and numerous descriptions. I will make an edit and see if it sticks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an intro, not the main article. No, please don't "make an edit and see if it sticks". Please use the mediation process and make a proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest we use "new religious movement" in the lede and leave the rest to the main article. Jayen466 23:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the vast number of sources that have labelled it a "cult" that suggestion would niot result in an intro that reflects reality or that summarizes sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:·
I agree that the sentence would have to be rewritten to work with the NRM label. I still would be in favour of using that label in the lede, since it is the up-to-date scientific label. The popular cult label is better covered in the article proper. Jayen466 00:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence refers to what the group was labelled, not what category scientists use for it. Even scholars such as Bromley and Shupe acknowledge that it is usually categorized as a cult: "In this chapter we lay the groundwork by describing the six most prominent, controversial groups called cults:..." and lists the DLM. The DLM was not a bystander during the cult scare of the '70s. It was frequently mentioned as an example of a cult, and was even a target of the anticult movement. To ignore that the DLM has been called and treated as a "cult", and indeed was among the most prominent of such groups, would be a major omission and would result in an unbalanced introduction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we reduce it to something like "The Divine Light Mission has been described in various and sometimes conflicting terms. It has been called many things, from a new religious movement, to a cult, to a defunct religious movement" And flesh out the others in the article? -- Maelefique (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description above may have been unclear. The current text in the intro is:
    • The movement, which some sources say was influenced by the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, was, in the West, often labeled as a new religious movement, a sect or a cult. Officials of the DLM said it was not a religion.
  • Obviously some of those terms have been used far more frequently than others. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frequency of use is not the primary criterion in an encyclopedia. Just as an illustration, the lede of the 1994 Encyclopedia Britannica article on Scientology referred to it as "religio-scientific movement". The present lede describes it as an "international movement". I believe we should strive for
    • NPOV
    • factual accuracy, using the most reliable sources available. --Jayen466 00:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most reliable sources available say that it has been called a cult, a sect, and a new religious movement. That's what our intro says. What's the problem? How is that not NPOV? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me to be written in such a way as to endorse the view that it is/was a sect, or cult. Both of these terms are pejoratives; occurring, as they do, at the end of the first paragraph, I find they fall short of an WP:NPOV intro. Jayen466 01:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To give you an admittedly OTT (= over-the-top) example, it's a little as though the lede to black people stated, at the end of the first paragraph, that "historically, black people have often been referred to as wogs, niggers and kaffirs." That, too, is undeniably true, and citable to reliable sources. Now, scale that down by a factor of three, and you have what I feel about this lede. Jayen466 01:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. It clearly says that these were terms used to refer to it, and does not endorse any of them. It does not say that it was any of them. That's how to present information with the neutral point of view. If you'd like to make a proposal for changes to the intro then please go ahead. But I don't think there's a consensus to remove the terms outright. And I think your example is not just OTT, but also incorrect. Those are simply slang pejoratives for black people, not different lineages to which black people may belong. "New religious movements", "sects", "and "cults" are three distinct terms, none of which is another name for the DLM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagreements are natural and hopefully what brings articles forward. Still, I for one have some sympathy for Jossi's feeling (presumably) that the lede gives undue weight to the pejoratives, as per, None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. Jayen466 01:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is really ridiculous. Proposals can be made, of course, but this is an obvious mistake. You have reverted twice for no other reason that you don't like it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted two edits made without consensus. Have Jossi and Jayen withrawn from mediation? If not, please follow the procedures we all agreed to. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there is a proposal system in place, and the use of them is preferred, if a consensus can be established on the talk page, then that option will be considered. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't seen any attempt to propose language here and gain a consensus first. Let's agree on the language first, whether here or on another page, before it's added to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word label is pejorative, it immediately introduces a suspicious tone. NRM would be neutral without that negative verb. Rumiton (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer "categorised" as. That is the most neutral term, as in following: The Divine Light Mission (DLM) (Divya Sandesh Parishad) was an organization founded by guru Shri Hans Ji Maharaj in 1960 to organize his followers in northern India. During the 1970s, the DLM gained prominence in the West under the leadership of his youngest son, Guru Maharaj Ji (Prem Rawat). The western movement, which some sources say was influenced by the Bhagavad Gita and the Sant Mat tradition, was categorised as a New Religious Movement, but was also described as a sect or a cult. Officials of the DLM said it was not a religion. Rumiton (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal posted for 1st para of lede

Please see User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal8. Cheers, Jayen466 09:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-argument to Foss & Larkin

See Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars#Kennedy. We ought to add the opinion of this scholar that contradicts and challenges Foss & LArking opinions (my highlight):

Instead, it is clear that the researchers have reacted antipathetically towards the DLM nd thus become emotionally involved in their research in a manner which precludes both sensitive, insightful observation and objective analysis. This is most concretely manifested in the highly emotive language used by Foss and Larkin to describe their observations. Expressions such as "absurd," "preposterous," "nonsensical" and "ludi- crous," tell us more about the predispositions of the researchers than about the nature of the subject matter. Indeed, the deeply hostile presentation is itself sufficient to cast considerable doubt upon the objectivity with which this particular piece of participant observational research was conducted. [...] The study of such groups and how they tend to become involved in the DLM may well have shed considerable light on the fundamental appeal of the DLM and its role in modern society. In summary, then, Foss and Larkin's study is not a study of the DLM. Rather it is a deeply hostile participant observational study into ex-youth movement recruitment into the DLM during the early nineteen-seventies in the U.S.A. The two most serious consequences of this are that the study is methodologically flawed and theoretically misfocussed. "Worshipping the absurd" has therefore failed to understand the basic significance of the DLM, and, more seriously, misrepresented it. Sadly, a golden oppor- tunity to further our understanding of a significant religious movement has been missed.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit

Current

David V. Barrett noted that the DLM movement was often criticized for emphasizing the superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect.[1] The sociologists Ralph Larkin and Daniel A. Foss made similar observations in 1978.[2] In response, the religious scholar Ron Geaves, himself a member of the movement, accused Foss and Larkin of bias.[3]

Proposed

David V. Barrett noted that the DLM movement was often criticized for emphasizing the superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect.[4] The sociologists Ralph Larkin and Daniel A. Foss made similar observations in 1978.[5] In response, the religious scholar Ron Geaves, himself a member of the movement, accused Foss and Larkin of bias.[6] Another scholar, Jim Kennedy, refers to Foss & Larkin opinions as being deeply hostile, which in itself he sees as sufficient to cast doubts upon the objectivity of their study, and asserts that the two most serious consequences is that their study is methodologically flawed and theoretically mis-focused.[7]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be getting a bit far from the field. The topic of this article is the DLM, not the scholars of the DLM. Perhaps this new material would be more appropriate in the articles about Foss and Larkin? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are citing the opinion of Foss & Larkin, and we are also presenting other opinions that challenge theirs. Most appropriate, indeed. If a study is considered flawed and hostile and we use it a a source for this article, we ought to present that information to our readers.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Foss and Larkin are used to agree with Barrett about "superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect". Does Kemeny address this point in his paper? I don't see it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(a) we are using Foss & Larkin in several sections of the article; (b) their study has been challenged by more than one scholar. Conclusion: this is important information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do Foss & Larking say exactly? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many scholars have been reviewed and questioned by other scholars. While we might include those reviews in articles about the scholars or their works, I don't think that the article about the DLM is the place to put those disputes between scholars, unless it directly concerns the DLM or the assertions being made about them. If Jossi doesn't have a copy of the paper I'd be happy to send him one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Jossi wants to write a critique about how scholars of NRMs disute each other, that another article unrelated to Prem Rawat. To bring it into this article is off-topic to the subject. These academics have arguments all of the time. It's the nature of the academic "beast." Has nothing to do with DLM. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I am not surprised of the response to this source. Please read the material: Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars#Kemeny, and then tell me if it does not have anything to do with the DLM. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashrams

Propose to add from this material to the Ashrams in the West section Divine_Light_Mission#In_the_West:

Some groups appear to be able to operate simultaneously as adaptive and marginal groups. Morgan (1973) reports that four thousand premies or devotees of Guru Maharaj-ji live in strictly celibrate monastic lives in ashrams. On the other hand, the same article reports that there are 40,000-50,000 premies in America, who, presumably, do not live permanently in ashrams. A meeting attended by the senior author was presided over by a full-time advertising executive.[8]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A meeting attended by the senior author was presided over by a full-time advertising executive." Huh? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please send me a copy of that paper? I don't have it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The material I propose to be included is the fact that was discussed earlier about ashramites being a minority. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's already covered in the first sentence: Only a small fraction of the overall DLM membership lived in organized ashrams during its short history.... What more are you proposing to add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Barrett, David V., The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions (2003), Cassel, ISBN 1-84403-040-7 Page 65
  2. ^ Foss & Larkin.Worshipping the Absurd 'The Negation of Social Causality among the Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji.' Article by Daniel Foss and Larkin in Sociological Analysis, 1978.
  3. ^ Geaves, From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond, 2004: 45-62
  4. ^ Barrett, David V., The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions (2003), Cassel, ISBN 1-84403-040-7 Page 65
  5. ^ Foss & Larkin.Worshipping the Absurd 'The Negation of Social Causality among the Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji.' Article by Daniel Foss and Larkin in Sociological Analysis, 1978.
  6. ^ Geaves, From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond, 2004: 45-62
  7. ^ Kemeny, Jim On Foss, Daniel A. and Ralph W. Larkin. 1978. "Worshiping the Absurd: The Negation of Social Causality among the Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji." "Sociological Analysis" 39, 2: 157-164, Sociological Analysis, Vol. 40, No. 3, (Autumn, 1979), pp. 262-264
  8. ^ Robbins, Thomas; Anthony,Dick; Curtis,Thomas Youth Culture Religious Movements: Evaluating the Integrative Hypothesis , The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 1, (1975), p. 12
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Divine_Light_Mission&oldid=224911623"