Talk:Sahaj Marg/Archive 6

NPOV

NPOV in the starting section has been added, pls discuss about the dispute section so that we can either remove it or let it be there..

While the contents are apparently sourced and the results of the work of many editors, it is currently in poor shape. There are many obvious issues that are relatively superficial, such as organization, grammar, referencing,and formatting. More substantial issues appear to be an unbalanced approach, a non-neutral tone, and verification. I'm not going to take this on immediately by myself - it's too big a job. Let's see if we can get some more editors involved in this. -Will Beback 07:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

rg has "no philosophy". Credo is latin for "belief". When you read this, you have to "believe it" to try it, so this is a credo and a "ritual" or series of tenets (also beliefs) that one "adheres" to to belong in good standing in this group, just like any religion, and practice their rituals of "sittings" and repetitions of prayers or "endoctrination" of the adherents " slavery to his or her desires". This practice is ridiculed by Vivekananda, Ramakrishna and others.

Does this qualify a group as "cult"?

Hi Willbeback

I enclose some quotes from the Sahaj Marg "official" litterature... the Stanford site is a "student " organization" and as such they can say anything... these quotes from the Masters are the "CREDO and the TENETS or "Maxims" as below in the Teachings section in the article. Chari states that Sahaj Marg has "no philosophy". Credo is latin for "belief". When you read this, you have to "believe it" to try it, so this is a credo and a "ritual" or series of tenets (also beliefs) that one "adheres" to to belong in good standing in this group, just like any religion, and practice their rituals of "sittings" and repetitions of prayers or "endoctrination" of the adherents " slavery to his or her desires". This practice is ridiculed by Vivekananda, Ramakrishna and others.

For those who don't read the Sahaj Marg Material, and they are many in SRCMtm, here is something that you can either defend as "spirituality" or "cloning" or "mind control" or "brain-washing" depending on how far you are into the group...

From Salient Features of Sahaj Marg Series 2

Maxim 2

Now for the form of prayer which may ensure the greatest good to everyone. I may say that one should be brought to the same state of mind which is usually developed at the time of prayer. The feeling that he as a true servant approaches the great Master in the humble capacity of an insignificant beggar must be engrossed upon his mind. He may put up everything before his Master, resigning himself completely to His will. In other words he may assume his real form after surrendering everything to the Master. He should withdraw himself from all sides and turn completely towards Him losing all worldly charms. The remembrance of everything should merge into the remembrance of One -- the Ultimate, resounding all through in every particle of his being. This may be known as complete annihilation of self. If one develops in this state, in my view he should be considered as an embodiment of prayer. Every thought of his will be synonymous with that of the Master. He will never turn towards anything that is against the Divine will. His mind will always be directed towards that which is the Master's command.

And there are those who claim that Sahaj Marg is not "Religion"...or "cult of a Person" who claims to represent the ONE or the ULTIMATE!

and then there is this in the same book...

He has now become the Master of one's life in all it's aspects of existence. He becomes the father, the mother, the son, the teacher, the doctor, in fact, there is no role that He does not play in the abhyasi's life. He has taken total charge of the abhyasi. So we see that only our surrendering to Him can bring about a state where He can take total charge of us!

Analysing this further we find, surprisingly, that a great and unimaginable freedom is now confered on the abhyasi. It is the freedom from freedom itself. It is the freedom of invulnerability. We may even say that it is the freedom of invincibility. We are no longer answerable for our actions. We merely obey. The person who issues the orders, the Master, assumes complete responsibility for anything we do.

Nah! Sahaj Marg is not a Religion, or a cult...It's SPIRITUALism

What about this one from the same book... How do we Surrender?

So long as you do a thing and know that you are doing it, it is not the right course and you are away from the level of surrender, because the feeling of ego is also there. Surrender is free from any conscious idea of ego. Everything there goes on in an automatic way according to the need of the moment without any previous or after thought.

The easiest and surest means to achieve this end (Absolute State) is to surrender yourself to the Master in true sense and become a ‘Living Dead’ yourself. So long as you do a thing and know that you are doing it, it is not the right course and you are away from the level of surrender, because the feeling of ego is also there. Surrender is free from any conscious idea of ego. Everything there goes on in an automatic way according to the need of the moment without any previous or after thought.

The easiest and surest means to achieve this end (Absolute State) is to surrender yourself to the great Master in true sense and become a ‘Living Dead’ yourself.

To continue with this group, do you not have to believe that the deceased Babuji is "chanelling messages" to a French Lady and sold at "donation" $250.00 as Whispers from The Brighter World? There is a "credo" that to belong to this group, you have to believe their "sales" pitch and the "pitch" is the "credo" that the "target" is made to believe, and/or swallow. (hook,line and sinker)

IS THAT type of "OBEDIENCE" not a CREDO? Chari himself states that OBEDIENCE is more important than MEDITATION! Maybe someone can find that quote somewhere!!

don --don 23:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not for us to decide whether or not this group is a cult. We can report what others have said about it and what it says about itself but we can't make independent determinations based on our own viewpoints or criteria. The "Generic Cult Philosophy" and other material which seeks to make a case about its purported brainwashing or cultic behaviors should be removed or re-written with a neutral point of view. I'd also add that the extensive "teachings" material should be summarized more effectively. Large numbers of long quotes are not helpful to readers. Let's just boil it down to the main points. If necessary the details about teachings can be split off into a separate article, but even then they'd need to be shortened and summarized. -Will Beback ·:· 01:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Willbeback...

It is also not for us to decide if this group has credos maxims or tenets or a philosophy either but when it says it of itself, in the Master's (president) words, then we have to include it. To believe one a "living dead" is a credo (belief). We are in fact deciding that they are "a spiritual" group, simply because they say so. When one researches this deeper, they seem to be a 'spiritualism" group and not a "sprituality" group. Meditation is a technique, just like prayer, and is not unique to SRCM but the CREDO's is what makes this group "spritualism" and "mysticism" and not "sprituality" as the word is generally understood in the west. To idolize a "man", as God who is responsible for one's life and death, a man made of Matter, is not "sprirituality" and is certainly not without "credo tenet,etc.. that is the reason for the above quotes from the Master's own "mouth".

To seperate the statements of "teaching" in the already paraphrased words of the Masters and "hide" them in another article is no service to the readers, and has been tried with the 'Philosophy" and does not work as it just leaves the article as a PR for the group (there are at least three goups (schisms) editing here, none in agreement with the other as well as the "exposers" and another article will simply bring the debate to a secondary article. The teachings are the "main points" only...there are many more "controversies" with the SRCM that have been eliminated over the years and never returned to so as to "satisfy" most of the editors exept the Chari group who want a PR job.

The statements (by the Stanford and other student groups) about SRCM are not factual, and are just PR and advertising and hiding the truth about the SRCM (see above)....Without deciding wether SRCM is a cult or not, other authorities have claimed it, and one still has to be factual and report on the "authorities" and these statements are "factual", not the statements of the "messengers" and the "front-line" workers or foot soldiers, such as the Stanford Student's group.

don --don 06:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

While we should certainly provide links to the Master's words, we don't need to include them here, except for a few snippets to give a feeling for the style. We write articles on all kinds of religions, beliefs, and philosophies without extensively quoting their key documents. While we need to report that the subject has been called a "cult" by reliable sources, that's still just one viewpoint. Let's bring in some more editors and see if we can get more insight here. -Will Beback ·:· 08:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

One example of NPOV can be demonstrated here, "spiritual group" is one POV, whereas "not a spiritual group" is another POV, hence "claiming to be a spiritual group" will be a NPOV, doing PR on wiki is also a non-negotiable aspect, hence facts should be provided as is, any modification to information makes that a "mis-information" which is not the intend of wiki for sure.

Welcome your comments about "claiming spirituality" so that it can modified.

--122.163.44.237 07:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:Words to avoid#Claim. -Will Beback ·:· 07:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

addition to above statement from 122.163.44.237

this is what wiki has to say about the word claim

The word claim can be used to mean "assert, say". Its usage must be considered. The American Heritage Dictionary notes this connotation: "["claim" means] to state to be true, especially when open to question". The AHD also notes that "["claim"] makes no pretense to scholarliness", and in this regard the word claim is quite neutral because it avoids pretense. It is far more important to avoid words which contain pretense of authority when the statement is in fact only a claim — attributed to one particular viewpoint. For example :

Some claim that the word "claim" itself is quite neutral, and appropriate for representing two sides of a debate equally. Others claim that it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness

Hence the statement spiritual group can be safely stated as claimed as spiritual group, because it being a spiritual is questioned.

Regards

--Shashwat pandey 10:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Willbeback..

YOu say: "except for a few snippets to give a feeling for the style."

The article is not about "style" but about "content". Links to their sites will not focus on the Teachings but on the PR. SRCM wants the PR to be the "hook" and the Teachings or "endoctrination" to be hidden from the new "target" and done later when the "habit" has been built. One can't show content without "stating it". To state one "content" does not 'give a feeling for" the other content. The teachings of the Masters of a group such as SRCM, who's Master claims has "no philosophy" is their "credo" and their tenets. To elimitate them, means that we then take their PR to be factual, (SRCM has no credo, tenet), which is not the case, and is not NPOV. The teachings are what the disciples read and adhere to not the PR that brings them in. The PR is what they then repeat to others.

Don --don 17:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum...

Which part of "Whispers from the Brighter World" is SPIRITUALITY or Raja Yoga for that matter? It is a series of "messages" from the "deceased" Ram Chandra (1983) and other "elevated souls", channelled by a French lady (not the Master) who is "anonymous" but which is being sold for a "donation" of 250.00 as a fund-raiser. This is "spiritualism", not sprituality. To remain "factual", we must also show that this is not a "spiritual" system (Raja Yoga) as claimed in the PR, but one which claims to be "spiritual" but is in fact "spiritualism" and the cult of a Personality...There is a difference. To claim to be Raja Yoga to "ensnare" people does not make it so. I speak about the SRCMtm of Chari. Other SRCM's (SRCM Shahjahanpur of Navneet, and ISRC of Narayana) are also concerned and the matter is now in Supreme Court of India.

Don--don 17:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Comments by uninvolved parties

Umm Sethie has read over the article and concurs that it needs some help!

First off he is moving the cult section to the controvery section. Sethie has never seen an article which starts with the controversy section. He thinks NPOV dictates first and foremost a neutral description of what it is before presenting it's dirty laundry.

He is also removing the phrase "generic cult philosophy." Not only does it not make sense to him, it reaks of a POV push.

Next Sethie is removing a lot of the repetitive "cult" labels. It is alledged to be a cult. That point is made clear. Repeating that point over and over, for Sethie is a POV push.

Next, blogs are not WP:RS Sethie will remove all blog refferences and add a fact tage.

There are many other changes, for example, most of the wiki links are set up wrongly and Sethie will pause here. Sethie 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie. -Will Beback ·:· 21:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The following sentence from the cult allegation sounds like OR to Sethie: "Which implies that the member must not share their thoughts with family members" and hence he has asked for a citation. Sethie 15:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to whomever wrote/did/edited most of this page

A lot of this page is set up improperly in terms of wiki links.

For example:

Sahaj Marg (Natural Path) is a system claimed by the SRCM to be training in spirituality, offered by Shri Ram Chandra Mission. It has been listed as a "cult", by government

Shri Ram Chandra Mission and cult are set up correctly here . If words show up in all blue, they link to something within wikipedia, as these two do

However:

The stated goal of the Sahaj Marg practice is complete oneness with the leader who represents higher self of the members. It must be pointed out that, according to SRCM (California), this higher self is represented by Mr Chari, who according to California-based Chari Group, is the sole representative of God, or the Ultimate on this earth. Hence it can be concluded that Sahaj Marg is complete oneness with Mr Chari (The leader of an organization)

Is set up incorrectly, since the Chari Group is not a wikipedia article. To comply with wikipedia formatting, it should read:

The stated goal of the Sahaj Marg practice is complete oneness with the leader who represents higher self of the members. It must be pointed out that, according to SRCM (California), this higher self is represented by Mr Chari, who according to California-based Chari Group[[1]], is the sole representative of God, or the Ultimate on this earth. Hence it can be concluded that Sahaj Marg is complete oneness with Mr Chari (The leader of an organization)

or it should read:

The stated goal of the Sahaj Marg practice is complete oneness with the leader who represents higher self of the members. It must be pointed out that, according to SRCM (California), this higher self is represented by Mr Chari, who according to California-based Chari Group, is the sole representative of God, or the Ultimate on this earth. Hence it can be concluded that Sahaj Marg is complete oneness with Mr Chari (The leader of an organization)

Sethie's request is that the major author/authors for this page go back through and change all the links so they are formatted like other wiki articles. Sethie 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

discussion

tnx Sethie, will be taking on this article soon, may be in next couple of days... changes seems appropiate. but there are few technical discrepencies however, for example, CR section is not part of philosophy but is a method, whereas transmission and sharing personal diary with the group members is a philosophy, this is used for mind control of the members hence it should be part of first section where philosophy is discussed.

We should not try to make the group look good or bad, but simply present facts as they are, and allow reader to decide if that is good or bad. here only information should be presented.

--Shashwat pandey 05:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie does not follow your distinctions here. Transmission, diary sharing and CR all sound like philosophies, practices AND places where people can/have alledged mind control.

In order to maintain WP:NPOV Sethie believes that FIRST you describe something, and then you include criticisms and rebuttals. Sethie is open to other ways, and from his experience this is how wikipedia handles such things.

If you want to do it differenttly, including the criticisms right up front, Sethie requests that you provide some articles where the criticims are included in with the initial description, right up front. Sethie 07:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about discription only, and not criticism, lets take the case of CR, as it is the first topic in the page.

This can be discribed as always remembering the leader, and imeging that all actions are performed by the leader, now if one includes the concequence of this CR, one can safely conclude that members will become ignorent towards their daily actions as it is included in the text of the group that if thoughts of daily life come, ignore them like "dog barking".

Hence how do you discribe this section ? as something spiritual ? or as mind control? being NPOV does not mean giving wrong information, truth must be presented as balanced, not criticising, but simply stating the facts as they are. I am sure sethie understands difference between criticsim, and facts, what seems as critical can actually be facts, hence an open section should be written and not a biased one.

It is not a matter of doing PR or being critical but simply stating facts as they are. if there is someone who does not agree is welcome to discuss and present his/her POV, discuss and agree on a point and then edit the article.

BTW, i do not have any issue with CR at top, i agree with your POV here, with the openion that section of mind control and stating that this practice can make one ignorent towards his/her responsibilities should also be added. --Shashwat pandey 09:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shashwat.

Sethie likes your idea of keeping only with a description. However as soon as you say, "one can safely conclude that members will become ignorent towards their daily actions as it is included in the text of the group that if thoughts of daily life come, ignore them like "dog barking", you are no longer talking about a description, but your imagingation of what the practice will do to you. That is WP:OR and not allowed in wikipedia articles.

"this practice can make one ignorent towards his/her responsibilities should also be added." Sethie disagrees 150% with the inclusion of this idea in the article, UNLESS you have a reputable source which says that this practice makes one ignorant towards one's responsibilities.

Again, if you want to put critical material near the top of the article, please show Sethie some other wikipedia articles that are written that way. Sethie has edited many articles, many dealing with cults or controversial topics, and the critical material is always told AFTER there has been a neutral objective telling about the thing. Sethie 15:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well as far as reputable source is concern, the report submitted in the national assembly of france and report submitted to prime minister of france clearly says that this group conditions mind and targets childrens, also reports published in Danish newspaper, also says same about the practice makes one ignorent towards his/her responsibalities, links for the same are present in the page, also personal testimonails links are not present in the page says that they experienced physical and emotional problems due to involvement in the group.

Moreover, my suggestion is, lets discuss each topic one by one.

Since philosophy is the first section, and mind control is part of this groups philosophy hence i would suggest to put mind control section on top, it has reliable refrence as well.

Obedience to the leader and surrendring one's free will to be used by the leader is also part of philosophy hence they must follow mind control section.

That should be followed by method of the group, where discription about the method as is, should be presented. but first lets discuss the first section, we will come to method later.

Sahaj Marg is a concept claimed to be spiritual, reported as mind controlling cult by government agencies. this is what i feel the article should start with. it has both sections represented fairly.

Pls give your thoughts about this so that we can move to CR section and change it to suit all.

I am here, lets discuss.

--Shashwat pandey 17:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie would like to appologize, he did not see your proposal here.

Sethie objects to this for the reasons listed below: "mind-controlling cult" is too much of a POV push, "concept claimed to be spiritual" just doesn't make sense in English, and it is too complicated. Sethie thinks we can come up with a more descriptive neutral version then that. Sethie 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of Shashwat's edits

WP:VER say that " The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it," and "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Per wiki guidelines if you material that is tagged with a tag does not get a reliable source added to, the material can be removed.

As for the blogs, wikipedia is clear, WP:SPS says blogs are not considered reliable sources unless published by an expert in the field.

Sethie wishes to be polite and offer a chance for the material to be properly sourced.

"acts and testimonials have been provided, only way to provide facts is testimonials of those who lost their family life" Sethie does not dispute that testimonials have been provided. He disputes that they have been provided within a credible, wikipedia-usuable source.

Sethie 21:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie has given a correct summary of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on sourcing. Blogs may not be used as 3rd-party sources. Unsourced material may be removed. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

blogs are not considered reliable sources unless published by an expert in the field. who else can be expert in expressing problems in his family life then the person himself ? hence blogs of those who have been forcefully divorced by the group and have openly expressed their domestic problems on net are reliable source as per wiki policy itself.

--Shashwat pandey 10:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie is impressed with the creativity of your response, and that is just not how things work on wikipedia.Sethie 15:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of Shashwat's work on the intro

Sethie has reverted Shashwat's work on the intro for the following reasons: ~None of the ref links works ~Two fo the ref links are invisble, do to bad formatting ~Sahaj Marg (Natural Path) is a concept claimed to be spiritual, offered by Shri Ram Chandra Mission. -This sentence does not make sense, "concept claimed to be spiritual" just doesn't make sense to Sethie ~ Reported as mind controlling cult by government agencies - This sentence is an incomplete sentence. ~ Sethie sees "mind controlling cult" is too much of a pov push for an intro sentence. Sethie 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems sethie, is only able to undo edits without providing any alternative's, the first section, is accepted, but revision of text in philosophy and CR section is not explained, it was simple cleaning of section, removing redundent para, Sethie must understand that he is not the only editor on this page and all have same right to discuss and edit.

1. Pls explain revision of edit's on other section's.

2. Pls explain who according to sethie's understanding of wiki policy, can be reliable source of information in context of forced divorces.

--Shashwat pandey 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shashwat

Sethie attemped to find a reffernce for the cult watch group, he did a web search for "cult" and "shri chanra ram mission" and could not find a single cult watch group that had them listed. Rick Ross, the #1 internet cult watch group did not have them listed.

Sethie believes he has explained why he revised the philosophy and CR section, please see [[2]]

Thank you for the reminder that Sethie is not the only one working on this article, in the past he used to go REALLY fast, making all sorts of changes without discussing. Maybe he needs to work on that some more.

According to wiki policy, a scholarly journal, newspaper article, a published book, or a website published by an acutal expert (for example, Rick Ross) would be a great source for information on forced divorces.Sethie 16:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed removal of teachings section

Sethie proposes to make the teaching section read:

Teachings from the Sahaj Marg material

Please see Sahaj Marg Philosophy

Since all of this is listed in that article. Sethie 16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1. It seems sethie has missed the point, or he was in hurry to undo edits by Shashwat, Shashwat would request Sethie to revisit the edits done by Shashwat in Philosophy and CR section and come again, Shashwat had simply removed the redundent sections, such as "according to california based Chari group" this was repeated twice, Shashwat understands that Sethie is knowledgeable enough to understand redundency in same section is not proper.

2. Regarding list of cult watch groups listing SRCM as cult, sethie would have been much more comfertable if he had simply seen the section "Warnings about SRCM" in this page itself.

3. Shashwat is unable to understand how can Rick Ross confirm reasons as to why a person got divorced, when the person himself says that it was forced due to SRCM. Shashwat would like to know more from Sethie's knowledge in this regards, Shashwat is not impressed! yet

Regarding Removal of section, Shashwat suggests removal of philosophy page itself. as it is adds no value as single page when it is represented as a section.

Sethie is excited! Another person talking in third person! :)

Sethie does not know what #1 is reffering to, please provide links to what you wish Sethie to review.

For #2, Sethie has looked through the various links. The only link he sees which is a cult watch group is the ICSA, however, they have no information on the group, just a blank page! :) [[3]]

Sethie did not ask that Rick Ross confirm the reason why people got divorced. Sethie said that the report of the divorce has to be from a WP:RS to be included in wikipedia, no more, no less. If such a report showed up on Rick Rosses page, as opposed to personal blog or forum, it would be considered a WP:RS.

How about moving the teaching section to the Shri Ram Chandra page, since that is the organization they come from? Sethie 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat know's about one more person who use to speak in third person and that was Saddam Hussain. so Shashwat is not excited :(

1. 1, Sethie had rv'ed shashwat's edits on Philosophy and CR section, link is same, just navigate to history page and see what sethie has done !

1. 2 Here sethie is trying to revert from his previous stand which said, blogs are accepted incase they are from reliable source, and shashwat pointed out, that the only reliable source in context of forced divorce can be the person himself. Shashwat understands that Rick Ross is a cult watch group and not a marrige counceller, hence it makes no sense to wait for RR to become a MC so that forced divorce cases can become realiable according to sethie's understanding of wiki policy.

Moving section to SRCM page seems OK, in any case page was big.

--Shashwat pandey 17:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, now there are three- Saddam, Sethie and Shashwat! All starting with "S"'s :)

1. 1 Sethie would like you to provide a link, so we can be exactly clear what you are reffering to, Sethie has done a couple of reversions in the last couple of days.

Sethie doesn't feel the need to discuss Shaswhat's idea: "the only reliable source in context of forced divorce can be the person himself" anymore.

Teachings will be moved. Sethie 17:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Its very sad that sethie does not want to discuss !!!

here is the link that shashwat was discussing about,

http://lesahajmargadetruitmafamille.blogspot.com

incase sethie is not comfertable with french, Shashwat recommends google translation.

Removal of teaching section has improved the page a lot, and Shashwat is impressed here ! :)

--Shashwat pandey 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie does not reccollect saying he does not want to disucss, only that he doesn't feel the pull to discuss certain things.

Could you tell me who the author of this blog entry is, and what proffessional creditials they have? Sethie 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two more points which needs to be addressed,

1. The linage section is already discussed in detail in SRCM page hence it is not needed here.

2. Factual accuracy warning, no facts are disoputed in the page. Shashwat wants comments from all editor's so that linage section can removed, and warning on top of the page can also be removed.

--Shashwat pandey 17:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie likes the move of the lineage details as well! Woo hoo!!!

Sethie doesn't feel the need for 2 tags. Sethie 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Final changes from Shashwat

Shashwat is done with changes in the page, he will not be changing contents of this page anymore, will only discuss about his edits.

--Shashwat pandey 17:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

auther of the blog is the person who was forced to divorce, as he left the group but his wife did not, also his son's were married by the cult leader without his wish..

since SRCM has this concept that husband and wife both should be member of the group else they are encouraged to get divorced, this is very common and many people who thinking this to be a spiritual group are suffering, many people have lost their domestic harmony coz of this cult control.

since this is a talk page hence i am expressing my view openly, probably u would like to visit few more site's critical of this group for better understanding of this cult.

--Shashwat pandey 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie feels for those people.... and Sethie would LOVE for what is happening to be known, and even better, Sethie would LOVE for those people to find freedom.

In whatever way these desires of Sethie can be fuffilled in this article, within wikipedia guidelines, Sethie will go for.

Sethie's hunch is, given the apparently small amount of critical material in WP:RS, wikipedia is probably not the place where this will happen alot. Sethie 07:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the latest edits by Shashwat and Sethie

Hi guys...

Nice work...

Just a few points...

Sahaj Marg is the product (hardly a system as "obedience" and "surrender" is not a system), SRCM is the Mission and as such, the political body, and ther are now two "SRCM's" competing for legitimacy. The succession of this body is now disputed in court.

To place the TEACHINGS in the SRCM article is confusing as the TEACHINGS is part of the PRODUCT which is Sahaj Marg. I think it belongs in Sahaj Marg article but will agree with the concensus. I will not however agree with removing it from SRCM and Sahaj Marg articles, and moving it into the Philosophy article. I think that page should be eliminated as it is redundant and was a feeble attempt by another editor to do PR for Chari' s faction. He has now left.

Rick Ross only records "news articles" by mainstream MEDIA staff writers and as such, it takes quite a few years for such a group as SRCM, which has had many "newspaper" articles written about them in France, to enter the radar of a group such as Rick Ross. The Newspapers will only report after there is an "incident" that is "newsworthy"...so far, there have been none in North America and in most English countries. Most who leave SRCM do not cause waves and just go on their way. It is a phemenon with most victims of "cons". The shame stops the victims from reporting the crime. The only "religions" that get coverage are the "high profile" Scientology and the Moonies because of their hollywood and political affiliations and connections. There are now SRCM court cases in India as well as "recorded" allegations of "forgery and murder and attempted murder" and that should be credible enough for us to record if RR is policy-bound to wait for the NEWS media to react. That could take decades. There are also a trail of castles, ranches and retreats that do not reflect a "ghandi-esque" (ascetic) spirituality but a more "materialist" business and retirement project.

When the edits are finished, I will do a spelling, syntax, grammar, typos edit...

Let me know.

4d-don--don 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey 4d- don

Thanks for your feedback.

Sethie welcomes the inclusion of court cases and recorded allegations. Please, bring them! :)

Sethie will nominate the sahaj marg philosophy page for deletion. Your voice, as an editor who was very involved in the page, would really help out.

Sethie is not overly attached about where the teachings go.... honestly his motive was that this page has so many problems he was wanting to simplifiy things so that some real deep issues can be addressed. Sethie 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back don,

Master and leadership section needs to be edited so as to reflect both sides properly, currently it say's, "current guru chariji" this is a POV, as other SRCM section claims that there is no guru after Babuji and hence this must be reflect in the section. will not change the content as of now.

--Shashwat pandey 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sahaj Marg Philosophy

If any parties involved in editing would chime in, here: [[4]] Sethie would appreciate it. Sethie 22:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Court case in Supreme Court of India

Hi Sethie, Shashwat

Here is the current appeal that is pending and the "site with the documents and the "charges" by the SRCM (Shahjahanpur) and they legal advisor.

http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/ac661900p.txt

Statement by legal advisor of SRCM (shahjahanpur)re forgery and murder: http://www.srcmshahjahanpur.org.in/who_can_be.html

Documents including a letter from Founder accusing the "disciple" of wrongdoing, minutes of meetings, letter of succession of both parties etc...: http://www.srcmshahjahanpur.org.in/facts.html

I feel that this info (court case and documents and legal statements) would be better in the Shri Ram Chandra Mission article, and are there now, but we will have to wait for the Supreme Court of India to make a judgement before finalizing all the articles. It will remain confused as both "contestants" are editing and making "contradictory" statements about one another.

For now, I really don't care where the "teachings" section is entered temporarily, but I think that as Sahaj marg is the "practice" or the system, and that Chari has stated that Sahaj Marg has no philosophy, until the Supreme Court of India decides who we are entering this article about makes all the difference, as one group is "evangelical" and not guided by philosophy and one is guided by the written philosophy in the printed material and is not trying to grow the business by proselytizing. So for now, it does not matter where it goes but later we should "consolidate" the Practice as the Product and the Society as the legal entity as it is this legal entity (under Chari) that has had the "difficulties" and controversies around Europe and now North America. The cult accusation and status is almost all since Chari came on the scene and started buying castles in Europe. It was only in 1990's that he registered the SRCMtm in California. We can't tell without the legal documents which is which and who controls what. That also affects what teachings we are talking about, Chari's or Babuji's. This is all in the Shri Ram Chandra Mission Article.

Sorry to be so confusing...This is confusing and then there is the Sufi LINEAGE that took us over a year to figure out with the help of our Sufi brothers.

4d-don--don 03:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The philosophy paragraph

The philsoophy paragraph looks like total OR, WP:NOR to Sethie. Knowhere in the one citation that is listed does it say anything even remotely like what the article says.

Sethie will wait a week and if no proper citations are found for the ideas contained in this paragraph, he will re-write it.Sethie 16:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sethie...

Since you are tackling the Philosophy of Sahaj Marg, here is a speech from Chari in 2005. He credits his statement to Babuji, the Founder but having read, all of Babuji's material, I don't read that from Babuji but from Chari.

As you know, Babuji Maharaj spoke very little. He said, "If and when a guide has to speak, it should be only to teach us about what we have to do, how to do it, when to do it, where to do it, and of course, why to do it." There is no room for philosophy in speeches of Sahaj Marg. In fact, Sahaj Marg has no philosophy. It does not rest on any philosophy. It is neither advaita nor dvaita nor vishishta advaita. You know all these things. Yet we have to speak because we are expected to speak. http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/general-philosophy/1441-the-art-of-listening-to-nature.html

4d-don's POV. This sounds like a tactic to replace the Founder's teachings with "chari's" teachings.

That is why the Teaching of the Master are so "important" so the researcher can see what they are expected to adhere to when they become "disciples" of this Man/Master.

If Sethie re-writes the "no philosophy" section, then Sethie should realize that the SRCM(Shahjahanpur), which are in court do not agree with Chari's used of their Founder being quoted and mis-represented (their POV). Babuji, according to them, had a philosophy and I agree (4d-don's POV). Members of SRCM (Shahjahanpur) have been editing and changing the original article to reflect their faction's views on the Philosophy of Sahaj Marg as regards to the MASTER, the Mission and the Practice (What Chari's faction now advertises as the 3M's-Master, Mission, Method), and they claim that the Master is BABUJI, forever, and not Chari. (see documents above) Hence the "confusion".

Which faction's viewpoint do we represent here, the Founder's family or the SRCMtm, registered in California in 1997??. How do we remain "neutral" and satisfy all parties until the Courts decide on who is the "legal" Sahaj Marg? Then the Philosophy or "no philosophy", can be written according to that faction. If it is Chari's group, then SAhaj Marg has NO PHILOSOPHY, as state above. If it is Navneet (the Founder's grandson), then the philosophy is simple and the teachings can be shortened to reflect that.

Isn't this fun??  ;-))

4d-don...

) Fun, fun, fun.

In the hear and now Sethie is concerned merely with the fact that the section looks like OR and cites sources that don't say what they citation says. So step one he is looking at is just getting some bare, simple accuracy.

As for the multiple organizations, etc. Which ever way the court case goes, in Sethie's view, a neutral article would describe both, including the court ruling.Sethie 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

=To Sethie

Sethie,

Pls read previous discussion, on this page, the para which you have changed has been discussed in detail before with a member of chari group, it was discussed, debated and then agreed upon, there is not point in changing things which you are not aware of. Pls read discussion with Marathi Mulga on this page.

The refrence which is provided say's the leader is

a) as the Ultimate, b) as the spiritual guide, and c) as our inner divinity and this is what is stated in the para also.

--Shashwat pandey 05:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie would REALLY appreciate it if you would link to, or clearly indicate which edit of Sethie's you are reffering to. You say, ", the para which you have changed." :) Sethie has changed A LOT of paragraphs.

Sethie is going to assume you mean the philosophy section. Sethie has not made any changes to the philosophy section. He has merely asked for sources to back up the statements [[5]].

The source that was listed does not say he is: a) as the Ultimate b) as THE spirituual guide, and c) as our inner divinity nor does it say that he "claims himself to be the sole representative of God, or the Ultimate on this earth" nor does it say Thus Sahaj Marg is complete oneness with Chari.Sethie 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Refrence to all facts will be provided soon.

Willbeback

Kindly list here the wiki policy which say's news paper article's in different languages are not acceptable in pages in english. This is with refrence to your removal of section where news paper report was refrenced which listed that members are converted as zombie's, kindly elaborate more on strong refrence with wiki policy, what does strong refrence means according to wikipedia, subsequently which refrences can be termed as week refrence, pls explain.

--Shashwat pandey 09:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The problem is that this is a very unusual, very strong assertion. The source is weak because it's an anonymous French translation of a Danish article. So it's second or third-hand, and it's not clear who the host is either. If we were talking an undisputed topic it might be OK, but to call people "zombies" we need a source that actually uses that term. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement "unusual" is your POV, and hence is not acceptable according to wiki policy, it is not "unusual" according to my POV, hence it makes no sense to call any topic unusual, it can be called disputed, the link is not third hand translation but first hand translation from danish to french, also you have not yet provided any refrence to your POV that news article has to be in english only.

link you provided say's

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

This is not a scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people, it was simple statement reproduced from a newspaper article. it is not "exceptional case" according to wikipedia defination of Exceptional cases. Your edit has been reverted, if you disagree, pls continue with this discussion.

--Shashwat pandey 09:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly an exceptional claim. If you think it's unexceptional then please show me similar claims about other groups. The terms "zombie" and "living dead" do not appear in the source. I'm removing it again. Please do not restore it unless we get a better source. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: I don't know why you'd characterize this as being my "POV" as if I have some unusual perspective on this. If it's a widely held viewpoint then we should be able to find other sources. The material mentions other sources, so lets find them. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Responce inline

This is clearly an exceptional claim

Show wikipedia source which say's that article from reliable source cannot be used, pls refer to previous discussion with sethie where it was agreed that reliable source CAN be cult watch group report.

If you think it's unexceptional then please show me similar claims about other groups

We are discussing about one group only, all groups are not cult's and not sure if there are reports published in media claiming that it converts people into "living dead" but in case of SRCM we have a soruce.

The report say's Les morts vivants google translation Deaths alive there is no article in wikipedia with header Deaths alive, but in article about zombie term is explained as living dead only.

You have not yet provided any wiki source which says articles in other languages cannot be refered in pages in english.

Will wait till this discussion is over, once a conclusion is reached section will be edited accordingly.

Sethie is not sure, however he believe you are severly misquoting the source.

"The easiest and surest means to achieve this end (Absolute State) is to surrender yourself to the great Master in true sense and become a ‘Living Dead’ yourself"- this is an official teaching, yes?

So does the report say, "This makes them 'living dead'"? Or does the report just repeat the teaching?

This is a clear case of WP:NOR, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source."

Sethie believes what is happening is you are taking a quote of s spiritual teaching, drawing conclusions, like "The sect's obsession with blind obedience to Chari" and that this "converts them to zombies" and then wrongly attributing this to a source which does not say that.

If you want to include the "living dead" idea in the article, please drop ALL of your ideas and conclusions about what this means and just report what it means in the context it was spoken.

If you want to use a citation, please only quote them accurately, adding nothing. Sethie 16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done that, nothing has been added from my side, it is reproduced as is. I hope this is agreed by all.

--Shashwat pandey 06:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

RE the Intro

The intro states:

It has been listed as a "cult" by a Government agency

That should read "by government agencies" and this link of this Info site by the Government of Belgium added. See under Ram Chandra or Rajagopalachari, C. (I linked to that page).

Center for Information and Advice on Harmful (or Dangerous) Cult Organizations http://www.ciaosn.be/biblior.htm

The content of the link for the Philosophy paragraph offered by Shashwat, seems to agree with Shashwat. as I read it. It could be re-worded for clarity but the "premise" should remain. The Master is of "divine essence" according to that claim.

Btw...according to Wiki, that is an "unverifiable" claim on the Part of SRCM and should not be 'accepted" as FACT...It is just a "claim" and a very "un-acceptable" one.

4d-don--don 16:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the 2nd agency. Sethie say we just clearly say Belgium and French government agencies.

Sethie agrees that Shaswats version has an ounce of truth to it, however as it is written he feels it totally misrepresents the source. Sethie 16:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Living dead and zombie

Sethie,

A NPOV stand will be "agencies" and not naming those agencies, as refrence for both have been provided.

Regarding living dead, nothing new have been added, it was reproduced as it was reported, just that it was not quoted, hence this time it will be quoted. Since there is no responce from willbeback, after 24 hrs, hence section will be edited now. --Shashwat pandey 05:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't add the "zombies" or "living dead" back unless we have a new source. Regarding the intro, make sure it's neutral. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You say you have added nothing, however had added "see zombies." Unless the article uses the word "zombie" that is you adding things in, and violated WP:NOR. Unless the newspaper uses the words "makes people into the living dead" you are adding things in. Please provide a translation of the section you are quoting from. Sethie 06:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

english meaning of both the words is same, zombie is added only because it is a wiki article, and implies same. only explanination of the term living dead is given, nothing new has been added. --Shashwat pandey 06:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

1. There is nothing which has been added without discussion. Each and every point is discussed before any edit is made.

2. About new source, pls explain why report of a cult watch group is not accepted ? translation is here

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sectes.net%2Fautres%2Fsrcm.html&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

--Shashwat pandey 06:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the translation.

Unless the article uses the word "zombie" that is you adding things in, and violated WP:NOR. Unless the newspaper uses the words "makes people into the living dead" you are adding things in.

The article MOST certainly does not make these infrences. It says: "Your texts require of the members to become “deaths alive” which must be given to the Master completely. That does not have frankly the pleasant air.

- Those which know a little Eastern philosophy know that this sentence is only one expression for saying that one acts in a state of total freedom. It is a well-known state among people who are interested in philosophy. We are in this state because it is pleasant and bus we smell ourselves better."

It does not say makes people zombie- like, it does not say "makes people into the living dead." It say the exact opposite.

This article is a fine source, just not for what you want it to say! Sethie 06:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So do we agree to add the section living dead quoting the same source ? ofcourse without the term zombie i am not attached to this term, however i have personally seen people behaving like zombie's only, but that is not wiki so it will not be added, in anycase, if it is agreed by all, then can we restore the section with quotes as it was before removing the term zombie ? we will come back to discussion on blogs as per wiki policy once we are over with this.

--Shashwat pandey 07:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Sethie don't agree and Will doesn't agree, so Sethie does not see agreement with your proposal on this issue.

The section that was there (even without the zombie link) TOTALLY misquotes this article.

Here is what the source says: A journalist expressed concerns about the teaching of being a "living dead." One practitioner of Sahaj Marg replied: the teaching has a context within Hinduism. Those of us who practice it feel very free and happy.

Anything other then what I just summarized above violated WP:NOR.

This is not a "cult watch source." It is a "daily newspaper. Appeared in the Danish daily newspaper Ekstra Bladet" Sethie 07:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should use title "living dead", or even quote the article directly. We don't have the original text and so any quotes would have been translated twice. We can use the article as a source for general concepts and facts. I think that Sethie has summarized the material well. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

living dead

As far as living dead is concerned, quotes are availabe from srcm itself, and also from daily news paper as in this perticular case, different people will feel differently, but the point, that after joining SRCM one become living dead is established from their own accounts, hence this section MUST be included in wiki page as both parties agree that if one become's member of SRCM he/she WILL become a living dead, feeling may vary from people to people.

Master's most important teaching is that to 'give up' creates strain and enormous tensions. So we are not required to 'give up' but to create an attachment to higher values and purposes, when automatically and naturally the unnecessary things of life drop off. That is, detachment has to be created by developing attachment in a different direction. When we attach ourselves to the Divine, the world falls off. We are no longer part of it, though of it. We are in it, living in it. This may be the condition of 'the living dead' that Master refers to. We are alive while we are really dead to this existence

and here is the link

http://spiritualityfoundation.org/smrti/education/publications/salfeatures/series7/renunciation/renunciation1.html

same is quoted in news paper article also, hence it is established that Sahaj Marg is a process of making living dead in what sense that understanding will vary from people to people.

Request your input on including heading LIVING DEAD and explaining the term keeping in mind NPOV. both sides should be re-presented fairly.

Sethie, i would like to convay one message to you here, SRCM is not based in any hindu concept, they only claim so, according to Chari, Hindu religion is corrupt. Refrence for same is present in teachings from SM section. It has got nothing to do with Raja Yoga as well nor it has anything to do with teachings of Swami Vivekananda, and above all, they don't understand vedanta at all, it is evident from their teachings itself, where they demand surrender to Chari and celebrate his birthday. Vedanta however is based on concept of "Adwatya" and SRCM is a direct contradiction to it, as according to them Chari is of divine essense. However Vedanta say's divinity cannot be expressed. any attempt to express it is negating it.

They are very harmful group distroying life's.

Whoever wrote the above, please sign your messages with 4 "~"'s i.e "Sethie 16:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)".

"that after joining SRCM one become living dead is established from their own accounts." That is simply NOT true. This is your interpretation. You have not provided a single source which says people "become living dead." The sources say, "You are asked to become LIKE the living dead" and then you insert your own interpretation of what that means.

"They are very harmful group distroying life's." No, you think they are a harmful group destroying lives and you wish to use wikipedia as a forum to express YOUR belief.

Please find WP:RS sources (and you have found some) which share you belief. That is the only way your beliefs will make it into this article.

"SRCM is not based in any hindu concept" That is your belief. Please find a source which says that, or leave it out.

"Request your input on including heading LIVING DEAD and explaining the term keeping in mind NPOV. both sides should be re-presented fairly." Both sides? Thus far it is SCRM and Shaswhat's side. You have found not a single source which says "living dead" is a bad thing! :) You have found a source of a reporter saying "Hey this SOUNDS kind of odd," that's all. Sethie 16:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with blogs

Blogs are not WP:RS. Myself and Will (an admin) have told you this, multiple times. Yet, you have put them back in again Shashwat. [[6]] Please stop doing this.

The policy on blogs is clear. Please take your concerns about the policy to: [[7]]. Also it might be helpful for you to post there, so you can get some feedback from other editors, not just Will and Sethie. Sethie 07:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Message for 59.95.204.5

Kindly discuss before making any changes in the page. This page is already under discussion, pls participate.

--Shashwat pandey 11:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Master and leadership

I have edited master and leadership section to give a clear picture about the current situation, case is still before SCoI and till matter is not resolved, Chari cannot be protrayed as current guru, nor Navneet can be presented as authentic president of the group. hence this section needs some discussion and more edits are required so as to present the current situation properly.

--Shashwat pandey 12:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

living dead

Now that we have two sources claiming that group converts people into living dead, one is from the group itself and another is a newspaper refreing to same, hence the section can be added in the page, with header living dead and term explained, keeping in view NPOV.

I shall wait for next 24 hrs for comments from all editor's, will add this section there-after.

--Shashwat pandey 14:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You will do whatever you do. Sethie asks of you to not put it in, since you have provided no source, which says that "the group converts people into the living dead." Hence it will be removed.

Please find a source which says this EXACT idea. Please do not use sources that say what YOU think, but do not say what you think.

24 hours is a VERY short time. Setting such a short time limit creates pressure on the article and the editors. Would you be willing to go with 3 days? Sethie believes a lot less of your edits will be reverted if you give more time for discussion.

Sethie 16:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

new "living dead" source

[[8]]

Says: " Master's most important teaching is that to 'give up' creates strain and enormous tensions. So we are not required to 'give up' but to create an attachment to higher values and purposes, when automatically and naturally the unnecessary things of life drop off. That is, detachment has to be created by developing attachment in a different direction. When we attach ourselves to the Divine, the world falls off. We are no longer part of it, though of it. We are in it, living in it. This may be the condition of 'the living dead' that Master refers to. We are alive while we are really dead to this existence."

Thus, Vairagya can be attained only when one is wholly diverted towards the Divine. When it is so, one naturally becomes disinterested in his own self, including everything connected with it. Thus he loses not only the body-consciousness but subsequently the soul-consciousness as well. What remains then is nothing but the "being in dead form or a living dead."

Wisdom says when you are with a Master and when he is working upon you for your welfare - he has nothing to gain by it – accept. And how to accept? He himself says, “Be like a dead person in the hands of one who is dressing you to be buried.” you see, no reaction. A corpse has no reaction. That’s the ultimate stage of, shall we say, pliability in the hands of the Master that we should adopt, that there is no criticism, because there is no judgement. Who am I to judge? What is my intellect capable of judging?

So, if you can ACCURATELY summarize what this says, you can put it in. Please do so here on the talk page first. Sethie 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

there is no issue with time, that section will be added after discussion is over, few points that are considered while adding the section are:-

1. group claims that its method is developed for people in grahastya ashram, i.e householder's.

2. teachings from previous enlighten masters like swami vivekananda, ramkrishna, and Adi Shankarasharya, about the same concept, viz-a-viz householders, who have responsibilities for their children's, wife etc. some of them are in direct contact with the group even today and are sending messages, these messages are sold @ $250 per 600 messages, by the group.

3. group's method of converting people into living dead state, practice etc will also be considered.

4. View of cult watch group like rick ross about this state.

5. Point which will be mentioned explictly will be how much helpful is this transition from human state to living dead state for the group members and their family members who are dependent on them.

6. How the group claims that this state can be reached.

This section will be most important for inforamtion point of view as this is what is claimed to be the ultimate state that can be reached by the members of this group.

I will put the section in talk page first, and then after discussion is over that will be shifted to main page.

--Shashwat pandey 18:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as you are willing to wait for discussion and not say, "24 passed, no comment" and then make the changes, then yes, there is no issue with time.

Sethie's response to what you wrote above: 1) feel free to put that in the article. An interesting point.

2) Sethie cannot understand what you are trying to say

3) "group's method of converting people into living dead state, practice etc will also be considered." It is being considered, but only in Shashwat's mind. You have yet to show a source that says the group "converts" people into this state. On the other hand, an objective explination of the groups methods would be great.

4) If you can find them, please.

5) This sounds like OR. Only put this in article if you find a WP:RS

6) Sounds great Sethie 19:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Will explain #2

actually the group claims that enlighten souls like Swami Vivekananda Buddha and krishna etc live in a place which they call "brighter world" they regulerly send message for humanity to an un-named french lady, lady is probably a preceptor in the group, her identity is hidden, these message are sold for 250 USD per 600 messages.

I have removed one section from your previos post here as it was causing display problems as it was mentioned for me, i have read it, pls don't mind that.

--Shashwat pandey 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining #2. If you can find a source for it, please include it. Sethie 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, here is the source [[9]] i have explained this term many times on this page. leader ask's people's to accept things without questioning, there was one more link which is now removed, after it was discussed by the other SRCM group.

Please sign your comments. Sethie foregets occasionaly too, and it really helps keep the conversations clear.

This source, about mediums, says:

"A medium, who is not a professional, has passed on these messages to me after my Master gave orders that they be made available to me. She is a sister-abhyasi of the Sahaj Marg system of spiritual practice. I have recorded messages from four sources, all of them beloved to me, and all beyond question. The first is my mother, Janaki, who passed away in the year 1933 leaving behind four children, three boys of whom I am the eldest, and the fourth child a girl, who followed her mother when she was but three years old. As I have written elsewhere, I had no knowledge of my mother at all, remembering nothing more than the last heart-rending scene before her mortal remains were taken away for cremation. Nevertheless, she has remained with me as a pervasive reality often appearing in my dreams somewhat vaguely, and on other occasions thoughts about her adding to my sorrow when I was in a mood of despair and loneliness.

The second entity who has graced me with his messages is the Grand Master of the spiritual system hailed as Sahaj Marg, now spread all over the globe. He is a personality with whom I have had no personal relationship, since Lalaji Maharaj, as Mahatma Ram Chandraji of Fatehgarh was popularly known, attained Mahasamadhi, preceding my mother into the Brighter World when I was five years old. I have been blessed with spiritual experiences wherein He has graced me with His spiritual presence on several occasions. On a few occasions I have been blessed with direct sittings too from Lalaji Maharaj.

The third person to bless us with His messages is Babuji Maharaj, my spiritual Master, who has filled my life to the brim with His loving presence, His teachings, and His divine love, starting with my very first meeting with Him in Shahjahanpur way back in 1964. His loving and patient guidance have followed me throughout the forty years of my sadhana under the Sahaj Marg system, and even today that same guidance, filled with His love and compassion, is generously made available to me through these messages. Lalaji Maharaj rediscovered the Sahaj Marg system of spiritual practice, and my Master spread it all over the world, during the years 1972 to 1982, when I was closely associated with Him in his work carried out through the Shri Ram Chandra Mission.

My wife Sulochana, who departed for the Brighter World in November 1999, is the fourth giver of messages, having secured her place in my Master's heart in His lifetime, and now seated at His divine feet in the Brighter World.

I invite the readers of this book to set aside their scepticism, their doubts, perhaps even anger, when confronted by the whispers from sources not located on earth, but received as messages addressed to me, many to another abhyasi of the Mission, and many also of general relevance not addressed to anyone in particular, but to the whole of humanity. May these messages bring new hope to threatened humanity, threatened with instant extinction by the forces of hatred, wilful violence and religious bigotry."

It says nothing abbout krishna or buddha, a french woman, or 600 messages for $250. Sethie would really appreciate it if you only stuck with material that is actually sourced, and and only list sources when they convey the exact information you wish to say. Sethie 19:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to find out a source on internet where they have published the cost of the book, however it is sold at this rate at their center's, they do not publish such material on internet, they even remove section's which are discussed by critics. If you read their litrature, which is not available online, but can only be purchased from their bookstore's things will be clear to you, SV being a source of messages, that page is removed from their website, only left link is this one only.

But here i would like to point out few things to you,

1. Leader claims that he has taken sittings from adi guru, who died in 1933, when he was only 5 yrs old, group was founded in 1945, this claim is not-varifiable,

2. After death of his wife, she is now sending him messages,

3. The first line speaks about the earthly source of message referred to as a medium all these claims are hypothetical, and have no basis.

4. cost of the books are not published online by the group.

I will soon be praposing a draft for the living dead section here.

--Shashwat pandey 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Praposed draft for living dead section=

Comments and modifications about this draft is invited from all editor's, this will be placed in the main page after discussion is over and draft is confirmed and agreed with all editor's.

Living dead

The group claims that those who join the group will be converted into a state which is referred as living dead,[[10]] according to the group’s philosophy, by renunciation one can reach this state, which is explained as We are alive while we are really dead to this existence. It is claimed that by giving up attachment to the worldly object’s like family spouse children’s society etc and replacing that attachment with the divine, which is represented by the leader of the group,[11] one can attain this state of living dead.

The group claims that its method is developed for householder’s[12] hence according to this concept, if attachment is replaced from family to the leader, one can not only attain divinity but also will be able to fulfill all his/her responsibility, as a householder. Whereas if teachings of past enlighten master’s like Swami Vivekananda is considered, a contradiction is observed, where he has explicitly said that attachment is as much important as detachment is.

Quote from Swami Vivekananda

That man alone will be able to get the best of nature, who, having the power of attaching himself to a thing with all his energy, has also the power to detach himself when he should do so. The difficulty is that there must be as much power of attachment as that of detachment. There are men who are never attracted by anything. They can never love, they are hard-hearted and apathetic; they escape most of the miseries of life. But the wall never feels misery, the wall never loves, is never hurt; but it is the wall, after all. Surely it is better to be attached and caught, than to be a wall. Therefore the man who never loves, who is hard and stony, escaping most of the miseries of life, escapes also its joys. We do not want that. That is weakness, that is death.[13] Ref:- work and its secret

Quote from Sahaj Marg material

Master's most important teaching is that to 'give up' creates strain and enormous tensions. So we are not required to 'give up' but to create an attachment to higher values and purposes, when automatically and naturally the unnecessary things of life drop off. That is, detachment has to be created by developing attachment in a different direction. When we attach ourselves to the Divine, the world falls off. We are no longer part of it, though of it. We are in it, living in it. This may be the condition of 'the living dead' that Master refers to. We are alive while we are really dead to this existence.. [[14]]

Hence Sahaj Marg advocates replacing attachment whereas Swami Vivekananda has explained the concept that attachment should be complete and when time comes detachment must also be complete,

Such concept’s of replacing attachment from one place to another helps in becoming divine according to the group, whereas third step of Raja Yoga (Prtyahara) states about restraint of the senses from their objects, i.e absolute de-attachment, Also the final stage according to Raja Yoga is the state of Samadhi which is a state of super-consciousness[15] (Ref: Raja Yoga first step) as oppose to state of living dead of Sahaj Marg.

However cult watch groups according to their study explain this situation of living dead as

IN ALL THE WORLD, there is nothing quite so impenetrable as a human mind snapped shut with bliss. No call to reason, no emotional appeal can get through its armor of self-proclaimed joy [16]

--Shashwat pandey 20:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Initial Response

The group claims that those who join the group seek to achieve a state which is referred as living dead,[[17]]. a state in which according to the group’s philosophy, one can reach this state. Sahaj Marg says that by giving up attachment to the worldly object’s like family spouse children’s society etc and replacing that attachment with the divine, one can attain this state of living dead, which has been described by the members as a state of freedom and happiness. [[18]]

Quote from Sahaj Marg material

Master's most important teaching is that to 'give up' creates strain and enormous tensions. So we are not required to 'give up' but to create an attachment to higher values and purposes, when automatically and naturally the unnecessary things of life drop off. That is, detachment has to be created by developing attachment in a different direction. When we attach ourselves to the Divine, the world falls off. We are no longer part of it, though of it. We are in it, living in it. This may be the condition of 'the living dead' that Master refers to. We are alive while we are really dead to this existence.. [[19]]

Removal of vivikananda,violates WP:NOR, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that bui lds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." You need to find a scholar or reputable source which says the two contradict.

Removed Rick Ross, it violates WP:NOR, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that bui lds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." The araticle does not make the link to Sahaj Marg, you are.

Removed Raja yoga comparison, it violates WP:NOR, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that bui lds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." No source is provided for the contradition.

Removed "will be converted." Sethie has asked you 8+ times to find a source which uses this language. Thus far you have not.

removed "by renunciation." The group does not ask for renunciation, but a shift in values.

added in an actual report by an actual member

removed "which is represented by leader." No source says the leader "represents" divinity. This is a complicated concept, which will be/is being handled in the philosophy section.

removed repeitive sentence, we can then connect the first and 2nd paragraph

removed initial quote. You use that quote twice. Sticking it there, all by itself feels like a POV-push to Sethie.

Most of what you wrote is OR, howver Sethie believes it is a good first step.

Sashwat. It seems like you have a lot of concern about this living dead concept (which may be well-founded! who knows?) However if you want any negative or critical material (which includes the idea of it being contradictory) about it in this article, you MUST find sources which express that material. Thus far, you haven't Sethie 22:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

To Sethie...

If we mention SRCMtm of Chari, please mention that it is registered in California in the late 1990's. (date available) in their material. see:http://www.srcm.org/members/privacypolicy.jsp

If you want the section of the books that mentions "Living Dead" I can find it for you. But you must read the book or simply use the "references". I doubt that you will find it in a "newspaper" or a PR for the Group.

4d-don

At a certain point, it might be handy! Thanks. Sethie 03:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA POLICY

According to Wikipedia Policy, We can all question:

NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW (NPOV). If those who want all the information on Sahaj Marg to come out are considered not "neutral" then adherents to Sahaj Marg who are attempting, as they are asked in their own material, to become: "living dead", serfs, obedient to the point of "killing", not responsible for their lives and deaths, according to the Sahaj Marg material, can certainly be thought of as "not neutral" also!! There is no "verification" that shows the positive benefits of these practices as claimed.

INCLUDE ONLY VERIFIABLE INFORMATION Statements of "GOD REALIZED" or that Sahaj Marg will make one "divine", or in touch with the "Divine" and many other such statements are "NOT VERIFIABLE". The only adherent to this system who has been verified by a panel of "arms length" members is Lalaji according to instructions by his Master. The panel stated that: Lalaji was a perfect copy of his Master". So Lalaji can be said to be a copy of his Master and that statement is "verified" by an "arms length" panel. All the other statements of attainment through the Sahaj Marg meditation with their Masters are "NOT VERIFIABLE"

NO ORIGINAL RESEARCHThis policy states only that published material should be from reputable Peer Review Journals and other such credible publishing houses. Of course, there are no verification body for "spirituality". Publishing is now done on-line and many such on-line publishers are not necessarily credible. So if one source is questionned, then the other should also be. One authority, ie a published book, is not any more inherently credible than another authority ie a published blog or on-line newspaper or on-line book. The .org and/or .com and/or on-line publisher sites can be debated as to their "authority" and "credibility".

AUTHORITY is what adherents to HOLY BOOKS (SOMETIMES EVEN WRITTEN BY THEMSELVES) want to claim, but as we all know, the claims made in HOLY BOOKS are not necessarily the TRUTH, but can be included in an Encyclopedia as "claims" or "Quotes", and as "fair use". It is not because one claims to "represent God", or be the "special personality" that it is necessarily the TRUTH. The claims of Sahaj Marg of bringing one to the Divine or that the Master of Sahaj Marg is "divine" is also not necessarily the "concensual" truth and should only be added in an encyclopedia as a "claim" or a "quote". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4d-don (talk • contribs).

4d-don, I appreciate your efforts to help editors. However this is not an appropriate message to place at the top of that page as if it were official policy. We have a small box which lists core WP policies and if editors need reminders or interpretations of them then it's best to do so as needed. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Willbeback...

OK...I placed it there, after a preceptor from SRCMtm of Chari's faction started changing the Talk page with "official" looking policy material at the top and some were editing from the top and some were editing from the bottom as he asked editors to edit from the TOP...

Even the "official" editors were spewing their own POV as "official" policy, because they interpreted the Sahaj marg litterature as it was meant to be interpreted by the PR Machine. Claims in the PR material still have to be "verifiable", not original research and (by chari et al..remember Babuji created this group...Chari is just a usurper according to the Family), or they are just claims. If we keep the page and the article clear of POV, that is fine by me...I don't need "special privileges" or false "official" status. That was not the intent.

4d-don...

4d- if you would a please sign into your account before editing, and 2, sign your edits, Sethie would really appreciate it, especially on a page such as this where there is some vigirous dialogue going on.

Sethie concurs with willbabeck, it is not a neutral telling of policy. Moreso, Sethie hasn't seen a single page that operates like that. Sethie 03:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

4d-don, I understand that you were repeating a practice you'd seen elsewhere but it was a bad example. See also Category:Talk header templates. It's very easy to overdo header templates, but if something needs to be said at the top it's best to try to find an "official" tag to do so. Cheers, ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh my! Sethie assumed that because it was in a template box, it was an offical template, which had Sethie pretty confused, since deleting talk page entries is generally a big no-no. Thanks for clearing that up! Sethie 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Master and leadership section

Sethie was wondering if this would not be better placed in the SRCM article, with a short summary in this one? Any feedback appreciated. Sethie 05:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Willbeback...

No problem... I like the way it is now...I did not like it before (too many instructions that no one reads really....

Thanks

To Sethie...

Agreed...The major controversy around who is the Master of the various factions is legal and "political" and should be in SRCM article with a shorter section in the Sahaj Marg (the product) article. A note could be "see Shri Ram Chandra Mission article for details". In the Sahaj Marg article, the role of the Master in the System is all that should be covered, regardless of who the Master is. Again, there could be some opposition from the "factions" if we get too deeply into "philosophy" (Babuji faction) or "no philosophy" (Chari Faction)...

In the Philosophy section, this is Chari's New Year's address in 2005: http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/1441-the-art-of-listening-to-nature.html

"If and when a guide has to speak, it should be only to teach us about what we have to do, how to do it, when to do it, where to do it, and of course, why to do it." There is no room for philosophy in speeches of Sahaj Marg. In fact, Sahaj Marg has no philosophy. It does not rest on any philosophy. It is neither advaita nor dvaita nor vishishta advaita. You know all these things. Yet we have to speak because we are expected to speak.

If we mention both "Philosophies", Babuji's and Chari's, then the teachings of Chari represent "what to do" and "what to believe" and become "important". That is what the Founder's Family Faction did not want their "Master" associated with and what got them involved (I assisted them). That is why they added the sections in the Master and Leadership secion to "contest" Chari's credibility. I was going to "clean up" later.

They have documents on-line and minutes of meetings etc...http://www.srcmshahjahanpur.org.in/facts.html very convincing in light of the newly-added "bulletin" on the SRCMtm site of the Chari Faction that mentions that it is a "Registered in California" (1997), head-quartered in Chennai, society as opposed to the Shahjahanpur, headquartered SRCM of Babuji's Family.

Site for Chari's Faction: http://www.srcm.org/members/privacypolicy.jsp

It is complicated but I think we have to accomodate all factions for now...until the court judgement.

4d-don--don 18:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat...

In the section about Children, here are a few links from SRCMtm, California, that shows their involvement with children: (Umesh before his untimely death (poisonning according to Navneet), was attempting to fund a "public school" as opposed to a "religious Boarding school" that the Chari Faction is operating. Examples of differing philosophies one targeting children and one "not". http://www.omegaschools.org/news_inauguration.htm. PS I have a copy of their "Value Based Spiritual Education" (VBSE) Curriculum. In 4d-don's POV question, this could also be "endoctrination" as stories are used to instill values that could be questionned as "relgious" as opposed to "spiritual". Messages from beyond the grave and the intercession of the ONE in our affairs is not the meaning of the word "spirituality" that I am familiar with. That is what I call "religion" as in prayers to a Personal God for "assistance".

Notice the Questions about God and chari's reply...God is Male according to Chari (unverifiable POV but not "spirit-ual" lol...as Spirit has no gender). This "God is Male" is repeated in POUCH Magazine. (endoctrination?..4d-Don's POV question, and not to used in article) (see links below)

http://www.sahajmarg.org/youth/story92.html

http://www.srcm.org/centers/oc/auweb/index.htm Just see the new POUCH 2007. You will notice that the major portion of the magazine is about Children. Some are shown meditating. Babuji did not allow children in the same room when Meditation was Performed as children not ready for Meditation until 18 yrs old. The Chari Faction does not seem to respect that "wish" of Babuji or they may rationalize with a "technicality".

Just info to assist in creating a NPOV article with references from the words of the "authorities" involved themselves.

NPOV information will set us free. ;-))

don --don 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Did the move, if you'd like to do a short summary here on the Sahaj Marg page, that would be great. Sethie 04:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Have provided the independent source about Chari's claim about God, also discussion about living dead will be countinued soon,

here is what the link say's:-

Sahaj Marg is presented like “Sees natural, new method of drive, especially conceived to meet the needs for the man for today”. Method containing meditation and of purification of the heart which brings to the abhyasi (candidate, disciple) “the force of original life”. All the requirements would be met if the abhyasi naturally practised the “constant memory of God”, the “devotion and the love” (given that that the guru, considered “as a personification of supreme”, should be the sole purpose for it) and the “abandonment of oneself”. On this last point, terrible explanation in Role of the âbhyasi in Sahaj Marg by RAM Chandra: “The means easiest and surest to achieve the goal is to give up themselves with the Large Master and to become oneself a death living [...]. Thus, if gift of his heart is made: if one makes gift with the divine Master of it, there remain almost nothing any more to make [...]. The abandonment of oneself is anything else only one state of complete resignation to the will of the Master with a complete disinterest of oneself [...]. In this state a man does not think and does only what the will of its Master orders to him”

--Shashwat pandey 07:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Forced Divorce

Newspaper reports about the same have been provided now, which confirms the stand of those individuals who have been forced to get divorced, and are prevented from seeing their children's by the group. I hope this as per wiki is sufficient, if not, discussion is open.

--Shashwat pandey 08:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

living dead first responce for Sethie's edit's:-

The group claims that those who join the group seek to achieve a state which is referred as living dead,[[20]]. Chari group says that by giving up attachment to the worldly object’s like family spouse children’s society etc and replacing that attachment with the Leader, one can attain this state of living dead, which has been described by the members as a state of freedom and happiness. [[21]]. At the same time, independent observers who conducted research into the subject have quoted about this as

The means easiest and surest to achieve the goal is to give up themselves with the Large Master and to become oneself a death living (...). Thus, if gift of his heart is made: if one makes gift with the divine Master of it, there remain almost nothing any more to make (...). The abandonment of oneself is anything else only one state of complete resignation to the will of the Master with a complete disinterest of oneself (...). In this state a man does not think and does only what the will of its Master orders to him[22]

Quote from Sahaj Marg material

Master's most important teaching is that to 'give up' creates strain and enormous tensions. So we are not required to 'give up' but to create an attachment to higher values and purposes, when automatically and naturally the unnecessary things of life drop off. That is, detachment has to be created by developing attachment in a different direction. When we attach ourselves to the Divine, the world falls off. We are no longer part of it, though of it. We are in it, living in it. This may be the condition of 'the living dead' that Master refers to. We are alive while we are really dead to this existence.. [[23]]

Divine is represented by the leader [24] therefore, attachment for family, spouse has to be replaced with Mission, Leader, for growth and sustainable family life.

Response awaited.

--Shashwat pandey 09:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sahaj Marg

I object to Sahaj Marg being called a cult. I live in the United States. I have been involved in the organization since 1999. I have not met the leader, affectionately called "Chari", but I have seen him at one of the gatherings. I have frequently stayed at the ashram or retreat center that is the national headquarters for the USA, in Molena GA. I donated a nominal sum for my expenses while I am there (meals, use of sleeping quarters, etc.). This was strictly at MY volition, and I was never pressured in any way to give money to the organization. Donations were requested because of course, the facility has bills to pay because people use the facility and things cost money. However, this was ALWAYS voluntary. I don't know of anyone who was "encouraged" to divorce his or her spouse.

I can only say that these scandalous reports of mind control and cult activities by Sahaj Marg are probably spread by people who are not in the organization and want to stir up trouble. The meditation and journaling activities described in the previous article are part of the meditation practice to help the abhyasi (student) and are NOT used for mind control. If anyone has any doubts about the practice, I would encourage him or her to visit one of the ashrams. If you can't get in touch with a preceptor or whoever else you need to talk with in the organization, please feel free to contact me, and I'll get you in touch with someone who will tell you the truth and not lies. Please don't believe this ridiculous gossip about Sahaj Marg. For some of us, the program has been a godsend for spiritual and psychological health.

Benjamin zanetha@yahoo.com

Dear Benjamin,

Wiki does not follow anyone's openion, here varifiable reports have to be presented before any claim can be made, SRCM has been listed as cult by more then one government agency, and same has been published in various newspaper reports as well.

For more info about cult , pls refer to various cult group website suct as factnet rickross etc, and get a detailed explanation of how SRCM is a cult, pls also refer to archieve of this discussion page, it has been discussed before in details. Every point in this page is cross varifiable, and has neutral POV. willbeback (an admin) and sethie will confirm you same.

BTW Chari group was registered in 1998 only in california, and indian group is registered in 1945, you are part of which group can you elaborate ? there are atleast 3 groups claiming to be SRCM, or claiming to be teaching Sahaj Marg, pls explain which group you are talking about it is Chari group 1998 or babuji group 1945, or ISRC, 1992 ?

--Shashwat pandey 10:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat, I respect your right to have your own opinion, but please do not imply that what you believe about this group is automatically factual. Perhaps some people have said that they have had bad experiences or heard rumors, but that does not mean that the group itself is a cult. Again, my offer stands for anyone who wants to contact me for more information or to speak with a preceptor to be able to do so; I will get you in contact with someone. If you truly want to know about this group, please be openminded and not automatically listen to gossip. If it doesn't work for you, not a problem, but rest assured that for others, it is a very healthy part of their lives and not at all oppressive, dominating, or other characteristics that might be implied by the use of the term "cult." I joined the local organization in Macon, GA (USA) in 1999. I'm not sure how the acronym ISRC you referred to applies to my organization, but if you would email me, I would be happy to get you in touch with a preceptor who could answer your questions further. The listing for Sahaj Marg is also available through www.ipl.org because I asked the website to list it. You can do a web search through the site for Sahaj Marg, and it will pull up the listing.

Benjamin zanetha@yahoo.com

Hi Benjamin-

welcome to Wikipedia.

Sethie understands your frustration at a group which you care about very much been called a cult. and, the talk page of an article is not the place to necessarily discuss this, so if you would continue this on your talk page, Sethie would appreciate it. Shashwat, maybe you can, respond to him on his talk page instead of here. Sethie 15:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin,

Kindly understand, wiki is not a PR site like ipl, nor this page is about your or mine view's about any group, this page is to discuss the content of the article in main page. If you have any concerns regarding that pls put them here, lets discuss them, if you want to discuss about the group, kindly approach any other website there are many more places where you can share your positive thoughts about this group, here whatever you say, have to be proved.

--Shashwat pandey 16:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

reversion of Shashwat's edits

Sethie began looking through your numerous edits and after the third major error, he decided a reversion was in order.

the first error Sethie found was that the new source provided for Chari in the philosophy section did not anywhere say that he was the ultimate or the sole representative of God on earth. the next error Seth he found was the link to the newspaper Le Nouvel Obu. if Sethie wants to use the New York Times, he needs to link to the actual article, not the new york times.

Shashwat:- the link clearly say's as a personification of supreme and shashwat agree's it is not sole represntative of God however, it should also be understood that the group does not recognize any other representative of God, hence the word sole was used, but shashwat agrees with this much and accepts the page as it is.

The third error was using this: http://www.info-sectes.ch/presse-ram-mission.html as a refference for divorce. The word divorce appears once on that page and here is the translation: "Aline, acupunctrice, returned in 1987: "Destabilized by a divorce, I joined their group of meditation. I started to work regularly for them. They made me feel guilty, tried to separate me from my new companion. One day, they condemned psychotherapies other than those which they preached. There, I reacted, being myself therapeutist."

Shashwat:- You did wrong search, that info may have been for other groups, that page contains newspaper reports about more then one group, i have provided complete translation below,

if you're going to use the source, please make sure that the source says what you use it as a reference for.

Shashwat:- Yes, that was a mistake and has been corrected, wrong link was placed, shashwat is also learning french ;)

Sethie was also frustrated to see the large number of different edits on a wide variety of subjects in such a short time. for the sake of collaboration, would you be willing to not edit like that, and slow down, and work on one section/sentence at a time? Sethie 16:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat:- Sethie needs to keep his cool, otherwise there is no scope of healthy discussion.

Final comments:-

it makes me feel, sethie somehow is trying to project himself as boss of this article, which is not good for healthy debate, Shashwat has done some changes, as wiki allowes that, if sethie has some dis-agreements, sethie can ask for clarification for those topics one by one, and after discussion can come to a conclusion, Shashwat did edits as per his understanding, and this is the essence of wiki.

Sethie needs to understand, he is not BOSS, he is just another editor, with concerns like all have, hence sethie's edits will be reverted back, and sethie is requested to present his point one by one, where-ever he feels uneasy.

Complete translation of the page is provided here, it was my mistake, i accept that wrong link was placed at the right place ;) :-

I have highlighted the section which clearly address the issue of forced divorce.

TWO EXAMPLES AROUND GROUP SRI RAM CHANDRA MISSION The parents are divorced and the mother, member of a sect, with the guard of the children. Vis-a-vis this rather frequent case of figure, justice hesitates between the need for protecting the child and that to safeguard the freedom of belief “At the beginning, that did not worry me. They came to meditate at the house in group. The children were not touched. I even tested, but it was not my trick. I treated them with a certain irony.” Michel Gilbert has then shared for ten years the existence of Francoise, dentist, with whom it had two children, 5 years and 2 years and half. The couple has financial problems: it does not have any more work and decides to become father with the hearth. More and more, his/her partner delivers herself to the meditation and attends a group called Shri RAM Chandra Mission, whose seat is in Madras, in India. Its members devote themselves to the meditation sahaj marg, inspired of the rajah yoga, according to the teaching of a Master named Shri RAM Chadraji Maharaj, said Babuji. This last requires a devotion absolute of its followers and wants “to educate the masses and to propagate among them the art and the science of yoga”. For seven months, Michel sees growing this influence. In December 1998, the Vivien report/ratio classifies Shri RAM Chandra among the sects. 2.000 people would be members. The father worries. In January 1999, the group makes him feel that it is undesirable. At the end of February, Francoise speaks about separation, fact room with share. It realizes that it prepares a voyage in India for the birthday of the Master, then that it has a connection with another follower. On June 29, Michel is hospitalized for an ulcer. It takes along the children to Spain. On August 15, Michel Gilbert attacks the sect for removal of children. On December 21, an ordinance however entrusts the exclusive guard of the children to the mother. Since, it could obtain to see them in point-meets. It does not have any information on their address, their school. “When I see them, my son is like extinct. I tried to come into contact with the sect to India: I did not have any echo.”

here is the link for translated page

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.info-sectes.ch%2Fpresse-ram-mission.html&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

--Shashwat pandey 17:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you for correcting the linking errors and the misquoting and the philosophy section.

thank you for asking me to keep my cool, it is something that is very important to me.

when Sethie reads that Shashwat feels "sethie somehow is trying to project himself as boss of this article" what Sethie can connect to he feels very vigilant and protective of NPOV and accuracy for this article right now. Anything he finds that his original research, inaccurate or in obvious violation of NPOV, he will remove. Maybe he is being too forceful in this role he has given himself, he will look into that.

When Sethie began going through your new additions and found three edits in a row all containing very serious errors [[25]] [[26]] [[27]] he believe that in this case Shashwat had not lived up to his responsibilities as an editor for accuracy and providing good sources and did not have the willingness to sift through all of the edits to check for accuracy.

In the future, is Shaswat willing to not make so many changes all at one time? Sethie 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Page disucssions

Please don't put your comments inside of another's comments... it makes the conversation hard to track, in terms of who said what. If your travel around wikipedia, you will see people respond after another's comments and use ":" to indent to make it clear where a response is. Sethie 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any reason as to why i should not edit the page, when i can find some information ? however keeping in view, your concerns, and keeping in your that you respect NPOV, i will accept your praposal and will work respecting your POV about edits as well, however till information is added, i don't see any problem, removal of information is what should be the concern.

The above paragraph does not make sense to Sethie. He really doesn't understand what you are saying. He did not ask you to not edit the page. Sethie does not know what you mean by "your pov about edits," nor the last sentence, why should removal be the concern? If you feel it is important information, please try again. Sethie 05:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat- Sethie doesn't understand why you responded to his request in the "reversion of Shashwat's edits sections" under the "page disucssion section"- a section Sethie created to talk about talk page ettiquite!

He also doesn't understand why you have created a third section about the living dead issue, instead of continuing to dialogue about the issue under the first section you created, or even the second section.

Would you be willing to maintain dialogue underneath the section in which it is focused around? Sethie believes it would make dialogue much easier. Sethie 05:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My attempt was also same, to make dialogue easier, i felt it will be difficult to trace communication in between pages, hence i created a new section to start afresh. lets not get into these details on talk page, we can safly archive them, lets try and remain fouced in discussion about content of the page. with your valuable support i am sure we will create a page which can be refrered as an example :)

I awaite your response about living dead section.

--Shashwat pandey 06:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sethie about these talk page etiquette issues. There are certain standard practices on Wikipedia talk pages. See WP:TALK. As Sethie said, it's much easier to discuss matter if we keep topical sections going rather than frequently starting new sections. Also, putting comments into the middle of existing comments makes it very to follow the discussion. These are tried-and-true practices that really help. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I will try my best to maintain etiquette, we all are learning, and helping each other to learn more, i am greatful to both of you.

--Shashwat pandey 07:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

living dead discussion

Lets come back to our previous discussion about living dead here i am praposing you my revision of your input, pls provide your feedback.

living dead first responce for Sethie's edit's:-

The group claims that those who join the group seek to achieve a state which is referred as living dead,[[28]]. Chari group says that by giving up attachment to the worldly object’s like family spouse children’s society etc and replacing that attachment with the Leader, one can attain this state of living dead, which has been described by the members as a state of freedom and happiness. [[29]]. At the same time, independent observers who conducted research into the subject have quoted about this as

The means easiest and surest to achieve the goal is to give up themselves with the Large Master and to become oneself a death living (...). Thus, if gift of his heart is made: if one makes gift with the divine Master of it, there remain almost nothing any more to make (...). The abandonment of oneself is anything else only one state of complete resignation to the will of the Master with a complete disinterest of oneself (...). In this state a man does not think and does only what the will of its Master orders to him[30]

Quote from Sahaj Marg material

Master's most important teaching is that to 'give up' creates strain and enormous tensions. So we are not required to 'give up' but to create an attachment to higher values and purposes, when automatically and naturally the unnecessary things of life drop off. That is, detachment has to be created by developing attachment in a different direction. When we attach ourselves to the Divine, the world falls off. We are no longer part of it, though of it. We are in it, living in it. This may be the condition of 'the living dead' that Master refers to. We are alive while we are really dead to this existence.. [[31]]

Divine is represented by the leader [32] therefore, attachment for family, spouse has to be replaced with Mission, Leader, for growth and sustainable family life.

--Shashwat pandey 05:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting better. When we use the term "living dead" we should tare care to not link it to the article on "Undead" because that is an entirely different concept. We shold not include the actual quote, just link to it. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Setie concurs with Will, this dsecription of living dead is feeling much more encylopedia-like to him. Sethie 18:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision based on willbeback's input.:-

living dead

The group claims that those who join the group seek to achieve a state which is referred as living dead,[[33]]. Chari group says that by giving up attachment to the worldly object’s like family spouse children’s society etc and replacing that attachment with the Leader, one can attain this state of living dead, which has been described by the members as a state of freedom and happiness. [[34]]. At the same time, independent observers who conducted research into the subject have quoted about this as a state where members have developed complete disintrest in their ownself and have surrender completely to wish of the leader of the group, that is they do not have any wish of their own, but simply move according to the will of the leader.[35], (Leader is a murder accused and is also accused of forgery)[36]

Group explains this condition of living dead as, where member gives up, groups claims that it is very difficult to drop attachment for family, spouse etc hence it recommends that this attachment should be replaced from worldly objects to the Divine. Once attachment from family is replaced with attachment with the leader, this state is then explained as We are alive while we are really dead to this existence.. [[37]]

Divine is represented by the leader [38] therefore, attachment for family, spouse has to be replaced with Mission, Leader, for growth and sustainable family life.

--Shashwat pandey 07:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie does not believe that "The group claims that those who join the group seek to achieve a state..." is accurate. Please provide a citation which clearly has the group saying, "People join our group so they can attain the living dead" or re-word it. A simple rewording might be- "in the Sahaj Marg tradition the idea of attaining or becoming a "living dead" is held in high regrad." Also, please remove all italics, etc, unless the direct quote has italics in them. These are Shaswat's emphasis and as such don't belong in the article. Sethie 17:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sahaj Marg tradition the idea of attaining or becoming a "living dead" is held in high regrad" cite this !!

we will have to use some word or other which is NPOV, same is the case with "sole representative of God" also the group does not recognize any other God then Chari, if you feel there is any other current represntative then pls cite that !!

I will re-word is something like this.

"The group claims that those who join the group seek to attain the state of living dead, which is regarded as one of the higher state that one can attain, by becoming a member of the group."

--Shashwat pandey 20:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, Sethie withdrawls "which is regarded as one of the higher state that one can attain, by becoming a member of the group."

We could say, "In Sahaj Marg, one goal which is talked about is attaining the state of living dead."

Would you please provide a citation which clearly has the group saying, "People join our group so they can attain the living dead," or drop that portion of the sentence?Sethie 22:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Living dead...

Shashwat..that's precious! Shhh!! That' s supposed to stay hidden in the PR as it does not sell well. lol! Don't expose or shine the light in the "closets" you might finds some "a-sexuals" and you know how "sinful" that is... lol..

As far as the "living dead" issue, the words are "living dead in the hands of a funeral director" which is the Master I guess so that is "total submission" of life, mind, morals, ethics, etc.."dead" means "dead"... Chari says it elsewhere: being "right" is what is desired, not "honest"...and right means to "obey" the Master and his Mission and his proxies. I don't like using the "murder" allegation in the article, but this "living dead" issue comes from their Material and is their teachings...you can see, sethie, where the teachings belong on the Sahaj Marg page and not on the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page. If "obedience" is more important than the Meditation then this is what the abhyasis are expected to "believe" (credo) or have "faith in" or adhere (as stuck) to ... If one does not believe that, then one leaves the group because that is what SRCMtm under Chari, offers as their "method" without "philosophy".

Just my humble opinion for a NPOV article but one that does not turn away from its responsibility to tell the "whole truth", specially when it comes from the material that is currently out there. Shashwat is not "making up the words "living dead in the hands of the funeral director" Chari and the SRCMtm are...It's fair use...

If they (SRCMtm) had a philosophy that was not "obey" then we could write a "philosophy" section that depicted what was expected of the "adherent" and the Mission, but in the case where the Master says that there is "no philosophy" and "obedience" is what is expected to the point of "killing your mother" and to the point of becoming a "living dead in the hands of a funeral director" then it should be in there...

This is the issue that alerted the governments, the judiciary and the military, and even the political sectors in Europe. Can you imagine a judge, police, soldier who is a "living dead" or "obeying" a foreigner (and his proxies) to the point of "killing", over his sworn duty to uphold the law of his country. Even a teacher. The child then becomes a "pawn" in the hands of a person without "written" philosophy beside "obedience". Obedience "without thinking" to the GURU (Teacher). It is also what "divides" families and cultures. Some victims in the west (and in the east) have spoken out against that kind of dogmatic "obedience in the name of GOD" and want their women and children to not be targeted as they now are, with Chari's SRCMtm and their "schools". And their litterature claims to be "non dogmatic" and a "Raja Yoga". The choice the victims (including the family of the founder) now have is either to be silent and do nothing, or to "expose" the method as described by them (SRCMtm) in their own material.

Above is Don's POV from many (4-5?) years of research into this group and it's victims. Now for NPOV...;-))

We (NPOV) have in this article the duty to have their referenced POV out there also, for a truly NPOV article that includes all POV's, not just the MISSION's PR.

Don supports Shashwat in the "living dead" issue. Don thinks it should be placed in the (reverted) "Teachings" section of the ALL NEW "Sahaj Marg" article. ;-)) We (POV...levity) could start a NEW religion ...lol ;-))

4d-don... --don 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie feels very happy seeing that one more person has been converted to his "speaking in third person" Cult. Welcome 4d! :) Sethie 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed something here. Which source contains the text "living dead in the hands of a funeral director"? I couldn't find it on this page: [39] ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie remembers reading that quote, not from that page, from another. However saying just that quote takes it very out of context. The quote was given and the explained as having no judgements, not having prefferences, something similar to that. Sethie 00:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Don, facts cannot be hidden, i have personally seen these "living dead" creatures, immune to all understanding and emotions, which is actully a same state as that of a zombie but here again this is just a POV... about the criminal record of Chari, we all know that he is a convicted criminal under section 398 IPC, and was barred by the govt. autherities from entering juridiction of the town of Sahahjahanpur as he was creating neusense, also the murder accusation and also distroyed life's of many many people, but again this is another POV. i am trying to get a copy of that judgement when he was convicted under IPC 398, once i get that will add this info in page as well, as of now, only that section will be added which is varifiable.

Below is my recommendation about the discussed line:-

"In Chari group, members are supposed to attain a state which is referred as living dead"

--Shashwat pandey 06:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie feels like we are REALLY CLOSE! :) "supposed to" feels like an interpreation still... like someone is pushing them to do this. However, thus far no source has been provided which says they are supposed to or pressured to attain this. In fact we have a source which says they aren't pressured to renounce, that this causes complications.

From the sources which Sethie has read, he beliefs a neutral sentence would be, "If a member of the Sahaj Marg group follows the practices and precepts it is said that they can attain the state of "living dead." Sethie 06:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend:- "In Chari group if members follow the practices, it is said that they can attain the state of living dead

--Shashwat pandey 07:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That feels neutral to me. Score!Sethie 07:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Section will now be moved in main page.--Shashwat pandey 07:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie has reverted the section. It has A LOT of problems, we have merely hashed out the first sentence.

In Chari group if members follow the practices, it is said that they can attain the state of living dead,[[40]]. Chari group says that by giving up attachment to the worldly object’s like family spouse children’s society etc and replacing that attachment with the Leader, one can attain this state of living dead, which has been described by the members as a state of freedom and happiness. [[41]]. At the same time, independent observers who conducted research into the subject have quoted about this as a state where members have developed complete disintrest in their ownself and have surrender completely to wish of the leader of the group, that is they do not have any wish of their own, but simply move according to the will of the leader.[42], (Leader is a murder accused and is also accused of forgery)[43]

Group explains this condition of living dead as, where member gives up, groups claims that it is very difficult to drop attachment for family, spouse etc hence it recommends that this attachment should be replaced from worldly objects to the Divine. Once attachment from family is replaced with attachment with the leader, this state is then explained as We are alive while we are really dead to this existence.[[44]]

Divine is represented by the leader [45] therefore, attachment for family, spouse has to be replaced with Mission, Leader, for growth and sustainable family life.

The 2nd sentence violates WP:NOR. The sources clearly say that one is give up one's attachments to family for the Divine, not the leader.

Sethie has also removed all of the italics. Sethie 07:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie needs to understand the concept here, if it was divine actually, there was no problem, divine is representated by the leader(this is agreed, nutral source has also confirmed that), hence attachment has to be done with the leader, and this inturn is refrred to as attachment with divine. and this is what is conveyed here. whereas attachment with divine is a POV claimed by the group which is not verifiable, and is not a NPOV.

--Shashwat pandey 09:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie feels no need to understand the concept, since this is not a report Sethie is writing. Sethie feels the need to understnad exactly what the sources say.

Correct Sethie if he is wrong and the source say: the practitioner need to release attachment for the all other things, except the Divine. In another paper, elsewhere, not connected to the idea of living dead, the source says, the guru represents the Divine. Is this correct? Sethie 16:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat is surprised now! whithout even understanding the concept how can sethie contribute to the article ?--Shashwat pandey 16:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie has no interest in understanding any concept except how they are clearly presented in the sources.

Please read WP:NPA and refraim from commenting on the editor and keeping your focus on the edits. Sethie 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

living dead

In Chari group if members follow the practices, it is said that they can attain the state of living dead,[[46]]. Chari group says that by giving up attachment to the worldly object’s like family spouse children’s society etc and replacing that attachment with the Leader, one can attain this state of living dead, which has been described by the members as a state of freedom and happiness. [[47]]. At the same time, independent observers who conducted research into the subject have quoted about this as a state where members have developed complete disintrest in their ownself and have surrender completely to wish of the leader of the group, that is they do not have any wish of their own, but simply move according to the will of the leader.[48], (Leader is a murder accused and is also accused of forgery)[49]

Group explains this condition of living dead as, where member gives up, groups claims that it is very difficult to drop attachment for family, spouse etc hence it recommends that this attachment should be replaced from worldly objects to the Divine. Once attachment from family is replaced with attachment with the leader, this state is then explained as We are alive while we are really dead to this existence.[[50]]

Divine is represented by the leader [51] therefore, attachment for family, spouse has to be replaced with Mission, Leader, for growth and sustainable family life.

Second statement does not violate WP:NOR as there is no original research, leader is the one who represents the divine this has been discussed and established from a nutral source [52] hence it confirms the wiki rules and does not violates any sections.--Shashwat pandey 18:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Will beback,

Would appritiate your input on above topic, if this sounds nutral in its current state section should be moved in main page now.--Shashwat pandey 05:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no further comments from anyone hence section will now be moved into the main page. This will be my last edit for sometime.

--Shashwat pandey 13:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please slow down. Giving less then 24 hrs for discussion is a great way to start an edit war.

This section has about 4 or 5 serious problems, please do not enter it in until all are resolved.

What does the actual source say about living dead, does it say "focus on the leader" or does it say "focus on the Divine?"

Sethie is not asking you to ignore the fact that the leader represents the Divine, or that people are asked to submit to the leader. Sethie is asking you to leave it out of the living dead section and place it elsewhere, UNLESS the sources themselves make the connection between the living dead and surrender to leader. Sethie 16:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat suggest's that sethie should list down those problems here so that we are sure when we are finish. We will take them one by one.

About the state point, Shashwat is unable to understand what sethie is trying so say here ? it has been accepted that it is the leader who is considered as divine, and then they say attach to the divine, it is more then obvious that attachment is required towards leader aka divine. where does sethie find the problem ? shashwat recommends all 4-5 problems to be listed here so that we know what we have to discuss,

--Shashwat pandey 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for all the problems and once and the answer is no.

Sethie would like you to provide a source which says that the state of living dead is obtained by attaching to the leader or drop the refferences to the leader representing the Divine, in this particular section. Sethie 01:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in leaving the discussion open-ended, we must know what we want to discuss, else this seems only a delay tacticks.

Shashwat has already provided all the sources, Sethie must understand and read the refrences provided, Shashwat is once again providing the source which states same. Sethie is requested to read the refrences provided time and again, and accept contents from Nutral, independent sources, here the context of living dead where surrender to master is asked.[53]

“The means easiest and surest to achieve the goal is to give up themselves with the Large Master and to become oneself a death living [...]. Thus, if gift of his heart is made: if one makes gift with the divine Master of it, there remain almost nothing any more to make [...]. The abandonment of oneself is anything else only one state of complete resignation to the will of the Master with a complete disinterest of oneself [...]. In this state a man does not think and does only what the will of its Master orders to him”

Shashwat is once again requesting Sethie to provide the list of issue's which he see's in the section above, so that they can be discused one by one.--Shashwat pandey 06:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat pandey, I want to thank you for being as patient as you have been with Sethie, 4-Don, the other editors and I. I know this is very important material, but that's all the more reason for us to take our time to get it right. Luckily, Wikipedia is a long-term project. The fact is that it's hard for everyone to respond to short deadlines as some of us have additional involvements. Let's all give each other more slack. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 08:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie's experience is that a lot of discussions, all at once, is less productive, especially when we are hashing out lots of details.

Shashwat, if you read the source you provided, it says that the new attachment is both for the Divine and the Guru![[[54]]

"[Ndr: Large Master = God, Master = Guru]."

Hence, based on this source, and the renunciation page, Sethie believes the most neutral and objective thing to do would be say to give up attachment for worldy things for the guru and the Divine and provide links to the renunciation page and the anti-cult french page. Sethie 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

living dead

In Chari group if members follow the practices, it is said that they can attain the state of living dead,[[55]]. Chari group says that by giving up attachment to the worldly object’s like family spouse children’s society etc and replacing that attachment with the Leader and the divine, one can attain this state of living dead, which has been described by the members as a state of freedom and happiness. [[56]]. At the same time, independent observers who conducted research into the subject have quoted about this as a state where members have developed complete disintrest in their ownself and have surrender completely to wish of the leader of the group, that is they do not have any wish of their own, but simply move according to the will of the leader.[57], (Leader is a murder accused and is also accused of forgery)[58]

Group explains this condition of living dead as, where member gives up, groups claims that it is very difficult to drop attachment for family, spouse etc hence it recommends that this attachment should be replaced from worldly objects to the Divine. Once attachment from family is replaced with attachment with the leader, this state is then explained as We are alive while we are really dead to this existence.[[59]]

Divine is represented by the leader [60] therefore, attachment for family, spouse has to be replaced with Mission, Leader, for growth and sustainable family life.

updated info. pls comment, and change the content you feel needs edition with.--Shashwat pandey 16:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you chose to put use a capitol letter for Leader and a lower case d for divine?

Now that I sit with it, and re-reading exactly what the sources say, I believe the most accurate would be to say: replace attachment from worldy things to the Divine, and to surrender one's individual will and prefferences to the will of the leader.Sethie 04:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat requests sethie to provide his version of this section.--Shashwat pandey 10:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie is happy to provide his version of the section of the section we are working on:

In Chari group if members follow the practices, it is said that they can attain the state of living dead,. Chari group says that by giving up attachment to the worldly object’s like family spouse children’s society etc and replacing that attachment with the Divine [[61]] and surrendering one's will to the will of the leader [[62]], one can attain this state of living dead. Members of the group have described this as a state of freedom and happiness. [[63]].

In Chari group if members follow the practices, it is said that they can attain the state of living dead,. Chari group says that by giving up attachment to the worldly object’s like family spouse children’s society etc and replacing that attachment with the Divine (Represented by the leader)[[64]] and surrendering one's will to the Leader [[65]], one can attain this state of living dead. Members of the group have described this as a state of freedom and happiness. [[66]].At the same time, independent observers who conducted research into the subject have quoted about this as a state where members have developed complete disintrest in their ownself and have surrender completely to wish of the leader of the group, that is they do not have any wish of their own, but simply move according to the will of the leader.[67], (Leader is a murder accused and is also accused of forgery)[68]

Group explains this condition of living dead as, where member gives up, groups claims that it is very difficult to drop attachment for family, spouse etc hence it recommends that this attachment should be replaced from worldly objects to the Divine. Once attachment from family is replaced with attachment with the leader, this state is then explained as We are alive while we are really dead to this existence.[[69]]

Divine is represented by the leader [70] therefore, attachment for family, spouse has to be replaced with Mission, Leader, for growth and sustainable family life.

Is the above text acceptable ?--Shashwat pandey 17:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't.

The idea of the leader representing divinity is thoroughly covered in the philosophy section now, and it feels like a POV-push to repeat it. If we use the version you have presented above, the idea of the leader representing divinity will now be in the article 3 times, twice in one section! WP:SOAP WP is not a place for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

Please just stick with the sources. The "renunciation" source clearly says that it is attachment "to divinity" that will cause the state. So let's just report what the sources say.

So, if you are willing to drop the "leader represents the inner divinity" comment in the first paragraph of the above draft, we can move on to the next sentence. Sethie 15:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The renunsiation source is the source of the group, hence it can be used to say what the groups "claims" whereas the cult watch group report is what an independent and nutral source say's hence according to wiki, a nutral source has more creadibility then a non-nutral source, therefore, the topic about living dead and all other section's for that matter should be based on nutral source and where groups refrence is used, it should be used as "claim". Now if leader's representation of God is dropped then essence of section will be lost, as the "nutral" source clearly says that one has be surender to will of the leader, and that cannot be ignored in section dealing with living dead. --Shashwat pandey 15:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please show Sethie a Wikipedia policy which says, that a cult observer groups is more nutral source and has more credibility then the group it is observing?

Please show Sethie a wikipedia policy which says that a groups own material is not neutral? and hence we should treat the groups ideas as "claims" and a cult watch groups ideas as facts?

Shaswat says "nutral" source clearly says that one has be surender to will of the leader," Sethie agress and wishes to indlude that! Sethie is the one who added that!

However, neither source links the idea of living dead with leader=divinity.

"The essence of the section will be lost." What will be lost is connections, implications, repetitions and emphasis which are not in the sources.

If we use the version you have presented above, the idea of the leader representing divinity will now be in the article 3 times, twice in one section! WP:SOAP says WP is not a place for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Sethie 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Pls refer [71] this will adress your concerns.

2. About linking living dead with the leader shashwat requests sethie to read our previous discussionin the same section, shashwat is once again providing source In this state a man does not think and does only what the will of its Master orders to him”[72].

3. Shashwat is simply stating what is written in source.

4. Shashwat know's what he should do, about repetation, shashwat does not find any repetation, each section of the article is independent of each other, all expalining various aspects of Sahaj Marg. This is not prapoganda, but explaining independent section of a concepts of a group.--Shashwat pandey 06:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

1 It does not address Sethie's concerns, at all. Shashwat has merely labeled the cult watch group more reliable, this does not make them so. Please point to the specific part of this policy which you think will help Sethie out.

2 For the 2nd time, Sethie does not deny this, he wants this included!

3 If Shashwat is sticking with the sources then why not let the sources just say what they say: replace attachment from worldly things to Divine and surrender one's will to the leader.

4 Sethie sees the same statement written three times, twice in one section. For him, this is repition and totally unnecesary. Sethie 15:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie should provide the alternative now and lets discuss that, there is no point in discussing like this. pls provide the alternative.--Shashwat pandey 19:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In Chari group if members follow the practices, it is said that they can attain the state of living dead,. Chari group says that by giving up attachment to the worldly object’s like family spouse children’s society etc and replacing that attachment with the Divine

[[73]] and surrendering one's will to the will of the leader [[74]], one can attain this state of living dead. Members of the group have described this as a state of freedom and happiness. [[75]].

This is very well sourced, makes no conclusions and just says what the sources say. Sethie 16:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is the FACT that it is leader who represents the divine is not disclosed clearly ? it has been refrenced as well, that attachment to divine (only) is a wrong statement, and is not accurate, hence the FACT the in SRCM it is ONLY the Leader (Chari) who is divine should be placed, all other explanation's will be a POV push, and will not be nutral. --Shashwat pandey 05:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat, Please see here: [[76]], it is disclosed very clearly!

Attachment to Divine only may be a wrong, but WP:V clearly says the threshold for inclusion is verifiablity, NOT truth. Please show me a SOURCE which uses the words "attachment to leader."

Placing it three times in an article is a POV push and very not neutral. Placing it the way you want to clearly violates WP:NOR Look the source says, "surrender one's will." That is what Sethie added to the current version. Sethie 14:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Benjamin

Shashwat, I'm glad that you agree with the etiquette comments shared by other posters. Let's be respectful to each other's opinion when we disagree. Also, it is not necessary to have concepts "proven," as you said, for them to be valid for that person. Your viewpoint is valid for you, but others' opinions are equally valid for them. The concept of "living dead" would be difficult to prove, but that does not mean that it is not a valid part of the practice.

Benjamin zanetha@yahoo.com

Pls go through wiki policy, as what can be included and what not, pls read links provided at top of this page, kindly understand this is not a discussion about any group, but contents of the article.

Here i am providing your a list of blogs where u can discuss topics that you want to discuss, it will be nice if you can create a user page, or an wiki ID so that we can talk on your page.

• Inner Circle of SRCM-Eng
• Poxy SRCM
• The Desperate abhyasi web-site- Fr & Eng
• Le Shri Ram Chandra Mission Verolee-Fr
• SRCM=Danger Fr
• Le Sahaj Marg a Detruit Ma Famille
• Une analyse anthropologique
• Power to Speak

Go through these blogs and discuss your POV there.

--Shashwat pandey 12:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Cult Templates

Sethie has reviewed a number of groups that are referred to as cults on Wikipedia, and none of them have the templates that were listed at the bottom of this page. Those templates were created for cult related topics, not groups who have been labeled as cults. Sethie 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie can you show us a website similar to wikipedia which was there before wikipedia came online ? or can you inform us about a page about a group before any other page was published ? according to this udnerstanding nothing can be started, this is a cult, is established by all mean's, it should be the case with all group which are listed as cult by agencies, which are considered as reliable source by wiki, and all those groups should have this templet of cult. i will move across wiki soon and make sure all pages about group's listed as dangerous and harmful cult have this templet of cult, coz they have been listed as such by concerned government agencies. We have a responsibility, we have nothing to gain or loose.--Shashwat pandey 06:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for asking and no.

This is wikipedia, we DO NOT have a responsibility to warn the public, we have a responsibility to abide by wikipedia policies and operating procedures.

Please reffernce other groups listed as cults on wikipedia to learn about what is and isn't acceptable. Sethie 07:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The group has been listed as cult by reliable sources as per wiki, hence it belongs to catagory cult. --Shashwat pandey 07:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to communicate, would you please try again? Sethie 07:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Templet removed by sethie is the "Category templet", the group has been listed as a cult, by reliable sources as per wiki, i.e the group has been placed in catagory of cult's by independent, nutral sources, as per wiki, hence catagory of the page should also be cult, this was discussed before with a member of the group. will have to find that discussion in archieve.--Shashwat pandey 09:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for re-expressng yourself, Sethie gets you now.

Is it true that it is a category template in the sense that you mean it. For Sethie it is a category-template for cult-related topics, not groups listed as cults.

Sethie invites you to demonstrate that he has a wrong understanding of this by searching through wikipedia and finding another group, which is listed as a cult, which has those particular templates at the bottom of the page.Sethie 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a cult related topic only.--Shashwat pandey 16:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie does not understand what you are seeking to communicate.

Sethie invites you to demonstrate that he has a wrong understanding of this by searching through wikipedia and finding another group, which is listed as a cult, which has those particular templates at the bottom of the page.Sethie 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Cult Sahaj Marg was that page, it was not at all needed for sethie to search anywhere, it was demonstrated here itself.

Given the fact that category templet defines the category of the page, and it is established beyond any scope of doubt, that this group is a cult, hence it must fall in that category only, since sethie touches many topics in wikipedia hence sethie should take this intiative and make sure that the rule is followed everywhere. Something has to start somewhere.--Shashwat pandey 17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The current state of things on Wikipedia is that we may say that groups have been called cults by X, Y, and Z, but we don't call them cults ourselves. So we haven't proven that this group is a cult, we've proven that it is called a cult. That's why there's no category for "cult groups", and why the template isn't applied to articles about individual groups. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Standards are different for different templates. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

ok --Shashwat pandey 05:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

obedience section

Some clarity about obedience section is placed, here is the section which is provided as refrence

Now, the best one—of course the one who serves the Master is the best, because you are always close; you learn something. Meditation is best next. And Mission—after all, what is a Mission? It’s an organisation. So we have to be equally devoted. First, love the Master. Then meditate, do cleaning, because he says you should do it. I don’t personally believe that meditation can lead us to the goal because, according to the spiritual history of India, there have been people who have meditated thousands of years and they didn’t make it. I asked Babuji. He said, “Yes you are right.” I said, “Then why do you prescribe meditation, cleaning, you know—all of these things?” He said, “Obedience. To create obedience in people.”

So love must be there; obedience must be there. And this obedience comes not because of fear but because of love. That is the secret of love in spirituality, you see. Love because of love, not because of fear. And because of that love, you obey. When Master says, “Sit,” you sit. When he says, “Get up. You go and look after the kitchen. I am going to give satsangh,” you should not say, “Oh, I came for satsangh; He is sending me to the kitchen. I did not come from Europe to help in the kitchen.” Obedience [77]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shashwat pandey (talk • contribs).

Hi all...

Who belongs to that last "unsigned" message?

What about the "Philosophy" section? Should I begin to edit it? Or will someone else?

About the cult templates...before the inclusion of the "cult" templates, there was a series of "yoga" templates at the bottom of the article. That was not accurate also and it was WIKI to remove it. Thank you Shashwat. SRCM claims to be a "Raja Yoga", but a claim does not make it so. The templates gave their POV "credibility".

However, that being said, a government committe placing a group on a cult list does not necessarily make that group a cult also. Committees make mistakes. So to add the "cult" statement by the government committees, to the article and reference it, is WIKI...To template the article with a "cult" brand is a POV (as it was for SRCMtm), as we are making that decision based on the "possible" accuracy of the POV of others (we don't know). One can state that the POV of others is "neutral" and at "arm's length", but that is debateable as even members of a neutral committee have "non-neutral" members with non-neutral POV's and sometimes, the "non-neutral" members out-number the "neutral" members on the committee.

So if we simply remove the Yoga Template (wrongly placed there by the Chari faction-POV) and the "religion" templates (POV) and the "Cult" templates (POV) then we will be NEUTRAL (NPOV) and readers will be able to decide for themselves if the group is a cult or not based on the content of the info and not on the "templates" which act as an "influence" on the reader. It would be like putting the "war" template on the section called "rifles" or "explosives". It is true that rifles and explosives are used in war, but it is not a "neutral" inclusion and is only one POV, the editors (and mine...lol  ;-)) Let us support and stand on the accuracy of our content, and not advertise our POV with templates.

Just because the Cults (and SRCMtm) do not respect WIKI and use questionable methods, does not mean that to disrespect WIKI on the "other side" is any better. Two wrongs do not make a "RIGHT".

This is just my POV... I will live with the concensus...I can see both sides of the argument. If anyone checks out other groups, see if other templates are inserted under "religions", or other topics. If WIKI accepts it, then I will change my mind. I don't think it does even if some other groups "contravene" this WIKI NPOV policy.

To add "links" to sites that help readers decide if a group is a cult or not is "fair use" in my mind (POV), as the "cult brand" has been made by apparently "neutral" committees.

Don--don 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed trade mark

Nice addition. Would you please elaborate? Adding more then "it is dispute" would be helpful.

Also, Sethie proposes it goes under the controvery section- putting too much controversy in the intro feels like a pov-push to him. Sethie 15:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To Sethie re the disputed Trade Mark...

This is by the person who initiated the Trade Mark dispute who wants to remain anonymous for obvious reasons (allegations of poisoning, and violence). It is on Michael's blog in the "comments" to the section called "introduction" of June 19, 06. (41 comments)

PS..Michael is an ex-preceptor, member of "inner circle" and member of the Publishing Committee who's function was to "edit" the speeches of Chari and removing "controversial" statements made by him before publishing the speeches or talks. Michael, a pro, not being there could explain why so many "controversial" comments in the last years. http://innercircleofsrcm.blogspot.com/

4-d Sethie ummm.... refuses to read what you wrote!

He gets you want to be of service and that there is some painful history with you and SCRM and wowsa- that is A LOT of text.... and from scanning it, it looks like next to none of it passed WP:RS.

All Sethie is after at this point is a one or two sentece for the article so that we aren't left with, "trademark in the US which is diputed."

By wiki standards, Sethie believes all of the above could be wiped from the talk page as off-topic disucssion and that has never been Sethie's way, so would you please erase it? Sethie 17:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie you wanted to know the dispute, pls follow the link given next to the section, things will become clear to you. and about above text, if you really want to help this page, you will have to understand the concept as well, you simply cannot refuse to even read what is provided, thats sign of rigidness!!! and there is no place for rigidity on wiki, we need to be flexible enough to read what is provided.--Shashwat pandey 17:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would I read material that is inadmissable to wikipedia to write a wikipedia article? Sethie 04:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie has sat with this more.... All that reading indamissable material could do for Sethie was bias his reading of sources that are admissable! Thanks for asking, and no! Sethie 17:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie...

Sorry, 4d-don thought that if Sethie read the context by "anonymous" it would give him the sentence he wanted (which we would only guess at) to add to the intro. 4d-don, although being a "betazoid" (lol) does not know what Sethie wants ... The dispute around SRCM is that Chari went to USA (via Santosh Khanjee)in 1997, after being rejected as "President and Spiritual Representative of SRCM, and registered the SRCM in San Luis Obispo, California, and the SMRTI and the SMSF in Austin Texas, and then tried to register Sahaj Marg as a "trade mark" which was contested by the SRCM Shahajanpur. Not having enough money to afford to contest the "appeasls, and to pursue the matter in court, and even though the dispute panel ruled in their favour, the "representative" (anonymous) gave up the battle. The battle is now being fought by Navneet, the son of Umesh, in Supreme Court in India.

That is all we "surmise" from the research material, except for statements by "anonymous" which seem accurate but are not "verifiable" so were not added to the article as they would be POV. 4d-don did not add anything to the article as he is not sure what Sethie wants. Now that Sethie (or Shashwat) have the "story", and the dispute "document", maybe Sethie (or Shashwat) can add something.

4d-don--don 23:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

:) Sethie was doing many mantras today, so maybe even such a finaly skilled betazoid as yourself could not read my mind.

All Sethie is after is something like "Sahaj Marg is a Trade-Mark registered in USA and which is disputed by other lineages of this tradition Just a simple summation of the conflict for those who are not familiar with it. "Sahaj Marg is a Trade-Mark registered in USA and is disputed" doesn't feel like a complet whole concept to me, for someone not familiar with the situtaion.

This is just the intro- so going into a lot of detail, doesn't feel right, but mentioning it, and going into NO detail feels off to Sethie as well. Sethie 04:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie 04:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Shashwat it looks good. Simple and direct. Sethie 17:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

removal of "sole" from representative

Shashwat, WP:V clearly states "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it."

Sethie has challenged the idea that Chari claims to be the "sole" representative. You need to provide a source which states this, not say, "This is going in until you show a source that says otherwise."Sethie 16:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie...

From New Year's address of 2002 by Chari... This is a bold claim and is NPOV. Other religions and spiritual groups do not agree of course. ;-))...(notice the veiled "threat" of "fallen by the wayside" instead of "found a better way". This is the same divisive "heaven and hell" metaphors that are used by various "religions" and does not reflect a "spirituality", certainly not "raja Yoga". With Chari's SRCMtm, it is now the "Brighter World" (heaven) or "fallen by the roadside" (hell). (4d-Don's POV...A handful of "saved" is not an impressive record for Sahaj Marg(tm)

And if you think further, that out of one and a half to two lakhs of people who are today following Sahaj Marg in various depths of application, with various degrees of sincerity, with certainly very different aspirations, how many are truly seeking that which Sahaj Marg alone (I dare to say, ALONE) can offer today? May be a handful? May be less? You see, every day we lose is a day lost for progress for ever. Progress is of course not measured in terms of days and months and years, but when I look back, and we see those brothers and sisters who have fallen by the roadside (as we say), and we wonder where they are today. And if there is anyone who can see where they are, and if we are able to how few have really made it to that sublime world which we call the Brighter world, we would realise that Sahaj Marg has to be tackled, pursued, followed, practised in a much more serious way than we have been able to do so far.

Don...--don 18:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Great find Don. Sethie will sit with how we can accurately use the citation. Sethie 15:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy Section...

Shashwat..

I think you got the wrong link in that Philosophy section...the link is http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.info-sectes.ch/secte-sriram.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=10&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dforced%2Bdivorces%2Bsahaj%2Bmarg%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLR,GGLR:2005-39,GGLR:en%26pwst%3D1

Is that the correct one? I think it was the SMRTI page on Masters that was there before this last edit...

Do you want to correct that?

4d-don...--don 18:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Link from SMRTI was questioned by sethie, as it was not independent and nutral, hence a cult watch group page was provided which say's that Chari is "personafication of God".--Shashwat pandey 01:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Sethie was challenging only the idea of "sole" representative of God. Sethie 15:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction dialogue

Sethie...

There is another contradictory statement that defines the SRCMtm (California) philosophy and was in the Teachings and should be brought to the Sahaj Marg Page: Links using SRCMtm site are tentative as they (SRCMtm, California) remove the speech or the section as we use the quote. This speech is in another site (sikh). Chari attributes this quote to Babuji but Babuji wrote a book called "Sahaj Marg Philosophy". This quote should in all rights be attributed to Chari but contradicts the other statements and the whole section.

" There is no room for philosophy in speeches of Sahaj Marg. In fact, Sahaj Marg has no philosophy. It does not rest on any philosophy. It is neither advaita nor dvaita nor vishishta advaita. You know all these things. Yet we have to speak because we are expected to speak." (From Speech by Shri Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari -Jan 1, 2005 at Babuji Memorial Ashram, Manapakkam, India- see references) http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/1441-the-art-of-listening-to-nature.html

How does Sethie want to deal with this and many other "contradictions"? Another one is the philosophy that one needs a "living Master"...That is now being "contradicted by Chari and other factions also, although it is kept in their teaching material. Teachings should be in this page...

4d-don--don 16:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Sethie wants to look at "contradictions" from WP:RS's. Blogs and discussion boards don't count! Would a reputable encyclopedia quote a discussion board?

2nd Sethie wants to deal with "contradictions?" by first and foremost dropping the assumption that they are contradictions!

When Sethie looks at the statement, all Sethie sees is him saying that Sahaj Marg takes not stand on the advaita/dvaita/vishista arguement.

3rdly Sethie wants to ask is this really a significant statement? Would the Encyclopedia Britanica spend a lot of time on this statement? Is is really worth inclusion?

4thly- Sethie is interested in a tight article, which will last, which won't get torn to pieces, which will stand some test of time. Through working on other articles, Sethie has learned that trying to use wikipedia to point out things Sethie thinks are contradictions, bad, wrong, etc., just doesn't fly here.

5thly don't itnerpret, comment, try to use quotes a certain way, that is a scholars job. Find me a scholar or reputable expert who says it is a contradiction and then we'll include it within that context. i.e a secondary source: [[78]] Sethie 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie...

4d-don would not include the words "contradictory" in the article of course. But that is a speech written and spoken by Chari. 4d-don does not interpret it just want to add it to the Philosophy...Should 4d-don just add them without discussing with Sethie as Sethie is assumes that 4d-don is "interpreting". What does Sethie do with contradictions, just put them in without "reading" the content so no "contradiction" can be "spoken"?

"There is no room in Sahaj Marg for Philosophy. SAHAJ MARG HAS NO PHILOSOPHY" is very plain to 4d-don. The word "stand" has been added by Sethie and was not in the quote. That is POV...

Is Sethie a scholar? Does Sethie decide on what to add and what to leave out? An encyclopedia that 4d-don reads will certainly be one who includes that statement as it establishes what is expected of the adherent. Then the Words of the Master are what is the PHILOSOPHY and it changes as we go along.

4d-don does not understand, was trying to discuss before editing but will stop that process and simply edit like Sethie and Shashwat and others.

4d-don--don 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, Sethie is honestly disapointed with that edit. It seems so petty, like, "Here let me find ANYTHING that can make him look bad." It would be one thing if Chari preached celibacy, and you had an RS which said, "Nope he screws around." That would at least be notable. You have devoted an entire 2 sentences which basically amount to "HA! He contradicted ONE WORD of the founder! Got him!"

A real contradiction would be if in Babuji's book, Babuji did take a ummm.... not a stand, but a "resting" on one of the three philosophical schools mentioned. That, in Sethie's opinion would be noteworthy.

Sethie doesn't deny that the words appear to contradict. And is it notable? Does Chari do ANY teaching? Does he ever talk about ANY philosophical matters? If so, then maybe you are misunderstanding what he was trying to convey. It is quite common in the Hindu tradition to say that the truth cannot be said, mereley pointed towards. neti neti: "it is an assertion that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we must inevitably fall short, because we are limited in understanding, and words are limited in ability to express the transcendent." Wikipedia seems to get what Chari is saying.

Seriously Don, just answer Sethie this- in a proffesional serious encyclopedia, would you see the material you introduced?

Or is this the kind of thing you would see on a personal website, or a "anti-chari" pamphlet? If you can look yourself in the mirror and honestly say, "Yes, the Briticana would report this, just the way I did" Sethie will drop the matter entirely.

Sethie will drop the matter entirely anyway. You have provided a WP:RS and you have reported facts via WP:NPOV, once Sethie removed the "although." Sethie 03:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Youtube video

Is youtube video acceptable as a refrence ? --Shashwat pandey 09:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the video, and on whate we derive from it. There are too mny variables. What's the video and what assertion would it support? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

this is the video that i wanted to give [79] this explains all aspects as how cults execute mind control, in addition to refrence provided for cultic behaviour of the group.--Shashwat pandey 13:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To use cult refferences in this article, they need to talk about SRCM.

2I don't really know much about "Evil Videos" are they an expert on the matter?Sethie 15:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting video, but it doesn't concern the topic of this article. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion, again

Shashwat, if you are goint to use cult refferences, they need to specifically mentiond SCRM. Otherwise it is a clear violation of WP:NOR "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"

YOU cannot connect the dots, you are not allowed to say, oh yes they are just like other cults, they do x,y,z like other cults, you need a refference which say that. Sethie 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie you need to understand what is provided, the link was not for SRCM but for the process and used and explaination of mind-control, hence your edit's will be reverted back, pls refer to wiki policy about removing edits, you need to provide discuss and then remove any links.--Shashwat pandey 19:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, links provided are not referring to SRCM being a cult, but they are explaining the process of mind conditioning, SRCM uses one of those method's which is clearly mentions as mind-control tactic's, pls read the context and then follow the refrence provided. Pls do not haste in undoing edit's also remember the 3RR rule.--Shashwat pandey 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As such they do not belong here, they are great reffernces for the cult page. Please discontinue your OR campaign, now.

"pls refer to wiki policy about removing edits, you need to provide [citation needed] discuss and then remove any links" To Sethie's knowledge there is no such policy.Sethie

We shouldn't add links that don't support the assertions being made. Sethie was right to remove sources that were at odds with the material. "Connecting the dots" is another term for "original research", which we don't allow. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Don's comments

Sethie...On philosophy...

To call 4d-don's edit "petty", and other emotionalisms such as "look in the mirror", are Sethie's POV and not allowed in WIKI ;-))

To Sethie's question: YES! That is what I expect of a serious encyclopedia...(being Acadian, a french minority in Canada, Britannica is not what I would call NPOV in Acadian historical articles...lol ;-)) I expect all (somewhat) the info and not just the PR. Specially in the case of religions, cults and other "cons" with "unverifiable" statement and contradictory claims about the "abstract" or the "other worlds) such as the ONE (GOD), the Brighter World, Heaven, and how to get there, etc... The attempts to hide the truth about the historical atrocities of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is one example of collusion by encyclopedias such as Britannica.

4d-don polishes his mirror often and he is still seeing himself clearly. 4d-don did not get his awards by running from "controversy" and not reporting on controversial issues. 4d-don wants to be NPOV but he does not want the "whitewashing" SRCM on WIKI so that it he is party to snaring others because of his "unclear" reporting of the facts, specially when the facts come from words of the "Leaders" of the various factions.

According to many who have been following the "take-over" of SRCM by Chari's clan for many years, to replace the philosophy and the teachings of Babuji by the teachings of Chari can be done by "downplaying" or "denying" the philosophy of Babuji by such statements as SRCM has "no philosophy". Then the TEACHING's and of CHARI are in his own words (books and speeches). And Sethie and Willbeback think that the TEACHINGS section is "too long". If we can't refer to that, then we are not writing a serious "encyclopedia".

4d-don did not "catch" Chari (Sethie's POV)! Chari himself is exposing his goals with his own words and 4d-don is "reporting" them in NPOV and in agreement with other groups (SRCM Shahjahanpur and ISRC) who are still editing here (not lately but??) and with whom the article as it was a few months ago was written. They thought that we would honour their input and not call it "POV" and "slash and burn" their serious work, as their info is all referenced and is NPOV in 4d-don's POV.

If the ideas (POV) that Chari puts forth are not in agreement with what (SRCM Philosophy) is stated in their (SRCMtm, registered in California), own PR and on their sites, then it is not POV to "report" that... but NPOV.

The ONE knows how much material 4d-don is leaving out for the sake of not being "anti Chari", including all the "exposing" of the "power struggles" that has gone on since Chari, his father,et al joined the group in the 1970's. It began with the Varadachari's (ousted and schismed to form ISRC) and continued until the final take-over in the late 1990's. That is not 4d-don's POV but was gathered from reputable sources (Narayana, Dr Varadachari's son, is a retired chief officer for a state government in India) and many other reputable ex-preceptors, independent researchers and questionning (and now) ex-adherents. The opinions of the adherents has not been included in the article but refered to. Then maybe, Sethie would see the "negative" about this group that is not in the "SRCM philosophy" as stated in the PR and that originated with the philosopher, Babuji.

So far, 4d-don is being kind, generous, and NPOV, except for not having the time to re-edit some of Shashwat's (a fairly new editor) edits which have to be referenced according to WIKI policy and written in NPOV.

You gotta laugh b'cause it ain't funny!  ;-))

4d-don--don 19:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"To call 4d-don's edit "petty", and other emotionalisms such as "look in the mirror", are Sethie's POV and not allowed in WIKI

POV reffers to article edits, not discssion pages, please don't mix up terms. Sethie 19:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

sethie should refer to WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF --Shashwat pandey 20:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where Sethie violated any of those policies, either in letter or in spirit. Why are we mentioning them here? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie...

4d-don thinks it should be allowed too, and he has been putting his POV in the discussion page, and adding POV where he remembered. (4d-don has "craft" you know, Can't Remember A F.... Thing...lol ;-))) If you agree that all can do it, then so can you, and call any edit "petty" all you want. I don't agree that it is of course, and it is one reason that I believe in WIKI. I agree that we should not put our POV in the article. I think that when we put our POV in the discussion page, it would be a good "protocol" or convention to write POV beside it (if one can remember). BTW Petty is not a quantifiable term and is sort of "girly man", to quote Governor Arnold Swartzenager. lol ;-0

Nice chatting with you...

Willbeback...

I think Shashwat means the "civility", "personal attacks", and "not assuming good faith" with me. I can now be really "petty" and agree with him! lol  ;-)) But I won't...

Thanks Shashwat anyway...(POV) The technology will not allow us to hide very much longer anyway, right? And 4d-don thinks we should be allowed our "pettiness" in public and be called on it. As well as our shame, our guilt, envy, lust, anger, hatred, and all the other emotions that we now hide, so as to expose them to the light and see them and hopefully "deal with them" and change. Just not in the Sacred "Article". Our new "Sacre Cow"...lol I agree, as long as we can all laugh together because...

You gotta laugh, b'cause it ain't funny...If we fail, what's next?

We won't!! We're adults, right? The technology will not allow us to hide very much longer anyway, right? (end of POV)

Petty Officer, 4d-don--don 00:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

lol the wisdom of Arnold... and now you have opened a never-ending sequence of non-quantifiable terms, because "girly man" is very wimpy, you know ;)

Nice one on the letting it all hang out on the talk page. Oh shit, is the group therapy? :)

As per "POV' it's just that at wikipedia, POV is contrasted with NPOV and has a very specific meaning- edits made with no bias (NPOV) and edits made with a bias (POV) or an agenda. Sethie has never seen another editor use the term the way you do.

As per Shashwat reffering to you... well he did use the word "Sethie"... and who know? Sethie 00:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sethie... 4d-Don means that Shashwat was defending him from Sethie's attacks (who committed the three sins against the great WIKI...etc)

Well I forgive you and thus erase your "samskaras" (SRCM) and your Karma and we are now AT ONE or in a state of "at-one-ment". Since I, like everyone, can "erase Samskaras", does that make me a Master? Are we all Masters and we don't know it?  ;-))

OK! We milked that one for all it's worth...

Gotta take my dog for a walk. It's our daily ritual and is my reason (guilt) lol... for going outside so as to "serve" the Mistress of the house...lol

Some serve God...I serve DOG...there is miror symetry there and "invertendo" (a SRCM term that connotes the invert of the meaning of words and states, when one is the elevated or a MASTER).....lol Can we add that to the article?... I could not resist the pun.... ;-))

See you all tomorrow...Time to punch out and go look at Venus and wait for the stars to come out.

4d-don--don 03:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OR

When Sethie reads the source, here is what he finds:

The source says:

Can one for adhering as much to Shri RAM Chandra Mission and continuing a normal life, to keep the contact with his family, his children, etc?

And Chari says:

“It is not at all possible.” the same text answers “when we fill our duty towards the Master, all our duty will be accomplished. It deals with the remainder in our interest. It takes even care of your duties for you. ”

So, according to the source, Chari does NOT say that you can't. This article asks a question- and then gives a quote which indireclty answers the question.

If you want to claim that Chari says this, find a source which says, Chari says ____. Sethie 17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the source says: "It is reported that it would have shown the means it human being to arrive at the spiritual perfection in only one life, while assuming a family life and professional normal: its “system improved of Rajah-yoga” took the name of Sahaj Marg.

Sethie 17:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually above statement is WP:OR here the above editor is trying to impose his understanding of the subject rather then stating what the source say's.

Your edit will be reverted.

--Einstein 22 17:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the beauty of the matter is, Sethie had never heard of SCRM until he came to this page, all he has to go on is what the sources say.

Please comment on edits, not contributer. You have not addressed the fact that the source makes the conclusion, not Chari. Sethie 17:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The source say's Can one for adhering as much to Shri RAM Chandra Mission and continuing a normal life, to keep the contact with his family, his children, etc? “It is not at all possible.” the same text answers “when we fill our duty towards the Master, all our duty will be accomplished. It deals with the remainder in our interest. It takes even care of your duties for you. ”[80]

Any modification to this is clearly against WP:OR. Here do we have to discuss source or Chari ?

If you clearly read the source, you will notice, the SOURCE/the cult watch group asks the question: "Can one for adhering as much to Shri RAM Chandra Mission and continuing a normal life, to keep the contact with his family, his children, etc?"

then they provide a quote from Chari which says:

"It is not at all possible.” the same text answers “when we fill our duty towards the Master, all our duty will be accomplished. It deals with the remainder in our interest. It takes even care of your duties for you."

That is very, very, very sloppy, and hence the only accurate thing to do is to report that this is what the cult-watch group thinks.Sethie 17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sloppy is a POV, all we should be interested in is what the source say's, our interpretation of the content is against the policy of WP:OR--Einstein 22 17:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shashwat.

Please just read the source. The SOURCE asks a question. The source then responds with a Chari quote which does not clearly answer the question. If they responded with a chari quote which said, "It is not possible to be in the family and follow my path" Sethie would be silent. Sethie 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this qualifies with WP:OR ? lol...

Anyway, truly speaking, I don't understand what the source implies; I have just reproduced the source, which was NOT provided by me, but by your beloved friend. Are we questioning the source or our interpretation of what is stated in source ?

--Einstein 22 17:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the only arguement is to whom the opinion is attributed. You want to attribute it to Chari, Sethie is clear this is OR. Sethie wants to attribute it to the source. Sethie 18:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Current edit is perfect, and in sync with WP:OR policy. Thanks.--Einstein 22 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusing text

During the celebration Chari said that marriage amongst group memebers was a fuffillment of Lalaji Maharaj orders that Sahaj Marg practitioners should marry each other, to expand the Sahaj Marg population

Above statement makes no sense to me

As we understand Lalaji died long before Sahaj Marg came into existence, the method in which this text is represented give a sense of POV push, reader's are subjected to confusion that lalaji is also associated with the group. (This is claimed and by no account verifiable, dreams are not valid input according to wiki) the statement should be:

During the marriage celebration, Chari said that Sahaj Marg practitioners should marry each other, in order to expand the Sahaj Marg population. Chari claims that this is an order from Lalaji. (source of this order is not explained by the leader)

--Einstein 22 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is any editor from Sahaj Marg faction, can they explain when, where and how this order was delivered ? and to whom ? this is very confusing, is there any other channel, other then Brighter world ? my information till now is there are messages from brighter world, what is the source of order's ? or atleast can anyone direct me to any source from where this information can be obtained ? All that i can say is this group is "interesting".--Einstein 22 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why the statement doesn't make sense to you, it is exactly what the source says: "Lalaji Maharaj, whose birth anniversary we are celebrating today has ordained–it was not merely an expression of his wishes–has ordained that abhyasis should marry amongst each other, so that in two or three generations we have an exploding Sahaj Marg population."

How could it be a POV push, it is worded very neutraly. All the sentence says is: ___ said ___ said _____. Chari said Lalaji said be fruitful and multiply. Sethie 00:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Living dead discussion

Hi all,

I am back! Sethie, lets finish our unfinished discussion, i will get busy with some other stuff's soon, my request to all is lets rap this topic up and get it inserted back in the article.

Below i am providing my version of section, dis-agreements are welcomed to share their view's.

In Chari group if members follow the practices, it is said that they can attain the state of living dead,. Chari group says that by giving up attachment to the worldly object’s like family spouse children’s society etc and replacing that attachment with the Divine.[[81]] and also surrendering one's will to the Leader [[82]], one can attain this state of living dead. Members of the group have described this as a state of freedom and happiness. [[83]].At the same time, independent observers who conducted research into the subject have quoted about this as a state where members have developed complete disintrest in their ownself and have surrender completely to wish of the leader of the group, that is they do not have any wish of their own, but simply move according to the will of the leader.[84], (Leader is a murder accused and is also accused of forgery)[85]

Divine is represented by the leader [86] therefore, attachment for family, spouse has to be replaced with Mission, Leader, for growth and sustainable family life.

Comments are welcome.--Shashwat pandey 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We're getting so close.

We need to drop "independent observers who conducted research into the subject." First off is it multiple observers? 2ndly where is the proof that they are independent? "Conducted research" well... maybe. Let's just say ______ name of people or title expressed concern that his as a state where members have developed complete disintrest in their ownself and have surrender completely to wish of the leader of the group, that is they do not have any wish of their own, but simply move according to the will of the leader. (if that is what the source actually says, we'll look at that next). Sethie 15:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shashwat...

Your text has the gist of what is expected of the disciple of Sahaj Marg. I would not however insert the last line of "accusation of Murder and forgery" as it can, in theory, never go away is we accept that sort of statement as NPOV. Even if found "innocent", one can still claim the "he was accused" and that is true but not fair in the WIKI article. It could be done on a blog with all the other "accusations" by anyone.

You can understand that I can accuse, you can accuse, Sethie can accuse and then we can state in TRUTH that "THREE people have accused Chari" of "???"... I think WIKI should only carry what has been PROVEN or PENDING JUDGEMENT, when it comes to "criminality" and "libeleous" matters. Not to say that the accusations should not be "recorded" elsewhere. It is WIKI to accept the "accusation" but I don't agree... It is not NPOV in my Mind. I would not want it in an article on me even if it is WIKI policy. So I would recommend we "transcend" and be "spiritual" and not include it even if we can..

PS...Let us call it "SRCMtm (California), not "Chari Group"... and also, attachment and duty are not synomyms. Duty to family, children, society etc are allowed but as with a "severed relationship bond" or in a "detached way", as Chari calls it. That is a difficult one to put into words and get accurate as it can be "interpreted" differently by those inside and those outside.

-))

Don...

Hi Don-

Thanks for your post.

Sethie is fine with the accusation being in the article, assuming it comes from a reliable source. Sethie totally concurs that if the accusaion comes from a blog or whatnot, it doesn't belong on wikipedia.

Yeah- Chari group is probably better, unless we have another source calling it the Chari group.

Btw- thanks for your recent edits to try and simplify and clarify the master and leadership sections. Sethie 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sethie,

I will try to answer your question's here

"First off is it multiple observers?"

Yes there are many observer's if you read the page of cult watch group, they have sourced very clearly, they include 1. Source: Emergency the State Sects. Center Roger Ikor, 2. Source: ViaNice February 2001 (news-paper) 3. G.EM.P.P.I. BP 30095 - 13192 MARSEILLES - Cedex 20 (Agency) , hence there are multiple observer's.

"where is the proof that they are independent"

Well, cult watch group, newspaper, govt. agencies etc are considered indipendent according to wiki.

If you spend some time reading the source you will find that source clearly states that The reflexion, intellect and personal freedom are evils, only obedience with the Master is necessary P.42 “Even education is not necessary, all that is essential to succeed is contained in the goodwill of Abhyasi to accept the Master for guide and to continue the path unrelentingly… This concept of “goodwill”… tends towards the need for a total abandonment to the Master.”

I hope all your current concern's are over. lets try and get setteled to any other aspect of section which we need to reach a conclusion.

--Shashwat pandey 05:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, given your response Sethie feels about 55% done with this paragraph.

Please point to a wiki policy which says "Well, cult watch group, newspaper, govt. agencies etc are considered indipendent according to wiki."

So let's drop the independent.

And just because they have sources at the end does not mean those are the people who came to this one conclusion, hence lets drop the multiple.

Let's drop all the story telling "multiple independent observers who conducted research into the matter"- what a mouthfull, and with each word needing a citation otherwise it is subtle, but clearly OR, let's not dress it up, and just say ____ said _____. Sethie 06:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

pls refer WP:RS, news paper reports are considered reliable, moreover, kindly re-collect our discussion about forced divorced section, Will beback and you also, had informed me that cult watch group/govt. agencies etc are reliable sources. Till that time i was not comfertable with wiki policies but tnx to you two, i am learning a lot.

They are independent also, as sources are directly from govt. agencies/newspaper/other cult watch group's.

Since they are more then one (Hence multiple), they are reliable source (Hence independent), conducted research YES. Hence the statement stands valid. i am willing to replace "independent" with "reliable" source.--Shashwat pandey 09:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please point to a wiki policy which says "Well, cult watch group, newspaper, govt. agencies etc are considered indipendent according to wiki."

Please provide an actual ciation which says they were multiple people who wrote this part of the paper and please provide a citation which says they "conducted research." Sethie 15:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets wait for mediation.--Shashwat pandey 05:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Don,

When a person demands complete surrender and obedience and self abnigation of a person, his/her character must be clear, if such a person is not pure, accused of criminal charges, cases pending against him in courts does not have any authority to claim divinity. These charges are not from Don, Sethie or Shashwat, these charge's are from the organisation itself, till he does not come out clear from such charges, they have a valid presense here. It is not a political group, but a group asking people to surrender their free will to a person, and that person is (?) Court will decide, till jugdement is not dilivered, let these charges be there.

--Shashwat pandey 05:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI on quotes

Please don't add anymore quotes. Most of them that are in the article now along with new ones will be eventually chopped.

They might fit in great here [[87]], but this wikipedia, an encyclopedia, [[88]] Sethie 06:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To get this up to wiki standards, this article needs to be totally re-written. Very, very, very little of it, as it reads now will remain when we are done.Sethie 06:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation

Sethie can you list atleast two source's which you feel misinterpret the context ? lets clean this up. --Shashwat pandey 11:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify what you are talking about.... Sethie 15:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the citation tag, at top of the page. if there is still any mis-interpretation of citation's and you can find them, then lets clean it.--Shashwat pandey 05:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the sentence reads "The stated goal of the Sahaj Marg practice is complete oneness with the leader." Sethie would like a citation which outright states "the goal of Sahaj Marg is complete oneness with the leader" or something to that effect. Sethie 05:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the tag, not about any a section which is not cited, tag say's This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text. I am unable to find any such citation, if you know, pls point them out so that it can cleaned, else that tag is not required.!!--Shashwat pandey 07:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, this seems to be another personal interpretation as the stated goal of Sahaj Marg yoga is to:

- "become what we were at the time of creation as souls -- truly Divine." http://www.sahajmarg.org/others/faq1.html#2

- "have union with Reality [God]" Complete Works of Ram Chandra Vol. 2, chapter "Easiest Way to God Realization", p. 214

- "unite us with the Ultimate consciousness, which is sometimes called the Absolute, the Self, God, or the Creator" Australian Yoga Life, Issue 8 - 2004, pp.45-48, http://www.sahajmarg.org/smrti/education/articles/general/art0026.html

-> In essence, the stated goal is that we become one with God, and realise our true (divine, Godly) selves.

--Renee 10:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat, what Rene has posted would be a perfect example of "his article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text." Sethie 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am needed ? hmmmmmm may be, for some more time. it seems you are the one I was looking for.

What you are stating it seems to be a POV kindly refer to WP:NPOV, in addition to [[89]] What a neutral person can make out is, it is the leader who is suppose to be divine and members are simply obeying objects in his hands.

What you have stated seems to contradicting other statement from the same group kindly refer In spirituality obedience is of the highest importance. When a person gives up herself with a Master, that means that it completely does it on all the plans. It became simply an instrument between the hands of the Master. How such a person can decide what is right or false? Here, only obedience is correct.”

Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari - My Master P-66.

What I can make out is, in this group Divine is not God but the leader kindly refer [90] it is stated that leader is THE ULTIMATE. it becomes really confusing as who is God according to the group ? Our inner self? Again it is the leader! Lets jot down to wiki policies rather getting engaged in pushing POV's. both view's should be represented in a balanced way.

--Einstein 22 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Einstein, I'm not sure if you're talking to me or the person before me, but the quotation you give is on what some yogic traditions believe to be the role of a spiritual master (indeed, what even Christianity believes, i.e., "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through me," but the quotation you give above says nothing about the stated goal of Sahaj Marg. The stated goal of Sahaj Marg across all of its literature is to become one with God, to become divine. Also, if you read your quotation carefully, again, Rajagopalachari is speaking of "in spirituality..." (again, like many spiritual traditions.

Anyone with a particular POV can pull out unrelated quotations about obedience and other issues and claim that's a goal because someone said it's important, but for those without a specific POV, who just want to present the facts for an encyclopedia, please look to the Sahaj Marg literature to see what the stated goal is (not your POV interpretation of the goal). And, as is stated over and over in the literature, the stated goal of Sahaj Marg is one-ness with God, the Ultimate. --Renee 15:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Einstein. Sethie has read your post twice and doesn't understand what you are trying to say. "Divine is not God." Huh? Our inner self isn't God? Huh? Where did you read this stuff?Sethie 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This group is new to me, just followed the links in the article. And really it is surprising that "Divine is not God" but the leader!! I am astonished at this stand of the group. I will now quote that statement from the group website.

Thus, in Sahaj Marg the Master represents the divine principle as manifest in all aspects of creation: a) as the Ultimate, b) as the spiritual guide, and c) as our inner divinity [91]

what will be the understanding of a layman in regard to this group ? Renee can you kindly explain this statement? for better understanding ? I was going through some critical site related to cult's and more or less, they all resemble that the leader represents divine thus sld be taken as divine, the list starts from "OSHO" includes "Sahaj Marg" and probably ends at "Heaven's faith".

Off topic question is it possible that divinity can be represented in human form ? can infinite be understood by making it finite ? I am not a spiritual person, just a layman, but this much I can say, converting infinite into finite is negating the infinite. Just my 2 cent's, nothing to do with the article or the group!.

--Einstein 22 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Renee,

You have stated one-ness with God, the Ultimate and who is The Ultimate according to the group ? pls refer to group website to get the answer, it is stated VERY CLEARLY that "THE ULTIMATE IS THE LEADER" hence "in essense" stated goal of Sahaj Marg is complete one-ness with the leader. this is NPOV, not stating what the group manipulates but facts based on group litrature itself, giving a touch of neutrality. I hope this clarifies.--Shashwat pandey 06:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read the citation, you will see that without any manipulation or WP:OR (i.e. conclusion drawing) according to the group, the leader represents the Ultimate and that the goal is union with the ultimate. Sethie 07:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To come to a conclusion, we may say, Stated goal of the group is union with the ultimate represented by the leader, and leave the reader's to decide if this amounts to union with the leader or not. --Shashwat pandey 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie really likes your intention of letting the reader decide.

Sethie is not okay with expressing these two ideas as one sentence. as you did here "Stated goal of the group is union with the ultimate represented by the leader."

Also to make it NPOV, we need to include another sentence about Sahaj Marg's concept of the Divine. Sethie doubts very seriously that the only thing said about the ultimate is "Ultimate=Leader." Sethie 02:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

please use current evidence and facts

Dear Sethie,

I am grateful for the work you are doing to clean up this site. There are many factual errors and selective use of "evidence" to support a hostile and distorted view toward Sahaj Marg.

A couple of examples:

- in the opening paragraph it claims that Shri Ram Chandra Mission (SRCM) is a cult according to the French government, yet all of the citations are dated. After a court case to confront these allegations it was proven that SRCM was NOT a cult and it was taken off of the sect list in France. (See the following, for example: http://yawiki.org/proc/Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission). Specifically, the first citation is 1995, the second 2003, and the third is merely a bibliography including works on Christianity and Hinduism too.

- in the children section it claims SRCM was obliged to leave France because of some dangerous approach to children, when in fact, the real problem was that too many people were showing up for gatherings and creating a disturbance (again, see: http://yawiki.org/proc/Shri_Ram_Chandra_Mission)

- the text and citations insinuate that the letter nominating P. Rajagopalachari was forged when in fact, the general consensus at that time was that his competitor had forged his letter (see http://themis.geocities.yahoo.com/jsoff.css?thIP=82.91.138.22&thTs=1181586839">).

- the text cites a court case implying that P. Rajagopalachari is somehow in the wrong and involved in malfeasance; yet, when you look at the "evidence" it is merely yet another appeal to an earlier decision found in favor of Rajagopalachari (meaning the accusations were proved false in the lower courts). Anyone can file an appeal. Yet, the accurate evidence shows that the court found in favor of Rajagopalachari.

These are just a couple of examples of how the "evidence" currently cited is dated, distorted (citing an appeal or earlier documents instead of earlier court cases which were won, meaning the accusations were found to be false), or worse, references blogs as a source (just someone's opinion).

A couple of other notes: - it seems that the real beef with some of the contributors to this site is with Chariji, and more broadly, the Shri Ram Chandra Mission, NOT with the practice of Sahaj Marg. - because of this, shouldn't this information be moved to a different site (or to a blog)? The practice of Sahaj Marg is very simple and separate from the Mission. - in searching the internet, I found the www.yawiki.org site to offer the most balanced explanations of Sahaj Marg and the Shri Ram Chandra Mission. It discusses some of the problems and key issues with the organization, but it is also focused on the facts. - the whole section on "cult allegations" should be completely cut as the organization was proven to NOT be a cult. These are merely accusations and inuendo. - the whole "warning" section about how SRCM is supposedly a cult should be deleted given that the court case in France proved it was not a cult; these are dated references.

Many people use Wikipedia as an encyclopedic information source and trust that the evidence will be balanced, fair, and unbiased. Currently, this site reads as a vindictive vendetta against Chariji. A blog is a place where personal opinions and interpretations contrary to what the current evidence shows can be expressed (and indeed, there are several of those).

Thank you, Renee

Hey Renee.

Sethie concurs with you, this entire piece was written not as an ecnyclopedia article, but as an attack against SCRM California.

Sethie will look at the yawiki site.

This page is going to go to mediation... and Sethie predicts with a bunch of other eyes lokking at it, it will change.Sethie 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sethie -- I'm glad to hear this. --Renee 16:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee...

Thank you for your contribution.

I am also aware of the Yawiki article that used all of our research and re-edited, even using our references. I am flattered by that and is a great example of the importance (and accuracy) of the Wiki encyclopedia. To remove some of the info reflects POV of that editor and is not "all" the truth although it is accurate. Our article is more comprehensive but is still accurate. If you have something referenced to add, please do so.

The Sahaj Marg article should remain but is going through a clean-up after many edit wars. It will improve and reflect the same "accuracy" as the SRCM article and may be copied by Yawiki also. There are more editors than those of the Chari faction of SRCM, who are involved here and the article has to reflect their info also. The SRCM article reflects all POV's and is accurate and factual to the best of our knowledge. If you have something to add (with references), please bring it forward. I am still cleaining up that article so it is still a work in progress. The TEACHINGS section will be brought back to the SAHAJ MARG article as it is about the Technique and not the MISSION.

If you have any referenced material to add to the article, please do so. You give a few examples of where SRCM was taken off the list of Dangerous cults in France. Please provide us with a reference to that court case with the wording. I asked for it for a few years as it was mentionned before but no one has brought it forward. I was lead to believe that it was suit against a NEWSPAPER to not report SRCM on a LIST of Cults in the NEWSPAPER and not about the GOVERNMENT report. The person could not get references, or did not want to as it was not "accurate", but "company rumours" for the sake of the "abhyasis". Please clarify with references. If you can't supply references, would you change the Yawiki article to refect that "rumour"?

Many have attempted to eliminate the articles before and have failed... If you want to participate to make it "factual" that is fine but the attempts to "divide" the article, to make it match the PR of the Chari Faction, (such as the 3M's will not get my support), or to place it elsewhere, or remove "factual" information have all been tried for years.

All material referenced please...no rumours or unreferenced material from all sides.

Don--don 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sethie agrees with Don... we need WP:RS's... and yawiki and geocities don't cut it. Sethie 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

okay, I'll do it. Give me a little time. --Renee 16:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee...

If you have difficulty finding the case, I remember one court case had to do with a "politician or his wife ??" who was mentionned in a French Newspaper article, as being part of a cult ("secte" in french) that was listed in the French Government committee report No 2468 (see report in Sahaj Marg article link)...(I can get a translation). The newspaper apparently spent 17,000 Euros or Francs (??), not defending the mention of the SRCM, but the case was about "the mention of a person as being part of a cult ("secte" in french) that was on a government list"... If I remember correctly, the case was lost because the mention of a person as part of a group that is on a list is not protected by the "freedom of the press" as it is not specific enough (too many different organizations on the list). One can understand that as "legal" and just. I think the damage was "1.0 Euro of Franc". But the mention of the group (SRCM) was not the issue in this case... If there is another one, I am interested as it did not come up except in "hearsay" or "rumour".

If you can't find it, and if this is the one you refer to, I can search out that "archived" material as it was not considered "pertinent" to the mention of SRCM in the French report, but had to do with the mention of a "public figure", as a member of a group on a list. We can add that one if you think it is pertinent and helps your case. I did not think so then, but I am open to it, if concensus is there.

Don----don 21:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sethie and Don,

I've found nearly all of the information for the French-secte issue and now I have to compile it into a summary for you folks. The whole history of the "secte" issue in France is very interesting here and will come into play. Hopefully I'll be able to post all of that on Monday or Tuesday, and then I'll turn my attention to the Indian court courses. I've spent at least one day searching those archives and there is a lot, so that may take me a couple of weeks.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 06:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

To Shashwat

I would like to bring the Teachings section to the SAHAJ MARG article and thus "show" in its own words by its teachings what Sahah Marg truly is.

That also means that we have to remove all the allegations of "cult" as Sahaj Marg is not listed as a cult, but SRCM is listed as such, and it is mentionned in that article that it is. That article is not for showing "HOW" SRCM is a cult also... The info should stand on it's own. The words of the LEADERS of both factions and the "NPOV's" and referenced credible sources should be the sources of the content of both articles.

Can we just show with the TEACHINGS what Sahaj Marg is and let all decide for themselves?

My attempt at concensus:

1. Sethie brings back the "Teachings" section to the Sahaj Marg article and leaves the SRCM article to deal with the "Organization" that is in fact listed as a cult (and that is shown) and has other lineage "controversies", while the Sahaj Marg article deals with the Technique which is not listed as a cult by anyone or any government. If there is a problem in Sahaj Marg, it is in the Teachings, the philosophy, etc...not in being listed as a cult. Let us show that in a balanced format.

2. We show the true teachings of Sahaj Marg in the words(paraphrased) of the Leaders and/or authorized spokesperson with credible references.

3. We leave the SRCM article free from "cult" allegations except for the mention in the intro.

Your attempt at concensus is appreciated.

Don--don 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don,

You are correct with the teachings section's section, they belong to this article, as Sahaj Marg is the teaching of the group, and it is the group which is listed as cult.

However it is the teaching which is responsible for mind control, like sharing thought's with preceptor and isolation with family etc.. also sitting with preceptor (meditating with some-1 other then spouse/family for married couples) is also part of teaching only, transmission from preceptor also falls in this only. So in my view following section's belongs here:-

1. Mind Control

2. Exclusive approach (they are part of teachings)

Following sections belong to SRCM Page:-

1. Targeting Children

2. Forced Divorce's.

Living dead section is very very important, as this is the aim of this teaching, hence, living dead section once agreed must also belong to this page only. Also Chari's personal business [92] (His own education society apart from SMRITI/Sahaj Marg/SRCM) belongs to SRCM page, it has not been listed till now, as all business of the divine representative should be known to public.

I am open for any further clarification if my view is not accurate till now, this is what i feel as of now, may be with some more input things can change!

--Shashwat pandey 05:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Shashwat,

The items you list above do not represent a neutral point of view of Sahaj Marg and should be deleted. They are selectively taken quotations and lots of feelings that are better explored on the blogs. For example, the "living dead" idea (and the way it is meant in Sahaj Marg) occurs in most of the world's major religions; that is, lose your ego and become totally one with the Divine; act is if you yourself where no longer here (dead if you will) [i.e., the ego] so that the only thing that is left is the Divine Expression. If Sahaj Marg was producing "zombies" wouldn't you think that the world would notice (especially with a quarter million practicants) and it would be highlighted in People Magazine or at least on CNN?

The same goes for "targeting children," "forced divorces," "mind control," "exclusive approach." Sahaj Marg explicitly does not admit children -- one has to be 18 years old to start practicing. The evidence cited here about targeting children, i.e., you will learn about spirituality, could be found in any Sunday School across America, Africa, Europe, you name it. Any mention of the other three items is purely hearsay and may be what one personally believes and experienced but this belongs on blogs, not on an encyclopedia. Again, one could say these same things about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam (when priests, rabbis, or mullahs say marry within your spiritual practice, regulate your thoughts and be disciplined, stick to one spiritual path to make progress).

I haven't had time to look at Don's edit and won't until next week, as I want to keep focused on finding the historical evidence from the courts and newspapers but I think that to be a fair and accurate representation of Sahaj Marg we should:

1. Definition of Sahaj Marg (raja yoga)

2. Practice elements (cleaning, transmission, prayer, etc.)

3. Brief History, e.g., "Today, there are at least three different factions of Sahaj Marg. The largest is led by Chariji, and is based in Chennai. Two much smaller factions are ...."

I suggest the evidence-based differences be described , which are basically that Chariji is the spiritual leader of the largest group, while the other two groups believe Babuji to be the spiritual leader. All of the feelings about Chariji or the other groups and whether they're good or evil or whatever should go on the personal blogs. If you want you can say there's been many court rulings and from my initial research, the court rulings have predominantly favored Chariji's group. But, I think it's probably just enough to see "succession has been hotly contested in numerous court cases, some of which are still being filed today...The three groups are XXXX..." How does that sound?

Thanks, Renee--Renee 07:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee,

What you have stated in absolutly correct, incase you get some time, kindly go through the refrence provided, for "forced divorces" they are from newspaper article's only, for "mind control" it is from a committee formed by the french govt. to look into the matter and give its observation's, it is that committee which has pointed out that "threat of mind conditioning is clearly present". About targetting children, same was questioned by the govt. agencies, and the refence provided is once again the media only. I am not sure about CNN takeing notice of a group worth 200K people worldwide, Sahaj Marg is NOT that popular as you have percieved.

Living dead, if you understand the concept, it is not the ego, kindly read the refence provided clearly, it say's "no free will" and the person simply move's in hand's of the leader, from where the question of ego come's into picture ? its about haveing no free will and doing exactly what the leader say's without useing one's own thinking, kindly read the specific quotes, it say's you must not use your brain, intelligence is not needed in Sahaj Marg. pls refer to the litrature provided, i will be glad incase you can provide one refence where Chari say's use your own thinking, test, argue, provide counter argument's and then come to a conclusion. Same goes with all other religion's i have info about Hindu religion, and i can assure you, it clearly say's never have blind faith, test, argue and then come to a conclusion, for refrence kindly browse about Jana Yoga and Vedanta Phelosophy, you may also refer to life of Adi guru Shankaracharya, refer his debate with Pt. matuk mishra and his wife. Hindu religion (according to my knowledge) is based on logic, experiment's and conclusion's drown from those provable and established facts.

Raja Yoga Its very unfortunate that there are many many groups claiming to spreading Raja Yoga, rather modified version of raja yoga, here we must understand truth cannot be modified, on wiki etc they are ok but since you are talking in refrence to concept, then kindly refer to patanjali's yoga sutra there are 196 amorphesim, stated 8000 yrs ago and they are absolute truth, it cannot be modified, take for instance the first limb of Raja Yoga, YAM, it clearly states truthfull-ness, non receiving of gifts, but in case of SRCM we find truth is hidden, wage (Lalji is associated via a dream) such concept are forced beleif, they are not authenticated and they don't even stand valid from wiki standered, as dreems are not accepted as valid input for a wiki article. second aspect of Raja Yoga "NIYAM" it cannot be forced, it has to come from within, in Raja Yoga no prayes is required. but here you have to state "We are slave's" daily you repeat you are nothing but slaves and you say you are "progessing ? this is contradiction, not truth. third aspect of Raja Yoga "Aasan" where is it ? absolutly absent in SRCM, hatha yoga has various body posture's where are they in this "modified version of Raja Yoga" ? fourth aspect, "Prathyahar" here you are to accept whatever Chari's say's are absolute truth, where is the scope to see good in bad and bad in good ? next step "Pranayam" is there any regulation of breathing in SRCM ? absent, next step Dharana, you do not meditate on your body parts but on an imeginary light in your heart ? Dharna say's concentrate on any part of the body, recomemded part is the "Third Eye" where is Dharna ? Dhayana, when you move inside without any thoughts, in case of SRCM think about light ? there are thoughts what about transmission ? Samadhi, union with self ? in SRCM it is chari who is representative of inner divinity... and you want to call it Raja Yoga ? think again. kindly provide any association of cleaning, transmission and prayer with Raja Yoga. there has to be some basis for what you state.

--Shashwat pandey 13:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

HI Shashwat...

I have edited the article and removed all POV's I could see for now... If there are others, Sethie will let us know I am sure...

The sections that have been removed are in the SRCM article and I will add them to "activities" of the SRCM page...and re-edit them there for clarity and brevity and accuracy so that all can agree with the content as well as their "spirit"... (this is a "spiritual" endeavour also)

Hope this was not too "ruthless" and that you see and understand that it was done in a sense of "fairness" and justice for all. If there are problems with my edits, I am sure we can come to a "concensus" as adults in a "brave new world" and show that we humans, (homo SAPIENS)are indeed reaching a "global civilization" status and are ready for our "childhood" to end so we may next, much as our own youth and teen-agers, embrace the next part of our journey and expand to the UNIVERSE and beyond.... OOOOHHHMMMMMM! Where is Gene Roddenberry?? (of Star Trek fame) lol

PS...keep in mind that the Sahaj marg article was NPOV (in my POV...lol) before this last series of edits and that I let all my GOOD WORK go so that we might learn to "reach concensus" and show to the world that the WIKI project can serve the "spiritual and the religious" community also. But we have to be fair and more...we have to be "compassionate" and LOVING...and still hold the TRUTH banner high... AMEN...lol... (I want to be a preacher when I grow up)...;-))

4d-don --don 17:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC) or should that be "cosmic" don?  ;-))

To Renee

Hi Renee...

I appreciate your input...

I will not comment on your replies to Shashwat.

As far as your comments about Sahaj Marg, I would like to say that Sahaj Marg is the Technique and not the OGANIZATION. Sahaj Marg is not the name used by ISRC which call their practice PAM (Pranahuti Aided Meditation) and Sahaj Marg is a registered trade mark of SRCM (California).

Now about the "don't you think the world would have noticed"... I think we point out that the world (governments and non-profit sector) has noticed. The predominant belief in the intellectual and democratic world at large is "Freedom of Religion". It also accepted and endorsed by me. Then, to show through education, what each religion teaches is the best we can do in a WIKI article. Now comes the TRUTH of the MATTER. We could not have written the article if the world had not "NOTICED" as we are using in WIKI fashion, that info in our articles. We, at WIKI, are not going to "defeat" religions and eliminate them and I personally (POV) do not want to. But I want to show the truth about all religions that I come in contact with, as part of my duty to my fellow "humans". Sort of a "heads up" on LIFE's road. Not POV or opinions, that belongs on my blogs, but the NPOV info.

1. Sahaj Marg claims to be a "raja yoga" but that is debateable. I have looked into Raja Yoga and do not see Sahaj Marg with it's "obedience to the Master" and the Tapas (Austerities) and Yamas (including acceptance of gifts) taken out (of Sahaj Marg) to make it "easier" (is the claim) as Raja Yoga (POV). Raja Yoga is a system. Sahaj Marg is "Faith on a Master" and obedience to that Person (the Master...Chari or AJ Bhatter) to the point of "immorality" or "killing one's mother", hence in my POV, and according to others who are cited, it is a "cult of a personality" much as the cult of JESUS, or Muhammed. With Babuji, the Meditation was the most important, with Chari, it is "obedience". That is quite a difference and is not Raja Yoga. Now one can claim as most religions do that these are simply "metaphors". Raja Yoga does not use that language, neither does "christianity" for that matter, but the Biblical "old testament" used and quoted extensively by the christian "fundamentalists" to justify their "immorality" (war, marginalising, persecution, etc..) to their fellow humans, does. Chari's words in his speech are not metaphors. Arranged marriages and "homophobia", God is Male, etc... are not metaphors and are not "raja yoga" either.

2. To opportunistic claims that other religions are "examples" (targeting children with cute stories) of how to act in LIFE is condonning and endorsing "non-spiritual" (endoctrination) values. Read the Muslim, Judeo-Christian, and other religious "HOLY BOOKS" and then tell me to my face that this is a "peaceful" and "peace-creating" TEACHING... It is just not true (POV)... Sahaj Marg proponents claim that it is not a religion and that religion is corrupt when it serves their purpose and then want the same power for their "SAHAJ MARG" and claim to be "peaceful" when the heat is on. The leaders of the MISSION have shown themselves to be as divisive and as "egotist" as most religious leaders and can't claim the moral "high ground" in an real "encyclopedia" that is not a "whitewash" of their actions and the fruit thereof (the abhyasis and their families). If one is to believe the accusations, there is even violence and more!! We will see...

3. As you noticed, the info on the Organization (SRCM) should be in that article. This page is about SAHAJ MARG and hence the dispute about the leadership does not belong here... This page is about the technique called SAHAJ MARG, not the ORGANIZATION called SRCM or the LINEAGE thereof.

4. Any claims of "spirituality" and "holiness" or "divinity' or representation of divinity are "claims" and should be stated so, as in an encyclopedia. They are not facts. Selling rewards in the OTHER WORLD or the "BRIGHTER WORLD" is the method of recruitement of religions and encyclopedias should not collude with that "recruitement".

5. The 16 circles of Babuji and the Brighter World of Chari with its "channelled messages" from departed souls by a "medium" who is not the MASTER, are not compatible with one another and are certainly not "Raja Yoga". It is more "spiritualism" and "religion" than "spiritual" movement as Babuji was teaching. The teachings of both factions have to be included until one has full charge of the "SAHAJ MARG" brand and then the other will have to invent another word. (My POV)

6. The focus on Children, the School, the (Value Based Spiritual Education) VBSE curriculum and the meditations taught to children (5 yrs old) contrary to SRCM (Shahjahanpur) and Babuji's belief of "no abhysasis under 18 yrs old" and no children in the Meditation room, belongs in the SRCM page. I have placed it there and will re-edit it later.

7. Before discussing the School and VBSE, I suggest you read it and see the "endoctrination" that lies therein (POV). You might also want to see your SRCM Newletters "targeting children" and teaching "meditation" to very young children before the age of "REASON". (endoctrination). This practice of Religions has not lead to the creation of "good citizens" in a "good world" as our present world is an example (as often quoted by SRCM Masters). Why repeat the same "format" at SRCM that has failed so misreably with Religions? Why target the children? Why go against the founder's "INSTRUCTIONS" of 18 yrs old.

But with GOOD WILL and a little "intellect" we should be able to come to a concensus without sacrificing too much of our "ideals", but some will have to be "sacrificed" if we are going to reach a concensus. I am ready and have done so many times in the past years. This dynamic encyclopedia reaches NPOV and then someone comes and put in their POV and we start again. I will do it as long as I can as this is my "MINISTRY"...lol but I will be "compassionate" and will try and be fair and just....I hope you will also.

Welcome to the "debate" ...

PS and Addendum:

You mention that: For example, the "living dead" idea (and the way it is meant in Sahaj Marg) occurs in most of the world's major religions; that is, lose your ego and become totally one with the Divine; act is if you yourself where no longer here (dead if you will) [i.e., the ego] so that the only thing that is left is the Divine Expression.

That is just not TRUE but it is what the SRCM leaders are falsely claiming. Please bring citation of such teachings in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc... There are no religions that I know of where one is asked to be "as a living dead in the hands of a funeral director"....Does anyone else know of one...please bring references...Christ allegedly said: I come so you have LIFE and Life more abundantly...not become "less alive" and more "dead"... in the hands of a "funeral director". Do not "lose your "god-given ego", which is an "impossibility" anyway, but control it, is what I hear from Major RELIGIONS. (POV) Cults control by giving the followers "impossible" tasks and hence create a "dependency" on the MISSION and the MASTER. (I am not a Christian or Religious...just take umbrage to others quoting from what they "don't believe".

4d-don--don 21:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Don,

Thanks for the dialogue. I'm glad to see your paragraph on freedom of religion, as I think that's the fundamental issue (that and fairness). The "truth of the matter" is a point-of-view because your truth of the matter may be different from my truth of the matter. I don't think it's worth pulling out quotes here and there because again, we could do the same with the Koran or Torah or Bible and then it becomes representative of one's point of view, which quotes are selected.

I think this Wikipedia project will be endless unless we just do something simple on the practices without all of the selectively chosen quotes. There's just an air of hostility on the site that you don't find toward other spiritual traditions. For example, check out Catholicism. Short and simple, despite there being thousand of justifiably angry and disgruntled former members (due to pedophilia, mismanagement of money, corruption, you name it). But the space for that is blogs, not an informational website meant to be encyclopedic in nature.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 17:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Cult Question

Dear Sethie,

I’ve delved deeply into the question of whether or not Sahaj Marg is a cult, searching evidence-based websites worldwide.

The evidence clearly shows that there is no reasonable basis for labeling Sahaj Marg a cult.

Please note that the only “evidence” used to label Sahaj Marg a cult in this Wikipedia page is from France. In order to evaluate if this claim is valid, it is necessary to examine explain the historical and political context within which claims were made, detailed below.

I. First, the term used in the French citations is “sect,” not cult. And, according to a 2006 report from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights,

-- "The French word secte has a negative connotation and includes groups such as cults, but also certain new religious movements or communities of belief. Secte cannot be translated by the English word ‘sect,’ which has a different meaning." (p. 22) http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement

Shri Ram Chandra Mission is referred to as a sect in France (not a cult). No where else does the Shri Ram Chandra Mission appear on any governmental sect or cult list. Therefore, all references to “cult” should be excised.

II. Second, the infamous 1995 list of sects in France, which is used as the main basis for claiming the Shri Ram Chandra Mission as a cult on this Wikipedia site, has been internationally vilified as illegitimate and as a gross attack on fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of thought, belief, and religion. Specifically,

-- A 2006 United Nations Commission on Human Rights report condemned the 1995 sect list, finding, "In particular, the establishment of a list, as well as the awareness-raising policies that were carried out, raised serious concerns in terms of freedom of religion or belief." http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement

-- This same UN report found that the groups named "had not been informed in advance that they would be placed on the list or given the opportunity to participate in a hearing. They were also not provided with the reasons justifying their inclusion on the list." http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement

-- Even French scholars were critical of the sect list, as reported in this 2003 scholarly paper by a University of Charles De Gaulle professor: "’Sects in France’ was handed over to the government on 22 December 1995. It is useless to question again the methodology used for that enquiry. It was largely criticised and discredited by numerous foreign and French researchers.” http://www.cesnur.org/2003/vil2003_dericquebourg.htm

-- The Prime Minister of France published a circulaire in 2005 saying the 1995 list was not pertinent and that the focus instead should be on illegal or immoral behaviors. http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=PRMX0508471C

This 1995 French anti-sect list has been universally condemned and the French government has distanced itself from the list, it therefore is not a reasonable source of evidence for claiming the Shri Ram Chandra Group to be a cult.

III. France’s anti-sect activities have continued to receive strong international condemnation over the past dozen years, up to the present:

-- "A number of human rights organisations and states have criticised the French government's position, especially at the Implementation Meetings on Human Dimension Issues of the OSCE [Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe] in 1998, 1999 and 2000….in the sect issue, France is practising cultural protectionism..." http://www.willyfautre.org/publications/2002/heidelberg.pdf

-- The 2006 UN Commission for Human Rights report concluded that, "The debate on this matter and the different measures that were taken at the governmental and parliamentary level in the second part of the 1990s undermined the right to freedom of religion or belief and raised serious concerns about religious intolerance." http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement

-- After the French National Assembly voted for an anti-sect motion, “a number of personalities in European institutions raised their voices against the law. On October 6, 2000, Mr. McNamara, a British socialist, submitted a proposal signed by 14 members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which 11 socialists, to express their concern as regards this law...On April 26, 2001, 50 members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) signed Declaration nr 321 whereby they expressed their concern as regards this law and demanded the vote suspension..." http://www.willyfautre.org/publications/2002/heidelberg.pdf

-- "Anti-sect policies in France and Belgium have triggered an up to now unknown wave of discrimination and intolerance against non-conventional religious and belief groups. They also contravene with the obligations to freedom of religion and belief that are enshrined in international and European treaties and covenants to which these countries are committed....” [please note that Shri Ram Chandra Mission does not appear on the Belgium sect/cult list] http://www.willyfautre.org/publications/2002/heidelberg.pdf

-- "This research note presents the results of a study of the current ongoing persecution of religious minorities in France...In each case, France’s powerful anticult organization, the Association of Defense of Families and the Individual (ADFI) had exacerbated and publicized – if not actually concocted – the conflict...” http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/palmer.htm

-- Further, even today, the government has “created no mechanism for checking the accuracy of the statements made about sects by these groups” [MILS or MIVILUDES] http://www.willyfautre.org/publications/2002/heidelberg.pdf

-- Even today, the United Nations special representative continues to find "unlawful discrimination" against those groups appearing on the 1995 sect list. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement

IV. The issue of religious suppression in France has been deemed so serious by the international community that it prompted an independent inquiry in 2006 by the United Nations Commission for Human Rights ( http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement). This independent inquiry concluded that:

-- The UNCHR is "of the opinion that the policy and measures that have been adopted by the French authorities have provoked situations where the right to freedom of religion or belief of members of these groups has been unduly limited. Moreover, the public condemnation of some of these groups, as well as the stigmatization of their members, has led to certain forms of discrimination, in particular vis-a-vis their children." (p. 20)

V. Because of the international furor over the treatment of any non-mainstream religious or spiritual groups in France:

-- the organization that created the list (MILS) dissolved in the early 2000s, and scrapped any plans to do new lists or update old lists http://www.cesnur.org/2003/vil2003_dericquebourg.htm

-- this organization has now been replaced by a new one, called MIVILUDES, which is designed to track sectarian deviations (illegal or immoral behavior) and not groups http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement

-- “…The MIVILUDES targets sectarian deviances and not sects…that it rather targets groups that have a criminal behaviour…The decree instituting the MIVILUDES was challenged in court…” http://www.cesnur.org/2003/vil2003_dericquebourg.htm

-- However, the 2006 United Nations independent representative expressed concern that MIVILUDES may become more hard-line regarding sects and engage in further suppression and discrimination, and should still be watched with caution. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement

VI. Popular opinion toward sects sect in France may be turning, according to this report on the Center for Studies on New Religions website (which is a "network of independent but related organizations of scholars in various countries, devoted to promote scholarly research in the field of new religious consciousness, to spread reliable and responsible information..." (http://www.cesnur.org/about.htm#ing):

-- "During all this year, the media has stopped stupidly reproducing the press files handed over to them by ADFI, CCMM and the MILS but now, they have begun to publish the arguments for and against almost systematically. A certain weariness towards anti-sect extremism can be noticed in the newspaper offices. Journalists do not believe in it any more, even if they are encouraged to blow up the issue. In private, some admit they solicit other viewpoints when the editor in chief has turned his back (true!)." http://www.cesnur.org/2003/vil2003_dericquebourg.htm

CONCLUSION (based on evidence above):

- The Shri Ram Chandra Mission appeared on the 1995 French sect list, which was universally condemned and later abandoned by the French government.

- Current French anti-sect reports also have been universally criticized as suppressing fundamental human rights and being inaccurate representatives of true cults.

- The Shri Ram Chandra Mission does not appear on any governmental cult lists (not even in France, it appeared on the 1995 sect list).

- Therefore, there are no legitimate claims for a header titled “Cult Allegations,” as currently appears in the Wikipedia site.

The quotations listed on the “Teachings…” and “Cult Allegations” headers on this Wikipedia page are selectively chosen quotations meant to promote an anti-Sahaj Marg or Shri Ram Chandra agenda. As I said before, we could search the Bible or Koran and find similar quotations (as well as former disgruntled members) to justify all sorts of labels, including obedience and mind control and views on homosexuality, and so forth.

Wikipedia is an information source, not a place to selectively present the beliefs of a spiritual group or one’s arguments with that spiritual group (otherwise, the page on Catholicism would be stock full of distortions and complaints by former disgruntled members!).

Thanks, Renee --Renee 17:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s. TO Access the UN Report (it doesn't seem to let you go there directoy), go to p. 7 of the following link and then select the first document, reference E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.4, title "Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir - Mission to France. http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?b=1&se=61&t=9 You can choose to read it in multiple languages.

Mind Control References

Hi Folks,

The ONLY reference to SRCM in reference # 30 is this: “The Shri Ram Chandra Mission targets children of followers in the guise of play and recreational activities: “You will come to the ashram to see the Master and participate with your parents in a spiritual manner.” P. 81, http://www.miviludes.org/IMG/pdf/Report_MIVILUDES_2003.pdf

With regard to reference # 31, first, this ‘article’ was published in what is a “newspaper” equivalent to “Star” (e.g., “three-headed baby born on New York subway”) or “National Enquirer” (e.g., “Paris Hilton falls in love with jailer”) in the United States. Not a reliable evidence source. See Wikipedia’s own description of the publication, “Ekstra Bladet [ˈɛg̊sd̥(ʁ)ɐˌb̥læð̪ˀð̪̩(d̥)] is a Danish tabloid newspaper focusing on sensationalist stories….”

The only reference to SRCM in reference #31 is that some independent member of Sahaj Marg, acting as a free person, sells some sort of water filter contraption. The author of this piece tries to insinuate that SRCM is not a legitimate spiritual organization (by outlining it’s practices/beliefs), but then acknowledges that SRCM is viewed as a legitimate spiritual organization in Denmark and is afforded the same rights and privileges in Denmark as other legitimate spiritual groups (i.e., “according to the law on the taxes, §8A…”) . Further, one official of SRCM is interviewed (see interview with Steen Bruun in this article, near the bottom), and he points out that that people are free thinkers and actors and their work has nothing to do with Sahaj Marg.

 There is absolutely no linking of this water item to anything endorsed by SRCM. It is merely an individual running his own business just like some members of Judaism sell Kabbalah bracelets, and some members of the Catholic church sell special candles linked to saints for protection, and so forth.

 This “article” is full of personal opinions (along the lines of, “ain’t this awful that this spiritual organization accepts donations and gets tax exemptions," though the article also points out that this is the case for any legitimate spiritual organization in Denmark).

 This site proves that members are free to have independence of thoughts, beliefs, and actions.

 This site proves that Denmark views Sahaj Marg as a legitimate spiritual practice that is afforded the same rights and privileges as other spiritual practices in Denmark.

 The Catholic or Lutheran or Methodist churches could all have exactly the same type of article written against them in inflammatory language like this.

The reference at the end of this document is the same as #30 above. Again, no evidence that SRCM is a cult.

Citation #29 is just someone’s personal website/blog of their interpretation of SRCM, events, and its beliefs. It is not evidence at all.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Section on Transmission under Mind Control

Dear Sethie,

With reference to the last paragraph in this section, i.e., “This process, in Sahaj Marg, has been alleged to be similar to hypnosis....[citation needed]”

There is absolutely no evidence that transmission is in any way similar to hypnosis. “Transmission is defined as the utilization of divine energy for transformation of a human being” (http://www.sahajmarg.org/welcome/sahajmarg.html).

This divine energy, sometimes called prana is a common concept in Indian spiritual traditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prana).

When outlandish and unsupported claims like this are made (based on someone's personal opinion), how does one go about getting them stricken from the article without going back and forth on a daily basis?

Thanks, Renee --Renee 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Renee,

Can you site any refrence which say's PRANA can be transmitted ? that too from chari living far off (involved in many court cases thats another issue..).--Shashwat pandey 10:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

HI Renee...

Good one...

I read the Cesnur.org report quite a few years ago and I agree that the "allegations of Cult" do not belong in the "technique" page and if placed in the SRCM article, then the Cesnur.org "counter" should be there also so as to be "fair" and "NPOV". However the claims of CESNUR are just "claims" and they are also not necessarily NPOV. Many Scientology members in this group as in the CAN (Cult Action Network). I have researched them also and find that they are owned by the Lawyers of the Scientology group and are not a reliable source of information on cults or sects.

However, I still see the list in France and Belgium (with the SRCM included) and I don't see the French, the Belge and their governemts as "distancing" themselves from the list but of "becoming" more Nationalist themselves and swinging to the "right". If you can show that to be so from credible sources, we should certainly reflect that in the SRCM article, not in the Sahaj marg article.

If the "wrong-doings" of the Catholic church are not in the "Catholicism" article, then I agree with that. If they are not in the article on The Holy Roman Catholic Church then in my POV, they should be. I have been trying to remove the references to Cult from the Sahaj Marg page for the same reason...Sahaj Marg is the Technique and not the "alleged cult" (or "secte nuisible") as SRCM is callde on the lists in Belgium and France (translates as "harmful sect" or "cult") to focus on the word "SECT" (group) and not on "HARMFUL SECT" (cult) is the tactic used by CESNUR.org... Any such allegations should be in the SRCM article if at all... It was not in there until recently but SRCM (California)adherents still thought we were not NPOV. This is not a new debate. It is the nature of the dynamism that is WIKI. And it will go on.

The Teachings issue is a different issue. In the Catholic church, there is a set of "beliefs and dogmas" to adhere to, so it is not complicated. In Sahaj Marg, the most important part of SAHAJ MARG is "OBEDIENCE" to the Master and the MISSION, and according to Chari, Sahaj Marg has no "philosophy" so the Teachings reflect what the adherent is to "OBEY"... The ones that were chosen were the ones that reflect the level of "obedience" the adherent is to "submit" to. In Sahaj Marg, it is to the level of becoming a "living dead in the hands of funeral director" or "killing one's mother", according to the Material and the words of the President and Leader, Chari. (Not Renee or Don). In other words, "SUBMISSION" to the will of the MASTER. Get Chari to speak differently or accept what he says as he represents the SAHAJ MARG technique and SRCM (California). We must report his "words" and must not be judging or interpreting his words or actions. And it is OBEDIENCE that is the MOST IMPORTANT, not the Meditation and the Technique according to Chari's own words. (not Renee's or Don's) So the TEACHINGS should stay and be added to ... I will paraphrase and shorten them if possible, and after a concensus is reached on their contents.

When "obedience" to a person and a MISSION is the "Method", then the TEACHINGS become the "dogmas" and should be reported as such, as they are the "underpinnings" of the technique called SAHAJ MARG, according to Chari's words.

WIKI has to be NPOV, even for those who are "abhyasis". We should all be NPOV in our edits. Remember that the word "claims", is the word to use for "the effects of trasmission" or other "unverifiable" effects of Sahaj marg. Same for report of being a "cult" or "sect" if they are by "credible" sources....

Don..--don 19:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To all editors...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CESNUR http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j03.html

According to its official website CESNUR defends sects against charges of "the brainwashing or mind control model of conversion" since "In the 1990s it became apparent that inaccurate information was being disseminated to the media and the public powers by activists associated with the international anti-cult movement."

If we look at the WIKI article on Cesnur, we can do the same with the SRCM (not the Sahaj Marg) article and list credible "allegations" (not the anecdotes) in point form with credible links, and the "counter" with credible links. Would that satisfy all sides?

don--don 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Don,

I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding CESNUR? I think you must be talking about a different organization? This group is a neutral academic consortium that compiles information from various conferences and United Nations organizations. The United Nations report was from last year so I'm not sure what you speak of from several years ago. I just read the CESNUR site on Wikipedia and it backs this up.

From your email above you seem to be indicting their credibility whereas in contrast they represent a high level of validity and reliability from an international standard of evidence (i.e., it's not a blog or an answers website; it contains reports from independent fact-finding trips, research from university professors, etc.). For example, the independent fact-finding mission of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is a UN publication. Other postings are from research academics from various universities and institutions around the world and these are their papers presented at conferences.

Here is the description of CESNUR:

The Center for Studies on New Religions, "was established in 1988 by a group of religious scholars from leading universities in Europe and the Americas," and is a "network of independent but related organizations of scholars in various countries, devoted to promote scholarly research in the field of new religious consciousness, to spread reliable and responsible information..." (http://www.cesnur.org/about.htm#ing).

And, I did show with the above specific citations from reputable sources that the French government distanced themselves from the original list (so much so that they dissolved the original group that made it) and that reputable academics attending conferences and presenting research papers have showed how the international community has responded to them (condemning them for violation of fundamental human rights) and that even the United Nations itself conducted an independent investigation.

Again, the Shri Ram Chandra Mission appears on no current governmental "cult" list and has never appeared on a cult list for France (it appeared on a sect list, which, according to the United Nations fact-finders, cannot be translated into a cult, see specific citation above). (As far as I know it's not on the Belgian list, please provide site -> I searched the Belgian, Austrian, German, and US lists one-by-one, year-by-year.)

Finally, regarding your points about quoting Chari's statements, it's my understanding that nearly all of these books quoting Chari are based on speeches he gave or answers he gave to specific questions, which means that taking quotations from this by definition is taking quotations out of context (i.e., if the talk is given to a certain group focusing on certain issues or if he's answering specific questions and giving examples). When describing the basic practice we should go to the basic works in order to accurately describe it. I simply went to the Sahaj Marg website and pulled their definition of transmission to give the above information. Having somebody interpret that as hypnosis is truly distorted to me.

Sincerely, Renee --Renee 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

SETHIE, I don't think consensus is possible because even if hard evidence is given (what better source than an independent fact-finding trip from the United Nations?) then wild claims are made about the source of the information (e.g., above it is insinuated that the Center for Studies on New Religions has many members who are scientology members or lawyers of scientology members when in fact the group was started in Italy by a group of Roman Catholic scholars!) (http://www.cesnur.org/about.htm#ing). Also, the evidence I site is from research conferences, the French Parliament, quotes from United Nations organizations, etc. I think it's a bad-faith distortion to indict CESNUR when the links cited take you directly to UN reports and professors research papers, etc. (they just act as a consortium).

So, my question to you is, how long do we go on like this? When and how do we get to a simple, basic, accurate write-up? Any advice is appreciated.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee,

Did you by any chance tried to research the CESNUR page ? even they have also clearly stated in one of their research paper's about SRCM that it is not open to researchers if you wish to use cesnur as credible source of information then we should also add below info into the page that cesnur feel that SRCM is not open to researchers hence their view's are not valid and are not based on research conducted by the group but simple copy of what the groups claims ? pls read below statement from the group website.

There are also the Sri Chinmoy movement, the movement of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, the Baha'i faith, Sahaj Marg movement, ,Brahma Kumaris Spiritual University, a Sukyo Mahikari Center, an Eckankar congregation, the Messianic congregation “Joshua” and other Eastern-oriented religious organizations in Latvia at present. Unfortunately, most of these organizations are not open to researchers, and we have no closer information about them. It looks like these organizations have a rather limited membership: approximately about 20-30 members in each of them. [93] --Shashwat pandey 11:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Shashwat,

The articles or reports I pulled from the CESNUR site are not from CESNUR itself, but from academics attending international conferences (hence, are not the staff of CESNUR which may be small) and/or from other international government agencies or inter-governmental agences, like the United Nations. These articles and reports just happen to be on the CESNUR site but are not CESNUR publications.

Renee --Renee 11:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee,

Nice to get responce from you (finally !!) in your privious reply to don[94] you have explained CESNUR in details link provided by you [95] also takes us to CESNUR website only!! in anycase if you want to use info from any perticuler website, then all parties involved must have option of useing the same refrence.. I hope this should makes my stand clear, info which i have provided is also from CESNUR only and as you have already explained legitimacy of CESNUR hence i feel we both agree that CESNUR feel that its info regarding Sahaj Marg are not valid as they are not open to researchers hence can you provide information from other sources which you want to cite are actual location's as CESNUR has accepted that its info regarding SRCM may not be legitimate..

--Shashwat pandey 12:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Folks,

I'm not here to debate the relative merits of CESNUR versus other organizations. I was asked to find bona fide citations, not geocities or yawicki, and then it was very surprising to me that citations linking to academic conferences or UN papers received criticism as not being valid, just because they were on a consortium page.

I've gone back and inserted the original UN report as the link in the Talk section and can do that for the academic papers too (linking to individual researchers) but to me, this whole argument on CESNUR just shows how committed some on this site are to have Sahaj Marg be presented as a cult, which certainly represents a point of view.

I think we need to just present the teachings and links to full works or speeches and then let people draw their own conclusions, otherwise it will be a very slanted article which is not Wikipedia's intent.

Renee --Renee 13:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

They are valid for what they are intended to, the "academic conferences or UN papers" that you have referenced they have no connection with SRCM. why do you think they are valid input for a page regarding SRCM ? --Einstein 22 16:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Refrence for date of registration of trade mark

Refrence for dates are provided at the end of the para, kindly see the link given, it clearly stat's

1. The Complaint alleges that SRC registered the trade or service mark "Sahaj Marg" with the United States patent and Trademark Office of the United States Department of Commerce effective July 29, 1997. A copy of the registration is attached to the Complaint. SRC further alleges that it, on October 12, 1999, filed for further registration of the trade or service mark "Sahaj Marg". The term Sahaj Marg is stated to mean "natural path" in India. SRC also asserts that it has registered several other trade or service marks for such names as Shri Ram Chandra Mission.

Also regarding date if registration of Indian group it say's

5. Indeed, the evidence submitted by Shri Ram establishes that Shri Ram has a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and has not acted in bad faith. For example, a Certificate of Registration of Societies dated Locknow, India 21 July 1945 evidences that the Shri Ram Chandra Mission, as opposed to SRC which is a California corporation, was formed in India on or prior to that date. The "Aims and Objectives" of Shri Ram are stated, in a copy of its Rules and Constitution dated 2 July 1945, to include: to encourage the down-hearted and promote amongst them the easier methods, practicable to them, for the attainment of social and moral aims of life, based on the principles of spirituality, translated as "Sahaj Marg". A similar use of Sahaj Marg appears in a copy of Shri Ram’s minutes of a meeting of disciples and beneficiaries held at Shahjahanpur on June 10, 1945.

This should clarify all doubts regarding date of registration of trade mark, if California based group is the one which is actual SRCM then what is the need to re-register tarde marg ? can spirituality be offered by registering trade marks ? --Shashwat pandey 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Renee

The translation of Harmful or Dangerous secte to cult is accurate. The lists I mention all have the designation of "secte nuisible" which translates as "Harmful secte" or "cult" in English. this is the Belge governement site: Le Centre d'information et d'avis sur les organisations sectaires nuisibles (translates to Information and Advice Center on Harmful sectarian organizations)  : http://www.ciaosn.be/biblior.htm see the "origins of the Centre"

This is the site for the French National Assembly and the list and the report is there and SRCM is still on the list... Is this not a current SITE?? These links are on the SRCM article in the INTRO. http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-enq/r2468.asp

I think that we should add whatever comment you would like to make from Cesnur as they are a credible source. If you POOH pooh other's credible sources, you must be ready to take the same POOH pooh on your sources... (fecitious for humour). I don't think we should or can decide wether SRCM is a cult or not but that we should report what is said about SRCM by credible sources..."CREDIBLE" can be reached by concensus.... I pooh poohed your source (as you did to other sources) but would let it stand and encourage you to place it in the article at the appropriate place. Maybe in CRITICISM and RESPONSES if we adopt that format...

As far as the "out of context" issue, this came up in the past and I have left some "quotes" with context and disregarded those who say it is too long and should be paraphrased. The "concensus" on that changes. I will not be part of "hiding" the words of the Master any more than the Catholics would hide the words of Christ. The context can be debated.

Religious tolerance is not exactly practiced in SRCM where other religions are called "corrupt" and that "priests" can't forgive sins but Chari can erase Samskaras...and then the "homosexual" statements. If SRCM wants Tolerance, SRCM can practice Tolerance and the world will be tolerant of SRCM. As we can tell, SRCM is a "divided" society and Tolerance does not appear to be the "modus operandi" of the various factions. But we at WIKI can be Tolerant of all our the factions and give them all a "voice", including Renee's voice.

Just lighten up...you're spiritual and the JOURNEY is the thing...Not winning and losing! The article will come and go and we will still be here to either "love or hate" one another...OUR CHOICE..

Don--don 17:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Don,

I tried looking on the Belgian site you mention but it's not a list of cults or even sects, it's a bibliography with ISBN numbers that includes works on all major religions and lesser known spiritual traditions. For instance, here's one I pulled at random from the link you posted above:

Western Europe and its Islam. The Social Reaction tot the Institutionalization of a 'New' Religion in the Nederlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom, Brill, International Comparative Social Studies 2, 2001, ISBN: 90-04-12192-7.

Also, I understand that in your opinion secte translates to cult. However, according to the United Nations independent fact-finding commission, secte cannot be translated as cult, because secte also refers to new and emerging spiritual groups (in addition to cults). So, my objection is you can't have a whole section on "cult allegations" when it is listed as a sect on one site, and not on any other sites. I think we should go with a preponderance of evidence standard that is reasonable, and I provided evidence ad nauseum that Sahaj Marg is a new (to the West) emerging spiritual tradition, and that it is not a cult (not even according to the French). It was called a sect back in 1995 and the reason the document is still on their site is because it's an archival record, not a current mandate.

Regarding the context issue, depending on your point of view one will pull different quotations. You give us your point-of-view in the second-to-last paragraph above. But, others may have a different point-of-view and pull out speeches were Chariji focuses on unison and world harmony and themes of brotherhood. It becomes a tit-for-tat.

That's why I think it's inappropriate to have all of these little sections. I think we should stick with the big things -- the practice, the lineage, the current groups, and then refer people to the blogs where those with certain viewpoints can pull out the quotations they want for the topics they want, like homosexuality or obedience or tolerance/intolerance.

For example, on the Catholicism website, they don't have sections on birth control or abortion or homosexuality, though they could pull out quotations on each of these. I don't think it's reasonable to pull out quotations here because for every quotation you pull out someone else might pull out another quotation from another date and time.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 12:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee,

The link provided by Don [96] is the link for "Information and Advice Center on Harmful sectarian organizations" an government organization, which maintains list of cult groups and its litrature, the list which Don has pointed out is the one which has listed SRCM as a cult and also has provided the cult litrature which it has in its library, ISBN you are refering to is actually "Catalogue of principal works present in library" related to the groups they have listed as cult.

Here is more info regarding the ciaosn "The opinion and Information center on the harmful sectarian organizations is an INDEPENDENT Center instituted near the Federal Public utility Justice. The members of the Center were designated by the Room of the Representatives, of which the half on presentation of the Council of Ministers. They are eminent personalities resulting from various fields considered for their knowledge, their experiment and their interest of the phenomenon. The president (Mr. H. of Cords) and the temporary president (Mrs. V. Geuffens) are elected by the Room near the effective members. (Preceding President over the period 1999-2005: Mr. A. Denaux; chair temporary Mr. H. of Cords) The members sit for one 6 years period once renewable. A multidisciplinary service of study (secretariat) was set up under the direction of Mr. E. Brewer in order to carry out the daily missions of the Center. The first management report of the Center (bi-annual report/ratio 1999-2000) takes again more in detail the legal framework, the activities and the operation of the CIAOSN" [97]

And this is what they do

1. Recommendations of the parliamentary Board of inquiry of the Room of the representatives (April 28, 1997) aiming at working out a policy in order to fight against the illegal practices of the sects and the danger which they represent for the company and the people, particularly minors of age.

2. Law of bearing June 2, 1998 creation of an Information center and opinion on the harmful sectarian organizations and of an administrative Cell of coordination of the fight against the harmful sectarian organizations.

3. Stop of the Court of arbitration following the proceedings for annulment total or partial of the law of bearing June 2, 1998 creation of an Information center and opinion on the harmful sectarian organizations and of an administrative Cell of coordination of the fight against the harmful sectarian organizations, introduced by the a.s.b.l. Belgian and different anthroposophic company. [98]

Hence i feel, now your comfert level with this organization being a legimate govt. organization aimed at reducing threat prsented by harmful sect's (cult) should have increased!

Finally about the page you are worried about ! the page lists following

The Center has a specialized library containing a specific documentation; encyclopaedias, reference works and specialized on the “new religious movements” and on their context Several thousands of works, many articles, the specialized reviews, the bulletins and reports/ratios, as well as a legal sector, constitute a bottom of reference accessible to general public or the researchers. A sector is devoted to the audio-visual support and possibility is given to the public of reaching Internet.[99]

Now about your view However, according to the United Nations independent fact-finding commission, secte cannot be translated as cult, because secte also refers to new and emerging spiritual groups. can you cite this ? pls cite this stand of your's for clarity purpose.

--Shashwat pandey 12:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the Belgian site. It's a list of books on Islam and Christianity too. Are these now cults in Belgium? To an outside observer, it seems to be a bibliography of works by many different religious and spiritual traditions.

On the archived 1995 French Assembly document, SRCM was called a secte, not a culte (which would be the correct French term). They are different. As shown above, things and views have changed in France too.

I see that we're making progress on the article. BRAVO to whoever replaced "cult allegations" with criticisms -- much more neutral and open to pros and cons. Renee --Renee 13:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1. It lists all the available books it has in its library, which user's can refer to and get information from, it contains all information about harmful cults (secte) (Including SRCM)

2. Pls give any refrence where secte does not translate to cult. the document clearly states that it contains information about "HARMFUL DANGEROUS SECTES (CULTS). Pls cite any referecen that you can which can validate your stand that things have changed in france regarding SRCM. since this page deals with SRCM therefore we need to put only that material which specificly relates to SRCM, if we are allowed to add genrel purpose references such as you have provided, I can assure you, i am in a position to re-write the whole article, citeing these genral purpose references !! I tried that before, then learned the wiki policy. hence reverted those edits!!

3. Sahaj Marg is the method, used for mind control and brainwashing, (POV) Cult is SRCM, hence edit is appropiate as per wiki policy!--Shashwat pandey 06:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Shashwat,

I don't think we can use the Belgian site because you above state that it lists all of the books in its library -- it's not for us to judge which they think of as neutral and which they think of as sects. The fact is there's no list of sectes on which SRCM appears in Belgian. You can say something like, "In their library they contain books on all religions, spiritual practices, and sects, and one of SRCM's books is on the bibliography," and then give the citation. That's the fact.

Regarding the French's change in position since 1995, please see the 2006 United Nations special report as well as this document from the French govt that states the "Decree 2002-1292 of 28 November 2002, superseded the Watch set up in 1996 and an Interministerial Mission set up in 1998" ( http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/sects.pdf). Please also note that no where does cult appear in this document. The word sect us used and defined. Finally, see the May 2005 circulaire where the Prime Minister of France revised his policy on sects, saying that labeling groups went against respect for public freedoms and that the list lacked pertinence now. (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=PRMX0508471C)

Regarding the translation of the word sect, I just went to alta vista's babelfish and cult translates from English into the French word culte, not secte. Two different words. Please see p. 22 of the UN report, cited here, "The French word secte has a negative connotation and includes groups such as cults, but also certain new religious movements or communities of belief." In the French documents, the word used is secte, not "culte," and according to the UN report sectes include cults, AND also new religious movements and communities of beliefs.

TO Access the UN Report, go to p. 7 of the following and you can choose whichever language you want to view the report in (reference #E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.4, title "Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir - Mission to France"):

http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?b=1&se=61&t=9

To Sfacets

Here is the direct quote that I paraphrased....The tone is not mine but is the tone of the quote...The other addition is from SRCM Shahjahanpur. Could you make it WIKI, according to you... and then could you remove the template....It was brought up and included as one editor (still here) indicated that Raja Yoga, which SRCM claims to be, has a "no donation" should be accepted guidelines...

"If you think that it is your Mission, it is your Master, it is His plant, therefore, it is yours, then there is no sacrifice, there is no giving. You are only watering your own plant. Who should you credit for it?" "To think that my Master depends on my donation could very possibly be a sin. Masters exist in a dimension where money does not play a part. Whenever he makes us donate something, he does so to lighten our burdens. Our contribution to our Master's work is perhaps of the same proportion as the squirrel's contribution to Lord Rama's work."

Appreciate your assistance...

Don--don 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To Shashwat

Registering a Society, is not the same as registering a "trade mark". SRCM was registered as a non-profit society but the trade mark was not as far as I know...The reference does not indicate that. I would remove it if there are no other "references" to a registering of a trade mark of "Sahaj Marg" having been registered in India in 1945-46. I find it odd that the words Natural Path was even registered but if it was, the the registration date is what is needed here.

Don --don 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The document submitted in menopolice court was copy of trademark only, both parties Chari group and the Babuji group had submitted their respective copies of trade mark (Sahaj Marg) and the date of registering the TM was also mentions in the order given by the court. I read the order twice to confirm the same, society was first registerd and then the trade mark by Chari group. this is what i could make from the court order provided as refrence.--Shashwat pandey 06:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

About Natural Path Sahaj Marg literally does not translate to natural path, Sahaj in Sanskrit translate to Simple and Marg translate to Path, Natural Path is what the group claims and is a lie, Those who are from India (With Hindi as their native language) or those who understand Sanskrit will understand this at the first glance, Sanskrit word for Natural is Prakritik and not Sahaj, Sahaj means Simple. I think on wiki it should be mentioned that it translate to Simple Path but group claims that it translates to Natural path !! how does it sounds ? should we change it ? --Shashwat pandey 06:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

TONE template

Sethie,

Can you pls elaborate as where exactly you find tone is not appropriate in the immediate three section's below the template ? as far as i can see, they are direct quote's only comment's are _____say's_____ kindly elaborate... so as to give some more clarity as what exactly the template is referring to..

Tnx --Shashwat pandey 11:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat,

As I mentioned above to Don, the quotations and sections you choose to pull out of a large literature lend a certain tone and reflect a certain point-of-view. There are just as many quotations on world unity and peace and brotherhood in the Sahaj Marg literature.

I'll give just one example of where a certain point-of-view is promoted in one of these large sections.

The Wikipedia article tries to make the point that Chariji is religiously intolerant in the sections "On Other Religions" and "On All Religions". Yet, the very first cite is completely misrepresented. #20 says people can practice their own religion (it may or may not fall off), but please don't mix spiritual practices. By spiritual practices they mean different meditation practices like TM or Kriya Yoga or Raja Yoga (because how can you tell what's effective and what's not if you're mixing in everything?). Sahaj Marg suggests trying one for 6 months, if it's not for you then move on. It's completely your choice. But, the Wikipedia article somehow pulls from this, "The group recommends that all religious practises should be excluded."

The next large series of quotations attempt to promote a view of religious intolerance, when instead Chari's focus is on spirituality uniting. What he says is that religion tends to divide people into smaller and smaller factions (e.g., lutherans, methodists, baptists, shiites, sunni, etc.) while spirituality unites all hearts.

For a full view, in context, please see:

http://www.sahajmarg.org/smrti/education/articles/general/art0011.html

So, this is my point, if we want to make a case for one viewpoint, we should do it on blogs. For Wikipedia, let's just reference full sources with something like, "Views on Religion and Spirituality" and then provide the link above.

I think that all of these long quotation sections will need to be deleted and that we need to just stick with the basics, and then refer people to either original full speeches or books and let them draw their own conclusions, or blogs where bloggists can pull all the quotations they want to create a certain perception of Sahaj Marg.

Renee --Renee 13:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not reply to what you have stated to shashwat, but i will present one quote from official stand of SRCM, about religion, it states However, you should try Sahaj Marg to the exclusion of all other spiritual practices, for the method to be truly effective. [100] TM or Raja Yoga do not ask to drop off any religious practice, infect from my POV, they are part of religious practice why should SRCM’s stand that religion is source of division[101] should be omitted ? Kindly refer to the quote from the text provided here Religions make the process of God realization difficult. This quote from Parthasarthi contradicts your stand that group is not against religion and instead is not another religion, of its own kind.

What you have stated is simply your own POV and is not verifiable. Infect from your own POV the group claims that Religion divides and it is only group which can unite, this claim is also unorthodox, why should NPOV be omitted for sake of group ? a balanced picture should be presented, more-over according to group Parthasarthi is representative of divinity, inner divinity and what not. How come such a person become so inconsistent and contradicts his own stand that its followers find hard to defend ?

About UN reports criticizing France, for not allowing any bad element's in their country, it has been criticized in UN that’s fine, but that does not discredit the fact finding report of the French government, does it ? No, from my POV. In addition to this the links you have provided does not specifically targets the report referred in this article, that is general criticism of French government for being harsh on cults and sects, the report also does not gives any clean chit to SRCM, again does it ? therefore such general purpose reports cannot be accepted in an encyclopedia article about one particular group, where UN has expressed its concern over one government for not allowing any harmful sect (no reference to SRCM again) to flourish in its country, if you can find any report from UN which specifically gives clean chit to SRCM clearing its name from French national assembly report then that link should also be added in the page in addition to French national assembly report. Which specifically lists SRCM as harmful cult targeting children and conditioning minds of people.

--Einstein 22 14:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Einstein,

This is a perfect example of things being taken out of context. Yes, you quote correctly about Sahaj Marg saying one should not try multiple spiritual practices at one time. But then somehow YOU infer that spiritual = religious. Yet, the sentence immediately preceding the one you quote above says you may continue your religious practice (and that the practice may drop off). It doesn't say no religious practices. Again, mixing of different spiritual practices like TM or Kriya or anything else at the same time may prevent one from seeing any effects. That's the only point here, to see if you experience benefits or if the method is effective for you. If not, you should go try something else.

All of Chari and others' quotations about religion (in context) make the same point -> that spirituality transcends religion. That is, religion separates people and labels them whereas spirituality joins and unites them. Sahaj Marg is not anti-religion (there are Catholic nuns, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Christians who practice); the point the spiritual teachers try to make is that religion is full of rituals and intermediaries to God (which sometimes makes it difficult to realize God is in us, when we're so focused on the outer), whereas God is accessible direct within us.

Again, this is a perfect example of the dangers of taking a quotation out of context to "prove" one's point. The quotation is completely mis-represented.

Again, we should just provide links to entire speeches or sources and let people draw their own conclusions. For this section, a header could read "Views on Spirituality and Religion" and then simply list links so people can read them themselves.

Renee --Renee 15:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Kindly re-read the quote, it is answer to question "Do I have to give up my religion to practice Sahaj Marg meditation?" and answer is yes! but twisted, here on wiki we are simply opening the knot, :), and providing a balanced picture, not what the group say's but what is interpreted by the independent sources. The group itself is not clear about difference between spirituality and religion, as there is none. it is religion only which is backbone of spirituality, hence in essence, group is clearly saying, no religious practice should be carried along with Sahaj Marg. ( This is WP:OR i.e my POV). but we are not to state our POV but what is stated in the policy, we do not interpret meanings. but simply state that what can be referenced, this is clearly outlined in WP:OR and in WP:NOR

Regarding Religion being source of division for humanity, this is also referenced, the quote is pretty straight, question is asked "Q: You say that religion divides" and answer given is "Religions make the process of God realisation difficult." here we do not interpret, but state what is said. kindly refer to WP:OR for more details.

thanks --Einstein 22 16:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Einstein,

Okay, I went back and re-read the reference [102].

You state above, "Do I have to give up my religion to practice Sahaj Marg meditation?" and answer is yes! and I honestly can't find anywhere in this reference that says the "answer is yes." Again, this shows your POV, your interpretation on this, but the words clearly say the opposite, "You may continue to do the religious practise...," that the religious practice may fall off, and that you should exclude other spiritual practices while trying Sahaj Marg (again, only to see if the method is effective for you).

I suggest a solution to all of this back and forth below. What we can do is simply post a header "Religion and Spirituality" and then provide a link to this site without comment, without interpretation. Then, some people may read it your way and some may read it mine, but no one is trying to promote a certain point-of-view.

Does this sound reasonable to you?

Renee --Renee 16:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I had in my post already stated that it is my POV and cannot be entertained on a wiki article, here we do not interpret, but state that what can be referenced. --Einstein 22 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

One Idea for Consensus

HI Folks,

I just read over all of the archives for this site for the first time and what a mess! It seems that the same issues have been circling around for a very long time.

I have a suggestion that avoids taking things out of context but also gets out points that people want out.

How about a simple description of the practice, the lineage, and the three factions. Then, we can say something like the following:

PUBLICATIONS AND SPEECHES

A great number of articles, books and speeches have been produced by various members and leaders of Sahaj Marg. For their views on the topics below, please click the link.

Religion and Spirituality

link 1

link 2

link 3

On Choosing a Master

link 1

link 2

link 3

On Freedom

link 1

link 2

link 3

Obedience

link 1

link 2

link 3

Homosexuality

link 1

link 2

link 3

Criticisms

link 1 - Ekstra Bladet article

link 2

link 3

etc.

By doing this, we won't have endless working and re-working of the text. Those who like Sahaj Marg and those who dislike it can merely add links underneath each category without any interpretation. Then, the true seeker can read the link for him or herself and make his or her own judgment.

How does this sound?

Renee --Renee 16:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly Wikipedia project is not a linking site :), this is just not possible. can you provide any page on wiki which is similar to what you have praposed ? --Einstein 22 16:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm....But this Wiki article already provides links on all of these topics? If you can't do straight links how about something like this? We can just list the title of each article or book or speech and what it talks about. Something like this?

On Religion and Spirituality: Many articles and speeches have been written by Sahaj Marg members and leaders giving their view of religion and spirituality. Here are some:

An article written by C. Rajagopalan appeared in the Indian daily newspaper called The Hindu discusses "Practical Training in Spirituality" (citation: http://www.sahajmarg.org/smrti/education/articles/general/art0004.html)

"Spirituality Unites Us Beyond Religion" was written Rama Devagupta and appeared in the newspaper, Tri-City Herald, Washington State, USA (citation: http://www.sahajmarg.org/smrti/education/articles/general/art0007.html)

The current spiritual leader of the SRCMtm group, P. Rajagopolachari, wrote an article clarifying his views on religion and spirituality. (citation: http://www.sahajmarg.org/smrti/education/articles/general/art0011.html)

This would be one way to neutrally present information and let people draw their own conclusions.

Renee --Renee 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This can be done on any of the blogs, not on a wiki article :), this provided links to what is stated, not in the manner you are praposing, did you missed the section of dispute ? who is current leader is pending court judgement, this is what wiki is ment for (my POV) to provide a balanced picture. did you find any page similar to what you have praposed ? --Einstein 22 17:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Einstein,

Nope, I haven't found any but I haven't really looked yet. I will.

Regarding your second point, I specified above the "current spiritual leader of the SRCMtm group" (trying to make it clear which faction -- maybe it should say California group instead?). In any case, we can just specify which faction wrote the article.

Renee --Renee 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual Leader ? this is what exactly is disputed as i understand ? see this [103] from your format i feel you are trying to make SRCM (USA) prapogation page and not a balanced wiki article :). if you find any problem in what is stated in the article then lets come to a conclusion about that. we can start from top to bottom and change whatever is needed, keeping in view openion of other editor's like Sethie, will beback, shashwat, don etc.actually this is what i am refering to Shri KC Narayana, who was a member of the Working committee of SRCM in 1974 did not dispute the authenticity of Chariji's letter of succession, but claims that the words "spiritual representative" are not in the document.--Einstein 22 17:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Quite a vehement attack. I didn't mean to provoke this. I was trying to provide a neutral point of view and just say the current spiritual leader of one of the SRCM groups wrote XXX. If your (quite strong!) quibble is with the word spiritual, then just say "the current leader of the SRCM-California" or whatever. But again, this is getting us WAY off track over one word that I thought was the correct terminology that group used. Is it possible to work together? Renee --Renee 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All that i wish to point out is the format you have praposed is not possible on wiki :). Here we need to consider each and every POV to make it a NPOV. And current setup is perfect for that, it accomodates each and every voice concering the secte (cult ?) group ? spiritual orgainzation ? mind controling group ? brainwashing group ? All have a fair representation here and thats why i love wiki (i was off but my friend pulled me back .. lol). Are we not working togather already ? --Einstein 22 18:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Raja Yoga and Sahaj Marg

Raja Yoga is yoga of mind and Sahaj Marg is a heart based approach.. these two claims don't really fit in the same article. :( what is the view of other editor's about this aspect ? --Einstein 22 18:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

More surprises. Either Mr Prathasarthi has not read Gita or has failed to understand what is stated in there, which religion of the world teaches God as outside ? can anyone explain this here on wiki ? chapter eight of Gita clearly states that

The God who is infinite, immutable and immortal is Parabrahma. He is 'Adhiyajna.' In the form of Adhiyajna He is inside every body controlling and motivating all its activities. Parabrahma and Adhiyajna are one and the same. Sri Vishnu in the macrocosmic form is called Parabrahma and the same Vishnu who is in a microcosmic form in all bodies is called 'Adhiyajna.' The individual soul is called Adhyatma. It is different from both the Supreme Lord and inert matter. This distinction should be understood by every aspirant. 'Karma' is not merely the petty activities we are engaged in; the stupendous activities of God in the whole cosmos, the soul of which is the Supreme Himself, are Karma and the knowledge of such a hand of God inside each and every activity in the creation gives us bliss and peace of mind. The good deeds done by noble souls in a spirit of Yajna for the orderly development of the society can also be called Karma. The body, the senses, the five elements, and all other gross matter which are required by individuals for the spiritual upliftment of their souls is called Adhibuta. There are a host of gods under the Supreme Lord, who are conducting the day-to-day affairs of the universe and the foremost among them is Chaturmukha Brahma and He is known as 'Adhidaiva'. By knowing all these things and their functions an aspirant can work for his spiritual emancipation. [104]

How come religion teaches God outside ? this claim if put mildly can be termed as ignorence about religion of the leader. what is it !!! --Einstein 22 19:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your fact request are not appropiate! I agree with the essence with which you have requested the same, as claims made by the leader are false, baseless and demonstrates the lack of knowledge and understanding of religion by the leader of the group, BUT in the context, it is represented what the leader is saying, and this is what is explained here, and they have been refrenced!! there is no refrence where Gita say's two cannot be mixed, on the contrarory, Gita prapogates the concept of non-dual (Adwaitya) there is no second and hence question of mixing the TWO does not even arise. Same holds true with idol worshiping, nowhere it is stated that it is worst form of worship!! but this is what the leader say's and this is what is stated here. They cannot be cited in the essence you wish them to be as the claims are false. but here we simply re-produce what the group (leader) say's.--Shashwat pandey 05:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Raja Yoga, or yoga of the mind, means that one disciplines his or her mind to focus on something. In Sahaj Marg, one uses the mind to focus on divine light in the heart. Here is a nice explanation of the theory behind it: Australian Yoga Life, Issue 8 - 2004, pp.45-48, www.ayl.com.au (if you have difficulty accessing it here, try this: http://www.sahajmarg.org/smrti/education/articles/general/art0026.html) --Renee 07:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Raja Yoga in does not means focus mind on any object only, it has a well elaborated procedure, without first second cannot be attained, can you elaborate which limb or amorphesim of Raja yoga state's that ? Raja Yoga starts with truthfullness (YAM) and complets at Samadhi (Union with self) but in case of Sahaj marg, there is no truthfulness, there are so many alligations, court cases, deception, falsly quoting text (as in above text) which religion teaches God outside, can you provide one refrence where any religion of the world say's God is outside us ? hence first principle of Raja Yoga has failed, now the last, inner divinity is represnted by the leader of the group ! and hence again this aspect of Raja Yoga has also failed, union is not with self but the the leader who is representative of the inner divinity of member's. i had in my previous responce to you, have explained this aspect clearly, kindly go through it once again.--Shashwat pandey 09:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To Renee...

Your conclusions (in italics)...

CONCLUSION (based on evidence above):

Based on many POV's, anonymous quotes, and unpublished research, that would not be accepted on WIKI...

- The Shri Ram Chandra Mission appeared on the 1995 French sect list, which was universally condemned and later abandoned by the French government.

The word "universally" is not accurate but a POV of the author.

DON's POV...

The French President's "re-focussing" on "sectarian deviance" is a good one so as to protect the religious rights of TRUE religions and their worship of their GOD. It is the deviance as it relates to "abuse of a person's state of weakness" and focussing on endoctrination of children that is the focus.

I send you my link for the French Assembly: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/rap-enq/r2468.asp and Mivilludes: http://www.miviludes.org/IMG/pdf/Report_MIVILUDES_2003.pdf You will note that it is still there.

- Current French anti-sect reports also have been universally criticized as suppressing fundamental human rights and being inaccurate representatives of true cults.

Your POV and not true. It has received some criticism and not "universally"... others can bring as many who praised it. Of course they are all "anti-sect" but there is some historical information that we at WIKI should report without "interpreting" and "skewing" or "hiding".

- The Shri Ram Chandra Mission does not appear on any governmental cult lists (not even in France, it appeared on the 1995 sect list).

NOT TRUE still but at WIKI, we don't have to do "activism" but simply to report. If you want to have the French Government "rescind" their laws that are still in effect and to remove the List from their site, we will then report that. That is activism that we at WIKI do not get involved in. We don't make up the information, we report on it. that is why the article needs "CLEANUP"...Too many POV"S and not enough NPOV...

- Therefore, there are no legitimate claims for a header titled “Cult Allegations,” as currently appears in the Wikipedia site.

I agree with you on "cult allegations" and I have changed it to "Criticism and Response" for now and we can discuss it in a more "NEUTRAL" atmosphere as it is not there now... I think the term in the SRCM article should be "harmful sect" as is on the BELGE site and the French bill 2468. I like the Belge approach. They just show the words (ie. TEACHINGS) of the groups on a site called "Info and Advice" on HARMFUL Sectarian organizations and then the advice is apparently given in person on a "case by case" according to them. That is all we have to do on WIKI without the "advice" part...

The quotations listed on the “Teachings…” and “Cult Allegations” headers on this Wikipedia page are selectively chosen quotations meant to promote an anti-Sahaj Marg or Shri Ram Chandra agenda. As I said before, we could search the Bible or Koran and find similar quotations (as well as former disgruntled members) to justify all sorts of labels, including obedience and mind control and views on homosexuality, and so forth.

I agree with the CULT allegations but I don't on the TEACHINGS as that is the gauge of "obedience" that the Mission and the Leader want from their "followers"... We don't have to agree with it, but it should be reported. I have paraphrased all but one or two of the quotes brought to the article by many, as per WIKI policy. If the quotes promote anti Sahaj marg sentiment, it is not the editor's fault but the "fault" of the originator of the quote.

You may be right in your POV about the sections in the Bible and the Q'uran (or other religious books). WIKI can also report those (paraphrased) quotes if someone wants to take it on. Maybe after this is over (NEVER...lol), I will take that on (NOT...lol). It is according to WIKI policy but in some case, dangerous for the indivudual. I was a Christian who attended "religious boarding shools" Do you want a "horror" story? But we (the disgruntled victims) reported on those TOO!! ...and we are still here while the "Religious Boarding Schools" are gone...  ;-)) The teachings of Christ (LOVE) were not to blame but the "autocratic" (pyramidal) strucure and the use of "obedience" and "LOVE" was the tool used by the pedophiles (not homosexuals) who came from around the world to become "brothers and sisters"... I digress...lol

Wikipedia is an information source, not a place to selectively present the beliefs of a spiritual group or one’s arguments with that spiritual group (otherwise, the page on Catholicism would be stock full of distortions and complaints by former disgruntled members!). Renee 17:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If the information is too selective for you (who are also not NPOV), then add your "selective" PR for the group and show your POV. Remember, this is also not a PR site for spiritual groups who want to "whitewash" their past histories. SRCM can operate a .com or .org and say what they want there...and you can offer your services to them. Unlike the selective articles that you presented, WIKI can accomodate the opinions of all, even those of "disgruntled" members (whoever they may be) as long as they are referenced to credible sources and not "anecdotal". Even academics and mainstream religions are not above the WIKI policy of NEUTRAL.

Opinions of both adherents and "disgruntled" members are POV and all INFORMATION should be in the article if put in NPOV and if supported by credible "references" and citations. "Credible" means a "concensus" process. Maybe we can take the example of the Belge who have 6 official languages and are a true "diverse" society and not "list" the groups, but on a site called "info and advice" on Harmful Sectarian organizations we can carry their "books and" TEACHINGS, such as I want to do on WIKI....Then let the readers decide... It's not "freedom of religion or religious tolerance that is in question, it is "deviance" and "abuse of a person's state of weakenss". http://www.willyfautre.org/publications/2002/heidelberg.pdf

There are those who are also here and belong to the "original" SRCM who had their "secte" taken away from them and are now in court so as to "reclaim" it. We have to accomodate them and their edits also and in the SRCM article. Both Factions do not adhere to "Chari's" TEACHINGS and want to state so. I have encouraged them to do so and this is where we now are.

We don't have to decide wether SRCM (both factions) are a "harmful sect" or not, but we have to report the info that is out there and "accurately"... The vandalizing of the Articles by one or both factions will not work ....

We can try and reach concensus where all information, yours, mine, and all others (that I also don't endorse) are included in true WIKI fashion. Even "tone" can be "corrected" if those who see tone as skewing to one side or other want to "input" rather than criticise.

Unlike some of the various factions who want to use WIKI to proselytize and do PR, I believe in the WIKI PROJECT and its policies, and I have time on my hands... I have stayed out of the discussion and edit wars this time, and have just added "corrections on grammar, syntax, etc..and let the edit wars go on. Now we can "CLEAN UP" and make it match the "POV" of this group of editors (NPOV)... I have witnessed this process so many times that I now think that it is a "BEAUTIFUL THING" and not something to get "upset" at... You'll see!!  ;-))

It's the age of the INFONAUT and this new POWER is something we will learn to use as we become a "global" civilization. It means learning to take responsibility for one's words and actions. Not be OBEDIENT and decide on the TEACHINGS of others, but to THINK and decide on the multi-dimensional information at hand.

Don...--don 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Don,

So let's focus on the points of agreement. We agree that the French government called the group a secte.

It seems we disagree on whether or not the 1995 list was universally condemned by others. (I listed published reports showing the United Nations and the European Union condemned it and it seems that the UN is pretty universal?)

I searched some other sites and found a very nice, short write-up on exactly the same issue in the TM site. I suggest we put that here as well. Specifically, here's what was said:

"Diverse groups such as Catholic groups like The Little Brothers and Sisters of the Sacred Heart, as well as Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Rosicrucian’s, the Church of Scientology, and Transcendental Meditation were named as cult/sects in France in 1995, in The Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France generated by the National Assembly of France. By 2005, the Prime Minister of France noted that although the government must remain vigilant in combating so-called cults/sects, the earlier parliamentary report of 1995 was less applicable in part because many small, widely scattered, less identifiable groups had formed. He went on to advise that identification of possible cults/sects not be decided on by referencing lists compiled for identification of cultic deviances, but instead recommended an update of ministerial instructions, and the use of criteria developed in consultation with the Interministerial Commission for Monitoring and Combating Cultic Deviances (MIVILUDES). Finally he noted that labeling a group as a cult/sect stood in opposition to “respect for public freedom and Laïcité (separation of Church and State.)” report unofficial English translation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_meditation"

(Quick procedural question: are all postings on Wikipedia public domain? that is can we pull a section fully or do we have to re-write it? It's not attributed so I would think we could use it?)

This paragraph on the Wiki-TM site says everything I said but in a much more concise manner. Plus, now we can add the United Nations report as a reference.

Right now the Wiki - Sahaj Marg still reads very anti-Sahaj Marg, and as you note, many people are fine with the practice, they just don't like the SRCM-California group, which is a different issue entirely. I think it's the overemphasis on quotations from Chari to the exclusion of the whole practice.

I suggest we have two sections:

Criticisms and responses -- adapt the TM paragraph above to SRCM; give a one-sentence description of the tabloid Danish newspaper article, etc.

Commendations and responses -- list the research articles and other articles focusing on the benefits of Sahaj Marg

If this is agreeable to you, I'd like to take a crack at drafting this.

How does this sound?

Renee --Renee 07:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I will point out few contradictions in your current post and previous posts,

1. You have provided a reference which say's that the French govt. report lists CULTS.

2. The statement the earlier parliamentary report of 1995 was less applicable in part because many small, widely scattered, less identifiable groups had formed as per my understanding this is reverse of what you are trying to protray!! PM has in my view stated that the old list needs to be renewed as lot more group have formed or have changed names and scattered !! it does not invalidate the previous report, just the need to add more groups in that report.

3. UN report does not address SRCM, kindly be advised once again, we cannot add general purpose reference, if you want to add any report it must have SRCM in its list. Refer this [105] Sethie and will beback are of the view (rightly so) that reference cannot be used if they do not address SRCM issue. Article is not to provide merits or demerits of French govt. report, but simply state what is stated there, UN has criticized OK, but does it say's report is false and baseless ? NO, hence reference to that report is very much valid as per wiki, Also if you can provide any reference, from UN, Newspaper article, govt. report WP:RS they can be added, UN report does not state that Sahaj Marg does not applies mind control, but French govt. report say's that Sahaj marg conditions mind's of people, UN has criticized that report which included LOT many groups including SRCM, but no waiver to SRCM is given by UN. Hence it cannot be accepted!

4. Article in its current form simply states what the group say's, with valid references, if the teachings of the group are against its advertised agenda, no-one can help it. and that’s where wiki comes into picture, advertisement are dropped and facts with NPOV are presented.

5. There is already a section of C & R, Page starts with Philosophy of the group, next come trade mark constant remembrance, then the method, followed by the teachings. Benefits if any will be understood by the reader's who read this much section. We cannot spoon feed benefits on wiki that will be a POV push, and is not allowed. If there is any benefit, it will be available from teaching/methods/philosophy, and we have stated that, now let the reader's decide about benefit or harm caused. If you feel there is anything wrong pls correct it.--Shashwat pandey 08:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Shashwat,

The French documents say sectes, not cults. Please review them.

The evidence provided above and previously shows that the French government has distanced itself from the 1995 list, completely dissolved the group that created it, and established a new policy and body (please see all of my references previously).

The UN report is very relevant to this discussion as it contains evidence regarding the history of sectes in France, how things have changed, and what the current status is (i.e., why something might or might not be labeled a secte). As I mentioned to Don, the transcendental meditation site has a very nice, brief, one paragraph explanation that I think we should use here. It gives the context of the French documents and the history, which are critical to understanding the issue (see my note to Don earlier).

Regarding your point #4, I can pull just as many quotations that paint a completely different picture of Sahaj Marg than you have. We have to present the overall picture, the overall view, not selectively chosen quotations to promote a point of view. This is why I have been advocating merely giving a one-line description of an article or speech, and then let people read it for themselves, in context, and make their own judgments. This would be the most neutral.

Regarding your point #5, why is it okay to list criticisms but not benefits? We need to present both sides, including the research on Sahaj Marg.

I would be happy to take a crack at editing this but wanted to wait and get concurrence from Don first.

Renee --Renee 08:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Reference that you have provided say's The Parliamentary Commission on Cults why whould a commission on CULT's list secte's if they are not same ? this itself demonstrates that CULT's and sectes translate to same.

2. On the contrary the French Govt. has added more groups to its list from 1995 to 2003/2005, and they all have included SRCM.

3. your reference say's the Prime Minister of France noted that although the government must remain vigilant in combating so-called cults/sects, the earlier parliamentary report of 1995 was less applicable in part because many small, widely scattered, less identifiable groups had formed. He went on to advise that identification of possible cults/sects not be decided on by referencing lists compiled for identification of cultic deviances, but instead recommended an update of ministerial instructions now it clearly means that list of 1995 is not upto date as many small, widely scattered, less identifiable groups had formed hence there is a possibility that they might have been missed in the list, hence more enhanced list is needed.

4. This page is not about history of sectes in France but Sahaj Marg, you can start another page regarding history of sectes in France here only refrence to the report is provided where it has named Sahaj Marg, and UN has not named SM, hence UN report cannot be used, as it has nothing to do with SM, but with a govt. report, which is still valid, only thing is it has been criticized, in the same way as SRCM has been citicized by more then one govt. agency, and cult watch groups!! from this POV we can safly conclude that SRCM is not valid anymore as it has been criticized by WP:RS that will solve all the issue's.

5. Kindly pull out as many quotes as possible, we will create a new section "Contradiction in Sahaj Marg" and will list them there, as what is stated currently is also from group teachings itself and if you feel there can be another picture by useing same teachings then it is an absolute contradiction !!

6. There is a difference between cirticism and harm, there is no section which has listed harms caused by the group, benefit's have to be balanced with harms.

7. Pls feel free to edit the article, this is what is essense of wiki is, only thing is that you will have to accomodate all POV's as well !! which can happen first on talk page and then on main article, i am still waiting for a mediation process to comeplete so that i can insert living dead seaction into the main page.--Shashwat pandey 09:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat,

The French govt published one list in 1995, distanced itself from it and dissolved the group that made it, and the French list must be presented in the context within which it exists. (All references appear in previously cited documents.) Again, I refer you to the transcendental meditation page to see how they handled this section and suggest we follow suit.

A section called contradictions is not appropriate because again, on ANY topic, any subject, you can pull quotations out of context that contradict other ideas. If we are to give a fair representation to Sahaj Marg, we must give the overall highlights and then provide citations where people can read the text in full. It is absolutely not neutral or fair to pull out selective quotes, including topics you listed above.

Again, I prefer to wait and get consensus with Don before editing the page. The tit-for-tat changes have to stop in order to make progress. If you are so inclined I suggest reading the transcendental meditation page as it seems fairly balanced and accommodates multiple perspectives and has a section on controversies we can model our page after.

Renee --Renee 10:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to read where the french govt. has distanced itself from the that report, on the contrary it appears that the govt. wish to enhance the list and add more groups, as there are few small groups which went un-noticed! kindly refer to your quote instead recommended an update of ministerial instructions an update is requested to the current list, where is the distance from the list, it is addition not substraction !!

TM is altogether different concept then Sahaj Marg, to start the practice (TM) you need to pay $ 2500, there is no cultish stuff in there, it has some psycological problems associated with it, for which certain court cases has been filed against TM. Sahaj Marg is a mind controling/brainwashing method (my POV) and is totally different from TM, SM and TM has no connection with each other, Both methods are absolutly different.

There is nothing out of context as far as i can see, in obedience section it is stated thet absolute obedience is must, and one need not be intelligent etc are stated, in philosophy, it has been stated that Chari feels that God is male !! he has divided God into gender basis !! that has also been added, what is out of context, if you feel there is any, then pls provide the context. Leader is the representative of THE ULTIMATE. is what the group claims. hence for member's his words are absolute truth, (Pratyahar of Raja Yoga has failed here). Teachings, Method and philosophy togather forms the backbone of the page. If you feel there is anything out of context, then kindly provide the context.

Consensus has to be with all editor's including me, don, Einstine, Sethie, will beback etc.

Contradtiction is what you have praposed ! what is stated is already referenced, and if there is something which contradicts the current set of information then it falls under catagory of contradiction only.However i will not push for it, will wait for your edits, and put my observation's view's over it, to balance the picture! --Shashwat pandey 10:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To Don

Hi Don,

The previous post got so long that I was afraid this text I proposed would get lost, so I'm pulling it out here.

I read what you wrote to me and looked at the two documents you cite as evidence for SRCM being on the French secte list. The first document cited is the 1995 original list and is still on the internet because it is an archival document; the second document is the 2003 report and the ONLY statement with reference to SRCM is when they pull a quotation from an SRCM brochure: "you will come to the ashram to see the Master and participate with your parents in a spiritual seminar."

To update these pieces of information, we need to disclose that the group that created the 1995 list (MILS) was dissolved in the early 2000s, the French govt scrapped any plans to do new lists or update old lists, and MILS was replaced with MIVILUDES, which is designed to track sectarian deviations (illegal or immoral behavior) and not groups (2006 UN report, citation below; http://www.cesnur.org/2003/vil2003_dericquebourg.htm ). The French govt states: the "Decree 2002-1292 of 28 November 2002, superseded the Watch set up in 1996 and an Interministerial Mission set up in 1998" ( http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/sects.pdf). Please also note that no where does cult appear in this document. The word sect is used and defined. (I think we're already in agreement that secte should be used and not cult.) Finally, see the May 2005 circulaire where the Prime Minister of France revised his policy on sects, saying that labeling groups went against respect for public freedoms and that the list lacked pertinence now. (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=PRMX0508471C)

So while there is an archival list of sectes, according to the French govt itself there is no current or active list.

I think there are two ways we can handle this. One is to merely list the facts. For example, in 1995 SRCM appeared on a French Secte list; in XXX, Y happened; and so forth.

Another way is to model a brief paragraph that puts the French list into contact, similar to what they have on the transcendental meditation page. This reads very neutrally. (I pulled the full quotations for you in italics in the previous post. What do you think?)

Finally, I think another point of agreement is that we need to focus on Sahaj Marg the practice, and not SRCM the organization for this Wiki site. Right now it's all mixed up.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Renee --Renee 10:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • To Access the UN Report, go to p. 7 of the following and you can choose whichever language you want to view the report in (reference #E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.4, title "Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir - Mission to France"):

http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?b=1&se=61&t=9

This page Sahaj Marg has no refernce to 1995 french govt. report, only refernce used in the page is of MIVILUDES which has confirmed that mind control is used in Sahaj Marg,(see footnote on Pg 81) and same has been listed in the page, hence there is no need to discuss about the report which is not used in the current page. What is used is something that you agree with,(model a brief paragraph that puts the French list ) what is stated in 2003 report, same is used here also, once again links that you have provided speak nothing about SRCM or Sahaj Marg, they refer to french govt report, which are valid.

Kindly refer the page, it has recently been modified, to seperate Sahaj Marg and SRCM. this page only has info about Sahaj Marg only, there is a seperate SRCM page.

group was not dissolved but name was changed, also that does not invalidate its facts finding report, there are many commission which are formed just to look into a matter and after their job is done, they are dissolved, this by no means, invalidate their fact finding reports.

Links you have provided have no reference to Sahaj Marg or SRCM, and this is not a page to discuss about any govt. policy but is about Sahaj Marg. only those links can be used which has SRCM or Sahaj Marg in them. I also tried same before, when i tried to place links of cult watch group [106] it was not accepted on the same ground that they do not list SRCM or Sahaj Marg, we need to stick to the policy.

Lets wait for Don's comment also!.

--Shashwat pandey 10:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just went through one link provided by Renee [107] where you have stated that the link say's saying that labeling groups went against respect for public freedoms and that the list lacked pertinence what i found in the link is something which say's just the opposite i quote from the same link

While creating, by the decree of November 28, 2002, the interdepartmental Mission of vigilance and fight against the sectarian drifts (MIVILUDES), the Government understood to reorganize the preventive action and repressive services of the State against these intrigues.

4. The regional correspondents of the MIVILUDES indicated by the prefects of area received a general mission of formation and information. This mission must be consolidated and widened. I wish in particular that is elaborate, at the regional level, a summary allowing to follow the evolutions, and that is organized, with the assistance in particular “Guide of the public agent”, a training scheme interservices on the sectarian drifts.

The action taken by the Government is dictated by the concern of reconciling the fight against the intrigues of certain groups, which exploit subjection, physics or psychological, in which are placed their members, with the respect of public freedoms and the principle of secularity.

The experiment showed that a step consisting, for the authorities, to describe as “sect” such or such grouping and to base their action on this only qualification would not make it possible to ensure this conciliation effectively and to firmly found in right the initiatives taken.

Also it was decided, rather than to put certain groupings at the index, to exert a particular vigilance on any organization which appears to exert a dangerous influence for the personal freedom of its members in order to be ready to identify and repress any dealing likely to receive a penal qualification or, more generally, seeming contrary with the laws and payments.

Renee just one question which side are you ? are you inline with Shashwat Don or against their POV ?

Thanks --Einstein 22 14:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Kindly have a look at the second link that you have provided [108] this report is also against sect's and states that

Although sects remain a vague and opaque phenomenon, their dangers and abuses are better known and increasingly effectively counteracted in France today through the action of MIVILUDES, which is tasked with

Observing and analysing sects and movements akin to sects and their activities: it centralises information forwarded by various public services and makes it available to the public authorities

Initiating and coordinating the government’s preventive and punitive action against these activities: it forwards the information at its disposal to the ministries concerned and suggests action, legislative amendments and monitoring measures

Informing the general public and government workers, particularly through the publication of guides for elected officials and educators and training for senior employees of the central government, local governments and public health sector

Advocating France’s position on sects to international public opinion: France’s drive to combat abusive sects is considered by some, particularly the United States, as a violation of freedoms. However, the work of MIVILUDES is observed with interest by a great many countries. The mission frequently speaks alongside French diplomats at conferences of the United Nations and the Council of Europe.

The drive to combat sects involves many other actors: members of parliament and the senate, the Chancellery, the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights, the representatives of the mainstream religions in France, the Human Rights League and many moral and civic organisations. The discussions of these actors led to Act 2001-504 of 12 June 2001 (the “About-Picard Act”), which tightened prevention and punishment of sects that violate human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Act enhanced and adapted existing French legislation on combating abusive sects and movements akin to sects. Three series of measures enable the judicial authorities

to punish violations by sects more severely, including in new areas where sects operate (particularly the Internet)

to disband associations that have been convicted of a serious crime (and ban them from reforming)

to protect individuals, whether or not in a vulnerable position, against pressure from sects.

This report establishes validity/credibility of MIVILUDES and its refernce in the article.

This report is as new as October 2006 (few months before) and has establishes that MIVILUDES is effectively countering harmful sects which causes psycological harm to its member's.

Thanks--Einstein 22 15:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee..

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner...too many projects to attend to.

I think that your proposal has merit and I will assume "good faith" and suggest that you go ahead and edit the article to show your opinion and paint SRCM in a more "fair" tone.

What you see in the article does not all come from one or two editors but from many over many months. I have stayed away from the "content" edits as much as possible to minimize confusion that a large number of editors can create, until the "clean-up" stage as requested by Sethie...

I think that a dynamic article like WIKI will find its just level and we have to assume the best intentions of all, including SRCM and Chari.

Feel free to add some TEACHINGS that reflect your POV also and makes the article more NPOV and fair to your "POV"...lol

Try and accomodate Shashwat's input on Miviludes versus the 1995 French list and report. And Shashwat, try and reach concensus with Renee in fairness and justice...

Again, I believe we should keep the "harmful secte" references and opinions to a minimum in the Sahaj Marg article as it is the organization of SRCM that is (was) on this list. As you mention, the Belge approach is what I think we should emulate. The Belge site is JUST INFO (teachings) on a site for "HARMFUL SECTARIAN ORGANIZATIONS" as there is a sectarian aspect to all religions and some are "harmful" though not all (just like SRCM)... We just have to look at the NEWS (or read their material as I did). And these warring (harmful) factions are not on the LISTS and are called "traditional" religions such as Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc...

WIKI will probably evolve to POINT/COUNTERPOINT with on-line references when all written material is "on-line"...For now we still have "hard-copy" material to deal with and use as references... So we still have a "balancing job" to do to be "NPOV".

Lists are not "ideal" but are necessary and will still be used by "governments" in the name of "public safety". We at WIKI have to be "cautious" on the fair use of these "designations" and refer to them as "information" only and not as a "condemnation" of "guilty" of all the "deviant" behaviour of all the members on that list. That is not fair, just or legal by most standards...

PS.. I am just one editor and just one opinion... I am not the GREAT WIKI (GOD) nor HIS/HER/ITS representative ... lol In the NEW WORLD ORDER, WIKI has no "REPRESENTATIVES".... lol We all have the same power here...So let's come to a concensus...and show our "SPRITUALITY"...or at least our HUMANITY!!

I'll be watching ... lol ;-))

Don...--don 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Folks,

It seems like we're moving toward some agreement. I was thinking about this page all last night, about how to get the different parts into manageable sections, and then I read Don's message and Voila! The lightbulb went on.

How about if we break down this one large rambling article into several smaller articles that focus clearly on the separate topics?

The first article can be a brief Sahaj Marg page that focuses exclusively on the practice -- not the organizations (the various SRCMs), not the Masters (since these are contested), and not the quotations from the Masters. The rationale for this is that Sahaj Marg (the practice) is very simple and is the basis for at least three different groups. For instance, all of the quotations from Chariji are inappropriate for this site because they really only pertain to SRCM-California, yes? The other two groups, SRCM-Shah. and ISRC would only have quotations from Babuji for their groups, true? Thus, how about separate articles pulling out each group and then giving the information appropriate to that group alone?

By doing this, it makes our task more manageable too. We can get this short Sahaj Marg practice piece done (which is relevant to all of the different groups, regardless of who's in control and who's the Master).

Then, we can have a short SRCM page that highlights the initial history (Lalaji to Babuji incorporating it) and conclude with one-line sentences about each group, with links to separate articles on each group.

Then, there can be a separate Wiki article for ISRC (with its beliefs and philosphy), a separate article for SRCM-Cal (with its beliefs and philosphy), and a separate article for SRCM-Sha (with its beliefs and philosphy). Within these, I also suggest separate articles for Lalaji, Babuji, and Chariji, because some people believe Sahaj Marg ends with Babuji as the Master, some Chariji, and others even believe that Lalaji created a different group and disciples.

If we do this, we can quickly get agreement on the Sahaj Marg-practice page and the overall SRCM article. Then, we can work on the individual SRCM/ISRC and individual Master pages where most of the contested stuff appearing on this page would go. Also, by doing this we don't mix beliefs/philosophies/organizational practices of the various groups, which is inappropriate and not fair to or representative of the independent groups.

If this is agreeable to everyone, I will start working on it and creating the separate pages on Tuesday (we have out of town guests until then).

Thanks, Renee --Renee 10:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Regarding the French secte lists, yes, I fully understand that the French are still very anti-secte, and that they define secte as any group holding non-mainstream spiritual beliefs (to them, secte includes harmful groups as well as new spiritual groups or communities of belief). The purpose of posting their most recent documents is not to show they are all of a sudden in favor of non-mainstream beliefs, but rather, that they no longer consider the 1995 list valid or pertinent, that they have dissolved the original group that created the list, and that they are now trying to define behaviors and monitor these [and they admit that this is vague and currently no legal process exists for this yet]. I like Don's points a lot about how any group or govt can name a group but just because they are named does not mean they are guilty. That's why I liked just giving the French link and then also giving the United Nations fact-finding link so that people could read both and make their own determination.

Some of you asked my point-of-view. I believe that France is in violation of basic human rights, including the fundamental right to choose one's spiritual beliefs and practices. I believe that with the exception of Belgium and Switzerland, the rest of the global community also believes that France is in gross violation of human rights over their anti-secte activities -> So much so that the United Nations sent an independent fact-finding mission to France, which concluded that indeed, France was engaged in discriminatory actions toward new spiritual groups, that France's basis for naming groups and activities had little basis in reality, and that France was violating fundamental human rights. If you get a reiki treatment or go to an astrologer or practice Buddhism in France, your activities may be labeled as suspect and you may be monitored as a sectarian deviant. Personally, I believe this is in violation of a fundamental human rights. I am not alone on this:

http://www.uscirf.gov/countries/publications/currentreport/2004annualRpt.pdf

http://www.cesnur.org/2006/UNCHR_report_on_France.pdf

http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewhtml.php?doc_id=1797

Regarding spirituality, first, I believe there are many ways to the top of the mountain, and that each person has to choose his or her own way. Second, I believe that Sahaj Marg is an effective spiritual path, that in no way involves mind control, hypnosis, brain-washing, or anything of the sort. Having observed members of the group around the world, I saw people free to start and stop it, people attending events (and getting meals and lodging) at no cost, and people genuinely transforming. I also have come across some over-zealous Sahaj Marg persons, just like I have come across some over-zealous Christians. But, when I think of the most spiritually beautiful persons I know (admittedly a handful), they are long-time practicants of Sahaj Marg. --Renee 10:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

To Renee

ISRC does not use Sahaj Marg, it uses PAM (Pranahuti aided meditation). For them there is no need for a living master, contrary to Sahaj Marg of California, where not only a living, but a MALE master is must for spiritual growth of its member's. Where as Sahaj Marg of Shahjahanpur also contradicts Sahaj Marg of California, in same reference. There is no need for a living master. and this page perfectly balance's Sahaj Marg of both faction. it is clearly stated in the page that California Sahaj Marg needs a living Male Leader, whereas Indian Sahaj Marg does not need any living Leader. a page about Sahaj Marg needs to reflect all these aspects and current setup takes care of all. Feel free to edit the page, we all are here to balance the page :).

If you wish to propose a Sahaj Marg (California) page one Sahaj Marg (India) page and one PAM page, and then one SRCM (California) page and one SRCM (India) page and then one ISRC page. then there will be six page's referencing to one object. This does not seems to be a good idea. In one page about Sahaj Marg, all factions can be included which the case is currently, this page gives a clear picture of what the current situation is, trade mark registered twice, court cases, and the teachings, in a perfectly balanced and NPOV aspect. Six pages for one method ? then i would propose one more page to display the controversies and dispute, one page where cultish stuff of Sahaj Marg, and intellectual deterioration of member's, various divorce cases and characterless ness of member's (as reported in European newspaper's) should also come into picture. I am going through them and will crack on edits soon regarding those aspect's.

As far as i can read the page, it is already in accordance with what you are proposing, infect there is no reference to SRCM in this page, except the link given :) Page starts with stating what is Sahaj Marg (trade mark), this cannot be omitted. then the philosophy of Sahaj Marg is explained, next comes another trade mark constant remembrance.

Pls read the page once again, you have stated not the organizations (the various SRCMs) Sahaj Marg page has no reference to organization except where it is needed. Personally i do not agree with this idea, as it is SRCM only which teaches Sahaj Marg, and a group without any teaching has no basis, and a teaching without any group is also invalid. there has to be some infrastructure, around which Sahaj Marg is groomed, and there has to be something that SRCM is doing for which it has been listed as harmful secte. Sahaj Marg and SRCM in essence are one and same, Sahaj Marg is a trade mark registered by the group. and they cannot be differentiated, they are same, i propose that SRCM page should list the controversies, as well, and currently it seems to be in perfect shape.

There can be as many pages on wiki as you want, you need to request for a page and it will then be reviewed and accepted.

In my view, this page discribes Sahaj Marg as is, without any POV push currently, if there is any requirement for change in text, feel free to do them, we all will look at it and will share our view's and POV and balance the article. Change in format as of now is not acceptable, if you feel the need to start a new page, kindly do the same.

French report has been established as authentic, by the reference you have provided.

There is no need to loose your sleep over this debate, as there are chances that emotions can come between logical thinking and our acts, we need to keep this page as far from emotions as possible.

The link that you have provided [109] say's(b) governments have established specific initiatives targeting so-called “sects” or “cults.” ref. page 47, this establishes that sects and cult's are actually same. So now i hope you agree to the idea that UN also accepts that there is no difference between sects and cult.

Same report further add’s

that concrete action be taken within the OSCE to ensure that all participating states are living up to their commitments to combat discrimination and intolerance, in particular to combat anti-Semitism, as detailed in the 1990 Copenhagen Document, action which should include adopting laws to protect against incitement to violence based on discrimination, including anti-Semitism, and providing the individual with effective remedies to initiate complaints against acts of discrimination

the creation of a mandate within OSCE, perhaps in the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, with the responsibility to monitor and report regularly on anti-Semitic incidents and the implementation by member states of their Copenhagen commitments

review of state compliance within the OSCE of commitments of member states on anti-Semitism on a regular basis

In effect the UN report has not rejected but accepted the French govt. stand and has endorsed it, keeping in view the violent activities conducted by these sects (cults) in there respective countries. Human right violation which you are trying to lay the blame on French Govt. is actually laied on the cult's by this committee formed by the UN. I will use same report in SRCM article to substantiate the french govt's observations and as acceptence by the UN of French Govt. stand aganst cult's. Now the view is actually universally accepted.

Your view’s about spirituality contradicts my approach, after my research about the group, I find it is effective, but only for brainwashing and mind control, otherwise there cannot be any divorce due to any group. A divorce due to one group, establishs brainwashing. Spirituality cannot divide (as claimed by the group itself) since result are contradictory to what is stated then it also establshes that there is something seriously wrong with group, method and the teaching, as it is resulting in adverse and affliction to member’s. Only that method can be effective which is established by current scientific standered’s, for example I have firm belief in Astrology this is established scientificly as it consider’s moon to influence human thoughts and therefore the person character and therefore his/her acts and therefore consequence of its acts. If moon can pull and push ocean by force, our thoughts are also influenced by position of moon, those with strong moon are intelligent and those with weak moon are lunatic’s. and this is why I accept Raja Yoga, as they begin with truthfulness, and controlling the breathing’s which in turn controls out thoughts and thereby we can have control over nature, which result’s in our control over existance, and finally liberation from thoughts. (Samadhi).--Einstein 22 13:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

More Information from same report

Following visits to France and Belgium in the spring of 2002, the Commission drew specific attention to, and spoke out against, the rise in anti-Semitic violence taking place in both countries. The U.S. Congress introduced and unanimously passed resolutions in both the Senate and House concerning the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. The Senate version cited the Commission’s findings and urged the Commission to continue documenting the issue.

The Commission discussed this disturbing trend with President Bush during a private meeting in October 2003. Many, but not all, of the recent anti-Semitic incidents in Western Europe reportedly have been committed by disaffected, marginalized young members of North African Muslim immigrant communities. Like the United States, France and other Western European countries are becoming more and more nations of immigrants. However, another source of the violence and anti-Semitic rhetoric in Europe is the so-called “skinhead” gangs that target Jews with bombings and other violence and seek to inflame public opinion against them.

In some countries, these gangs have targeted Arabs and other Muslim immigrants as well. Additionally, anti-Semitism by extremist nationalist groups in Eastern Europe and Russia is well documented. To compound the problem, anti-Semitic rhetoric emanating from some intellectual circles that goes uncontested by political and societal leaders has promoted an environment of intolerance toward Jews. The problem is widespread. As numerous studies attest, anti-Jewish sentiment is surfacing again; failure to hold the perpetrators to account is all too often the official response. Anti-Zionism and vilification of Israel can mask anti-Semitism. When burnings, beatings, and other acts of violence are directed at a particular group because of who they are and what they believe, it should be clear that they reflect degradations of human dignity. Such violent acts should not be viewed merely as police problems, but as human rights violations. The U.S. government should be unequivocal in its position that anti-Semitism is a human rights matter.

The Commission has addressed anti-Semitism and related issues in the course of its work on several countries both inside and outside of Europe, including Belarus, Belgium, Egypt, Iran,France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. The Commission has also consulted with representatives of Jewish communities in several countries, other religious leaders, and NGOs. The Commission has recommended that the OSCE pay separate attention to the rise of anti-Semitism in the region. At the 2003 HDIM and afterwards, the Commission worked with the U.S. delegation to successfully urge member states to agree to hold the OSCE’s first-ever special meeting on anti-Semitism. Addressing the OSCE at the July special meeting, as well as the 2003 HDIM, Commissioner Felice D. Gaer emphasized that acts of anti-Semitism must be seen not as hooliganism, but as a form of human rights abuse that states should vigorously combat by implementing their international human rights commitments.

The OSCE Ministerial Council, at its December 2003 meeting in Maastricht, Netherlands, accepted the German government’s invitation to host a special meeting on anti-Semitism in Berlin in 2004, scheduled for the end of April. The Commission participated in the preparations for that meeting, including a consultation by the U.S. government with the German government, and participated as part of the U.S. delegation to the meeting.

This demonstrates that OSCE is of the view that it is cult's which are violating human rights and they must be effectively countered by:-

that concrete action be taken within the OSCE to ensure that all participating states are living up to their commitments to combat discrimination and intolerance, in particular to combat anti-Semitism

The UN report has mentioned French view about religious intolerance, like banning burka for Muslim women’s etc, and has no-where mentioned that its offensive against cult’s is wrong, but only mentioned that

The Commission has directed its attention to France because of several recent trends or events that have affected conditions of religious freedom in that country. Official government initiatives and activities that target “sects” or “cults” have fueled an atmosphere of intolerance toward members of minority religious groups in France.'

The report has also mentioned that The government of France has taken active measures targeting certain minority religious groups, pejoratively characterized as “cults” or “sects,” and the purported threats that these groups pose.

In essence UN also accepts that these cults/sects pose threat.

Finally the report say's that Among other consequences, these actions have created an atmosphere of hostility toward the members of several minority religious groups and threaten their right to religious freedom.

Kindly note mention is religious group and not cult's and SRCM is a cult and not a religious group. according to the group, religion divide's.

Thanks.--Einstein 22 14:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Einstein,

The UN report defines how the French define sect early on, which is religious group. We previously agreed with Don that cult should not appear in this Wiki article because the French only say secte, and they and the UN define sect to include new religious groups or communities of belief. So, I don't want to go back over this. Again, the point of the UN report taken as a whole (their conclusions) is the there is vast religious intolerance against new communities of belief and religious groups. But, we're just going back and forth rehashing things..

To move forward, as I believe we all agreed a while back, I'll re-do that section, modeling it after the transcendental meditation Wiki article (they're also on the secte list for France and those pro TM contest it and those anti-TM support it, so it's a good model to follow in posting a reasonable compromise paragraph.)

Thanks, Renee --82.91.138.22 06:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Renee's Proposal ...

This factional issue will solve itself in court and not on WIKI. We should report it.

First, there are only two factions presently in court for the control of SRCM and Sahaj Marg. ISRC has a different technique PAM (Prahahuti Aided Meditation) and is different in name and leadership except that Babuji and Lalaji figure in their lineage. They are a schism (division) from SRCM and specifically of SRCM (California).

For researching Sahaj Marg (registered Trade Mark), one article and not many, is the best solution.

Before you came to Wiki, we had just "deleted" a page that another editor had started with exactly the same intention as you mention. The battle just shifted to that page and is now deleted as per WIKI...(duplication of info and really "scattered" as others did not want to have the info on SRCM and Sahaj Marg hidden in "many articles", and were "indignant" to say the least. It was a mess... and not favourable to SRCM (California) either).

There were many such proposals over the years to "divide" the articles but all were rejected and I still feel that way. (I weakly supported the first attempt) Now my POV is: ONE SAHAJ MARG, ONE SRCM UNDER ONE WIKI (GOD)... lol. After the court decision, the loser will probably have to chose another name or Appeal again and we will have to record that in ONE article, not many.

There were many attempts to make the articles match the PR of SRCM (California) of 3M's: The Masters, the Mission and the Method. This was rejected by all also. And we are with this format and I think we should stay with it as it is the most "comprehensive" and does not "divide" the info and thus "hide" the facts as many articles would...

We just have to make it reflect all POV's in a NPOV article for SAHAJ MARG... the SRCM article has so far been "universally" accepted as accurate, fair, and NPOV. (just a "small" joke on your style...lol ;-)))

I re-iterate: I reject the idea of "dividing" the articles, because it has been tried before and has been shown to be a non-productive waste of time, and the page is now gone, but I like that you are still thinking... I (POV) think we, the people, will have to reach a "concensus" and not "skirt around the issues" on this ONE SPACESHIP Earth... Make the article reflect your POV in "good faith", as it now reflects other's POV in your opinion. Other's POV's were also input in "good faith". That is as neutral as we can get for now, until our "spiritual" evolution, which WIKI will help bring about in my opinion. ;-)) There is no hiding place on WIKI or on the NET. We, the INFONAUTS want to know ALL THE TRUTH! Religions could find that difficult to deal with, and "unverifiable" statements, such as claims of "representing" the ONE (Male GOD), will be challenged on WIKI. But such staments are protected by Freedom of Speech legislation and are allowed under the format of WIKI. The are just called "CLAIMS"... On .org and .com, SRCM can claim anything as FACT.

In your edits, remember that "unverifiable claims" can be called "claims", or "according to", and WIKI suggests a "3rd person" style. (Certainly not 1st and 2nd person).... I spent many hours editing input in the "instruction" format which is PR (advertising), not NPOV and not WIKI)

I appreciate your input...

PS... SRCM (California) "claims" to be "democratic" but "President for LIFE" is not "democratic" by UN standards. SRCM as a NGO should become "democratic" if it wants to "honestly" claim UNDPI status. If SRCM wants to claim the benefits (freedoms) of living in "democratic" societies it should adhere to the "democratic" rules of those societies. (Just my POV and just a suggestion)

Don --don 17:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Don (and others),

okee, dokee. I'll just work on this page.

Per our discussions above, here's what I'll do.

Re do the Criticisms section and model it after the transcendental meditation (TM) page to talk about the French report. I've moved reference to the Danish tabloid newspaper to this section because it is a criticism and cut all of the text (because it only represented a portion of the article; to make it balanced we'd have to add all of the text of Steen Bruin's (sp?) response).

Hopefully this will read as balanced and reasonable to all parties involved.

Renee --82.91.138.22 06:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of fact tag and WP:V

Einstein, Sethie considers the following edit very poor form [[110]]. Please review WP:V before you put a bunch of fact tags in the article again, okay?

Unless you are disputing that he actually said those things. Sethie 01:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sethie,

Nice to have you back.

Renee --82.91.138.22 06:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

criticisms, re-ordering the sections

Hi Folks,

I started to work on this page and it seems we're really muddling up what's Sahaj Marg the practice and what's the Shri Ram Chandra Mission (two organizations).

I've moved different sections together and tried to create a more logical order to the page.

For example, there was no definition or goal of Sahaj Marg, so I added that in the beginning. I moved the section on transmission up to the top because that's an essential feature of the practice. Then, I explained the practice. Previously, practice elements were mixed up throughout the piece -- sometimes in the criticisms section, sometimes up front, once in the middle. I also moved philosophy down because it seems that one should describe the practice first, and then give the philosophy. Finally, there was much redundancy in parts (i.e., parts of the philosophy are repeated in the teachings and vice versa, so I started to delete the redundancies to clean it up).

With regard to the secte issue, I put exactly what appears on the SRCM page on this page, which is a listing of the exact facts according to the reports.

The "mind control" section is a complete point-of-view. The reports cited never mention the practice of Sahaj Marg (only SRCM) and they never say SRCM practices mind control. The only reference in the 2003 report is that some promotional materials say that during an activity at the ashram, children will learn about spirituality and meet the Master with their parents. There is nothing about mind control. Also, this section is stock full of personal opinions. For example, there is absolutely no proof that transmission causes one to become disconnected with his or her family. That may be one person's experience, but other people become more connected with their families.

The "claimed exclusive approach" is inaccurate too. I checked on the ISRC site and they advocate exactly the same methods as these. Further, the sufi groups cited as advocate similar methods. More importantly, these are "practice" elements and should not be under criticisms, so I moved the practice elements up into a practice section and made them more neutral.

Finally, the article excerpt by the Danish tabloid newspaper is selectively chosen. There are other sections in this article that are pro-Sahaj Marg. I've deleted the article excerpts (otherwise this section will be twice as long if we are to provide this excerpt and then the pro excerpt) and just offered a 1-line summary.

SETHIE -- I'm wondering if you can insert something about disputed neutrality or points-of-view in the "Teachings" section. I haven't had time to go through this carefully but it is really slanted and distorted and out of context. I'll find the quotations to balance it and still get across the points Shashwat wants, but right now it reads very hostile.

Sorry, Renee, it appears you didn't see the inuse tag, I had to write over your edits... Sfacets 09:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Renee --Renee 09:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

entire edits deleted??

Hi Folks,

I just spent about three hours carefully editing and revising and moving around sections per our long discussion, and within five minutes Sfacets reverted it back to the original!

Please help. How do we go to meditation on this?

Renee--Renee 09:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

TO SFACETS...

What is an infuse tag? I've been working for a couple of weeks trying to get consensus and a feel of what people want on this page and then the first time I actually go in and work on it all of my edits are reverted? How do I get it back to what I did? I spent all morning on this (about three hours).

Renee --Renee 09:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Sethie is not sure why Sfacets reverted all of your edits.

Not saying he agrees or disagress with Sfacets actions, Sethie would say since this page is so hotly debated doing a lot of massive edits, all at once is a bad idea. Your edits are not lost, they are here [[111]]. How about implementing a couple at a time, putting in summaries in the "edit summary" that desribes what you are doing, see if there is any objection, then put a few more in the next day. Sethie 09:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Renee, an {{inuse}} tag is used to signal other editors that a major change is underway and warns them not to make any edits for a while... you could revert me, but I would appreciate it if you would help me with the references, (adding <:ref> to the beginning of a link and <:/ref> at the end. (without the colons)... thanks, Sfacets 09:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets,

Thanks for the explanation (and you too Sethie). I'm not sure what you're asking? Could you please revert to what I wrote since we've been talking about changes for a couple of weeks now? Then, if you explain what you would like in more detail with the references I'd be glad to help.

The reason I would like to revert is that the sections previously were redundant and poorly organized, so I re-ordered a lot. (Sethie, I like your idea, but I think the whole thing needs to be re-ordered, which comes across as a major edit because sections are moved.)

Please help! I want to help all in this article but it's terribly frustrating to have worked so long on the discussion page and then finally make a move on the article page only to have it reverted.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 10:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what this article needs is bold edits, and I applaud your decision to make one - I have reverted my edits, I can always make them again... Sfacets 10:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are a saint! Thank you so much. I hope others find them a reasonable basis from which to continue the dialogue. Renee --Renee 10:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we move with one section at a time ? i am still waiting to get living dead section in the article, since this page is under discussion, and as yet, we are moving forwad but not reached a conclusion..! lets hold our pulse :) discuss first then edit ! We can start with introduction section, whatever needs to be added or removed should be discussed on Talk page first as in case of living dead, once agreed then we can move it into the section !--Shashwat pandey 10:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Shashwat,

I think the whole thing needed to be re-ordered to make a logical sense now and I agree that with this new order we can do one section at a time. Let's start talking about the living dead section you want.

I thought that previously it was selective quotations and not representative of the idea of the idea that we lose our ego and live as one with the divine. Why don't you post some text here and let's get agreement on it.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 10:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Pls go through the discussion's regarding same. I would rather propose, lets start with introduction section,[112] this was discussed before as well, however there is no issue to discuss again, (Patience is an ART and can be learnt.. :) )

This is what the intro say's currently,

Sahaj Marg (Simple Path) is a system claimed to be training in spirituality, offered by Shri Ram Chandra Mission. Sahaj Marg is a Trade-Mark first registered in India (July 21 1945) and then in USA (July 29, 1997) and is disputed by two of the factions claiming succession rights to Shri Ram Chandra Mission of Shahjahanpur (Babuji).

Do you paopose any change to it ? pls add them and lets come to a conclusion! --Shashwat pandey 10:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yikes!!! Did you revert it again?! Please revert back to the new order and then we can go step-by-step as your propose. It really needs to be re-ordered and as Sfacets noted "this article needs bold edits." Please revert back to the re-ordering I did and then we can go step-by-step.

I am acting in good faith on this and want to work with you but need your cooperation too. Let's keep the re-order and then start at the top as you want. (though I think the teachings section is what needs the most work)

Renee --Renee 11:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

TO SHASHWAT:

Here is Wiki's policy on reverts. I hope you will follow it. I would appreciate your reverting back to my edits and then I agree to reasonably discuss your changes. --Renee 11:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting

Do See also Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously. Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism. If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it. If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Do not Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.

Lets start from the beggining :) i would also like to point you to same WP:AGF. can we discuss the changes before we move into any major change in the page ? i have provided you the intro section to start with, once again lets start from the beggning, there is no point in starting in the middle, there is already a mediation process going on, on the current setup, any changes may influence that discussion as well, as both parties involved have agreed that current page is fairly balanced !. I hope you would assume good faith and allow mid-way process also to complete.

Kindly share your view's regarding the intro section, what you wish to add or remove, give a demo here, lets discuss it, agree to a point and then add it into the page !! --Shashwat pandey 11:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Shashwat,

I see you reverted it again. Please note that my work was an edit, and I didn't revert until you started going back and forth. Many have said this page needed a major re-ordering and edit, which I did. If you revert again, I will go to mediation.

I sincerely hope we can work together. Ball's in your court to act in good faith.

Renee --Renee 11:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Bold edits" i have a parallel setup ready with me, should i do that bold edit now ? and then we can move from section to section ?? however i still propose, lets start from the starting point. --Shashwat pandey 11:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

To Shashwat

Dear Shashwat,

I figured out how to re-revert the page back to the edits I did. A lot of it was moving sections so your sections on obedience to the Master and such are included under teachings. I also cleaned up claims and points of view.

Please let's work on this version since it is re-ordered and took a long time. I was simply following Don's advice about how anyone can edit and I thought we had discussed things already.

If you want to start at the top of this edit, please start a new topic and we can start there.

Renee --Renee 11:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I would still propose lets start from the beggning, as i have informed you before as well, there is a mediation process already in progress where both parties have agreed that page is fairly balanced, any major change without any discussion may influence that process as well. Kindly discuss before making any major changes, i am not putting may version of the page till now, will wait for you to understand all involved matter's in this page. Kindly refer [113] for more details about what else is going on regarding this page ! Tnx in advance !! --Shashwat pandey 11:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Shashwat,

I read the mediation page. Thanks. It seems that Sethie still agrees there's redundancy and things need to be re-ordered, which I did. I spent a lot of time trying to take into account everyone's feelings (including yours on all of the quotations, look in the teaching section now.

If you want I can join this mediation but I frankly think it's easier to just start at the top of this newly reordered page. I've started a header section below for this purpose. Please, let's work together in good faith.

THanks, Renee --Renee 11:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction section

Dear Shashwat,

Here is what is currently written for the introduction:

Sahaj Marg (Simple Path) is a meditation system offered by Shri Ram Chandra Mission. Sahaj Marg is a Trade-Mark first registered in India (July 21 1945) and then in USA (July 29, 1997) and is disputed by two of the factions claiming succession rights to Shri Ram Chandra Mission of Shahjahanpur (Babuji). [1]

The purpose of Sahaj Marg is to become one with God, one with the Ultimate. This is achieved through a daily practice consisting of a morning meditation, evening cleaning, and nighttime prayer, and recommended twice monthly meditations with a preceptor and weekly group meditations called satsangh. [2]

What is changed is the phrasing "claimed to be training in spirituality." This is grammatically incorrenct and it seems simpler to just call it a meditation system and who it is offered by (currently two groups).

The second sentence is exactly the same.

The third and fourth sentences are added to give the purpose of the system and an overview. Do you dispute these? Renee --Renee 11:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sahaj Marg (Simple Path) is a system claimed to be training in spirituality, offered by Shri Ram Chandra Mission. Sahaj Marg is a Trade-Mark first registered in India (July 21 1945) and then in USA (July 29, 1997) and is disputed by two of the factions claiming succession rights to Shri Ram Chandra Mission of Shahjahanpur (Babuji).

Meditation system ?? it is claimed to be a meditation system and for NPOV claimed is must, what you have stated is a POV push, it is not a meditation process from my POV, hence claimed to be a training in spirituality is a NPOV according to wiki policy.

I agree from training in spirituality to meditation system, but still claimed to be is must according to wiki policy of NPOV. rest of the line does not belong to intro section !! they may come into philosophy or teaching section, intro must contain information relating to registration of trade marg and their date !! why this info should be hidden in an encyclopedia article ? --Shashwat pandey 11:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Shashwat,

I made a major edit this morning after weeks of listening to and talking with people on the board, you've reverted it back three times. I appreciate your leaving it with these edits and not revert it to something earlier. We are to work together.

Regarding the first sentence above, what doesn't make sense is that Sahaj Marg doesn't claim anything. Sahaj Marg is the practice. If you want the word claim in there that's okay, but the whole practice is a meditation practice so I don't see how you can get away from that. How about:

Sahaj Marg (Simple Path) is a meditation system offered by the Shri Ram Chandra Mission, which claims to offer training training in spirituality. Sahaj Marg is a Trade-Mark first registered in India (July 21 1945) and then in USA (July 29, 1997) and is disputed by two of the factions claiming succession rights to Shri Ram Chandra Mission of Shahjahanpur (Babuji). [1]

This sentence gets in your word claims, and training in spirituality plus that it's a meditation system in a grammatically correct manner.

Renee --Renee 11:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sahaj Marg (Simple Path) is a meditation system, is a POV push, Sahaj Marg is not a meditation system from my POV, i may be allowed to state that Sahaj Marg is a mind controlling method as explained in the french report ?? i can even cite that from WP:RS, but i respect all POV's and make edits to be a NPOV. Next statement is not factualy correct !! SRCM apart from Sahaj Marg also run's various business as well. Sahaj marg is claimed to be a meditation system is what comes in accordence to wiki policy, it is a meditation process is POV of the group, it is mind control method is POV of cult watch group's and various govt. agencie's. to balance the picture on wiki, we simply state it is claimed to be meditation process i have not added view of other's in intro section !! --Shashwat pandey 11:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the word 'claimed' is on the Words to avoid per the Wikipedia manual of style. No matter what the POV, it is still a system of meditation, that is a fact... weather you adhere to the system is your own prerogative, however denying that it is something because of your views is slightly absurd. Sfacets 11:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[[114]] we have discussed usage of word claim, kindly br polite and do not address a POV as absured, it may not be absured for some other's, we need to respect all POV to achieve a NPOV. :) --Shashwat pandey 11:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the word "claimed" is point of view. It has a negative connotation. I was willing to compromise with Shashwat by incorporating both his statement (claiming to offer spiritual training) and my statement, (Sahaj Marg is a meditation system). As Sfacets points out above, like it or not it is a meditation system and there's no point of view in that. It teaches meditation from a system of beliefs.

Shashwat, you have to be willing to compromise if this is going to work. You're just putting in your same information without considering the other viewpoint. On top of that, what you propose is grammatically incorrect and doesn't make sense in English.

I've made the change in the current posting to reflect both our points-of-view. Can we move on to the second paragraph? I've also changed this to say "according to" so it's sourced accurately.

Renee --Renee 12:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Claimed is not a negative connotation but its usage balancs both POV, as your POV is it is definatly a meditation system, however my POV is it is definatly not a meditation system but condition's mind of its member's. how do we balance it? one way is we can say it is claimed to be or reported as a mind control method. (I will not do this) better option, it is claimed to be a meditation system. the word claim balances both POV, as i do not agree it to be a meditation process --Shashwat pandey 13:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Pls note we are discussion the intro section as of now, kindly do not make any changes in the content while discussion is in progress. Its first time you have disucssed about the content of the page... lets come to a conclusion first, wiki is a long term project, as we must learn to wait. else we are heading towards an edit war. kindly consider the fact that there is amediation process already in progress, you may wish to wait and see the outcome of that as well, before heading into any major changes. Have patience. --Shashwat pandey 13:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Shashwat, Please note that you are receiving a vandalism warning for your immediate reversions to your original page. Why is it okay for you to make changes and have no one revert them, but if someone else makes changes you immediately revert. This is being reported to the administrators.

Renee --Renee 13:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted again, I think it is better that we start from this version, and if people have issues with it, they should raise them here, so consensus can be reached on what should be done. Sfacets 13:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, I agree with you. But, it seems that Shashwat reverted again, something like NINE times today. How do we get an administrator involved? Thanks, Renee --Renee 14:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Renee,

You act [115] comes under perview of act in bad faith. Pls refrain from such acts.

Sfacts, Any major change is not acceptable before the discussion is over, in betwen discussion any edit is not permissible and is also not an act of faith in talk page. lets come to a conclusion before we make any major change. we have not yet agreed to intro section which was changed, why initial section should not be discussed, but later edit ? should i also do same, should i also come up with my version and ask to start discussion from there ?

kindly revert your changes. We should discuss from what the page was before and not what it becomes while discussion is in progress ! Thanks --Shashwat pandey 13:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

TO Sfacets and Sethie

Dear Sfacets and Sethie,

As you have read, I worked today to make good faith efforts to re-order and edit the Sahaj Marg page, including leaving in all of the (in my opinion) hostile point of view text on teachings, etc.

Immediately after changing it, Shashwat Pandey reverted it to his original version, not even reading or going through my edits.

Being new to Wiki I thought it was a mistake with my computer so I kept resaving it, thinking it must be some automatic program with his computer, but NINE times today he reverted it back to his original.

On the talk page, I also made good-faith efforts to incorporate his statements about "claiming" for spiritual training, even though the grammar is wrong and I don't agree. I was trying to compromise.

I don't believe Shashwat can act in good faith and compromise. Even though Sahaj Marg is a meditation system and that's what the practice is, he refuses to even agree that it is a meditation system and argues that that's my point of view.

I searched the Wiki policies on vandalism and the 3-revert rule. On the former, it says that we (which I took to mean individual editors) had to post three warnings on that user's page before Wiki administrators will take action, so I posted the first warning. (I actually have no idea if this is correct; I was trying to follow policy.)

Also, I've tried to post a message to the administrators about violation of the 3-revert rule.

At this point, can I request that Shashwat Pandey is blocked so I can make progress with 4-d Don and others?

Any advice is appreciated.

Renee

p.s. Sfacets, I saw that Shashwat reverted your reversion as well (which really was a good faith edit).

--Renee 13:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Renee,

Knowing very well that page is under mediation, having spent more then two week's researching wiki policy, acn you kindly explain that why you didn't sign you warning on my talk page ? Pls discuss your POV and then make any major edits. it is not possible to keep changing point of discussion while we are mid-way in a discussion, then we have to start again, i have not put my version to start discussion from that point. same is what i expect from you, lets discuss what already is there. We both cannot first put our POV in article and say lets discuss... makes no sense. I humble request is once again same, lets start from the beggning. we cannot put our POV between a discussion and ask all to start discussion from there. I hope you will consider all editor's before putting your POV into any page. make it an objective throughout wiki, not only this perticlar page.

--Shashwat pandey 14:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat, please see post above where I say I am marking your page for vandalism and then did that, and I posted on your page and added a note. Both Sfacets and I have tried to make progress on these edits today but you seem to think only you are allowed to edit the page. If we do anything you revert it back. If you want to act in good faith, please revert back to the edits I did (not your original page which has been static) and then we can work together. At this point I think it's best to get administrators involved. Renee --Renee 14:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am not an admin, nor even very experienced at Wiki editing, but I do have a little experience in a similar conflict. If you want, I could perhaps try to help, based on what I have learned elsewhere. Otherwise, by all means tell me to go away. (And I will.) Rumiton 14:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Renee,

Your act of bad faith and subsequent, act of manipulation Please note that you are receiving a vandalism warning will serve no purpose :).

I have request you again and again, this page is already under mediation with an highly skilled and experienced administrator. Kindly no not make any major changes in the page which might influence the process already under progress. Kindly wait for outcome that process thereafter if you do not agree, we can countinue discussing. We need to discuss before we make any changes in any page, which is controvertial and have many people involved in it.

My request to you still remains same, have patience, if there is something wrong, and can be established such in an open forum like wiki, it will be reverted back, community always helps. Just consider my state, i have waited for more then one month to get living dead section (just one para) into the main article and you are changing complete page altogather without even considering to discsuss whatever is already present ?

You can either wait for the mediation process to complete, or we can discuss section by section, one by one, from what is present, else i may also be allowed to present my version of page and ask to discuss from that version onwards. lets maintain status-quo for sometime.

Thanks in advance for your kind consideration !!--Shashwat pandey 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Shashwat, You have allowed Don to make changes and you have made changes and then when I do changes we have been discussing for two weeks you revert nine times. Please avoid the personal attacks as you did above. Both Sfacets and I prefer to work off the re-ordered page, which still includes most of your text so I don't see what the problem is. Plus, when I proposed a compromise you didn't even agree to that, so I think you have not demonstrated a willingness to work together. Please revert (on your own, without administrator insistence) to the edits I did this morning (and to which Sfacets says he prefers to start working from and reverted to himself) and then we can move together agreeably.

Renee --Renee 16:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My request to you is once again same, the page in its current form, is under mediation, and has lot of people involved in it, lets have enough patience and show faith in community. There will be some outcome of current mediation process, so lets wait for that decision, request for mediation has been accepted by the community, and beleive me, there are lot many eye's looking at this page currently.

Lets see what is the outcome of current madiation process, we can always change the content, wiki is dynamic in nature.However what i am looking at currently is, long term stability of the page, which can be achieved after an agreement is reached between all the parties involved. I hope that you will show faith in community and wait for its decision. it is just a matter of few day's. Current setup is what we are talking about in the mediation process, if you change the page altogether that process may be influenced. consider that also. Thanks in advance for your kind consideration :) --Shashwat pandey 16:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat,

Your mediation is with Sethie, not with me. Also, you have personally attacked me which is against Wiki guidelines. Per the policy I warned you in this talk page, and then I posted the vandalism sign plus a signed note on your talk page. I've been fully honest with you and you are trying to distort these facts as well.

Again, I EDITED the piece per encouragment from others. I did not remove your selectively chosen text to represent your point of view (moved it around) and I made the piece grammatically correct. It would be so easy for you to move forward and revert it to the edits I did, instead of reverting back to only your edits. This page is a collaboration, and right now you are choosing not to collaborate with my or Sfacets, who wishes to work on the edited page that's logically and grammatically in better shape (nothing against you, just a re-ordering).

Please revert to the edits I did this morning as a step of good-faith of moving forward. Please note that I edited the piece after much discussion and you simply reverted it back to what YOU did, without consideration for other people's edits. Please act in good faith and make a positive move forward.

Renee --Renee 17:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to take on section by section approach, mediation process is not with any perticular person, but is regarding content of this page! in my openion, it would be a better idea to allow one process to complete and then we can always come back to discuss further, in either of the cases i am open to discuss. But there cannot be any condition for discussion that i will first make changes and then discuss. On the same page, it was agreed between myself, sethie, don will beback (an admin) that editor's will first discuss their POV on talk page and after concensus is achieved, change the content of the page, where concensus is not achieved, we have mediation process.

Large change's such as what you did, is not acceptable for a controvertial topic like this, given the fact, that there are may processes involved. Minor changes can be accpeted, but overhouling of the entire setup, may result in myself also doing the same, then ? are you willing to start discussion from my version of the page ? if not then we should discuss what is present currently, if yes then let me know i will change the content. what is your view regading this ? shall we pick up intro section again ? kindly be patient, and allow everyone to share their POV. If we take time and agree to section by section approach, only in that condition long term stability of the page can be achieved. otherwise it will always be under threat of constant tourmoil, edited every hour. Kindly draft intro section here, I may be busy with some other work for few hrs now. will respond to your draft after some time, as a refernce to what i am proposing you can refer to living dead section once again, we will follow same approach what we have been following till now.

Thanks for your understanding.--Shashwat pandey 17:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Kindly refer [116]. I would humbly request you to be patient, and allow one process to complete. Thanks for your understanding and co-operation.--Shashwat pandey 17:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat, What is currently up is grammatically incorrect and poorly organized. Please look at my most recent edit and let's post that (talks about the intro, the practice, and the transmission) and leave the teachings sections for later. Then we can talk. Right now you're not agreeing to anything! You're just saying leave it until you're done with meditation with Sethie and that's not fair. So, let's start at the beginning that I posted that incorporated your suggestion as well as others.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 17:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The Introduction Section

Agreed, wiki is dynamic, and we need to accept all POV, i am willing to discuss the intro section that you have provided.

here it goes....

Sahaj Marg (Simple Path) is a meditation system offered by the Shri Ram Chandra Mission, which claims to offer training training in spirituality. Sahaj Marg is a Trade-Mark first registered in India (July 21 1945) and then in USA (July 29, 1997) and is disputed by two of the factions claiming succession rights to Shri Ram Chandra Mission of Shahjahanpur (Babuji). [1]

My argument is:-

1. Sahaj Marg as whole is not a meditation system as such, accepted defination (on wiki) of meditation turning the attention inward to the mind itself and also a state that is experienced when the mind dissolves and is free of all thoughts whereas in Sahaj Marg, transmission is something that happens between preceptor and/or the leader and the member, cleaning is the process where one imegines smoke is going out from back, and sitting is where you think of some divine light along with preceptor. So in essense it is not meditation as meditation is normally (on wiki) understood. in totally it can be summed up as a spiritual practice, now if this is spiritual practice it would not have been questioned.. but the method has been questioned by cult watch groups and few govt. reports, hence inorder to maintain NPOV we need to add the word claimed while stating it as spiritual practice.

2. SRCM does offer Sahaj Marg, there is no question about it. it cannot be stated as claims to offer this statement is false as it is SRCM only which offer's Sahaj Marg.

3. Rest of the para is accepted.--Shashwat pandey 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat, It doesn't make sense to deny that Sahaj Marg is a meditation system. Meditation means focusing on one thing, and there are many different forms. (i.e., holding the attention on one thing -- in cleaning, it's focusing on replacing the day's events with divine light, in group and individual meditations, it's focusing on divine light) Some meditation systems have one focus on a mantra, others on breathing techniques, others on points of the body. The key definition is focusing one's attention on one thing.

I'm okay with dropping the "claims to offer" from the text.

Renee --Renee 07:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi and all..

The MERGER debate has surface many times and has been rejected over and over by all... So let us not re-debate that issue, please. The SRCM is the "disputed SOCIETY" owner of SAHAJ MARG, the technique (the product). One is a political structure and one is a "spiritual/religious" technique. Many new editor comes up with that "solution" that has already been attempted and "deleted" in the end after much time expended and wasted.

The merged article would be so complex and long that it would never get concensus...Two factions, court cases, many allegations, many accusations, unverifiable claims in the technique, etc.. etc...

I will be gone for a month or so, on family matters and will not be available for edits and comments and discussion... So the length of the debate will be much "reduced". (fewer "diatribes") I just sound so good....lol ;-))

Have a good month and see you all later...

NOW, get along and be kind to one another, or I'll call in your FATHER!!...lol ;-))

Renee, be patient with your brother... Shashwat, be kind and compassionate with your sister...ALL, keep the "name calling and insults" to a minimum... It's such a beautiful world out there...

Don--don 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason this article suffers from NPOV, OR and lack of sources, is because it is too long. Both articles are on the same subject and can and should be summarized in a short, concise, well sourced, and neutral in tone artivcle. It can be done, but it will require letting go from the notion that any side in this dispute will prevail with their favorite version. Most both sides can expect, is to have an article that you can live with. And that is possible if the article is paired down to the basics: an informative article on this subject, that our readers may want to read. The article should not be a propaganda piece, neither it should be a hatchet job. This is an encyclopedia. I am restoring the merge tags, and if you need help in merging these two articles, please ask. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Starting Afresh

Hi Folks,

Okay, it seems that we are able to start from the newly re-organized piece.

Please give your feedback on the re-ordered and revised piece up until the teachings. (The text after the teachings section has not been revised and in fact, other parts were moved to this. IMO it still reads strongly from a specific point of view, but shall we agree on the parts up to that point first and then work on that?)

I've tried to take in Jossi's points above that it's too long, so up to the teachings section, you'll see I tried to make it very short and factual.

I wonder if we should just cut the whole "teachings" section since that's the most contested and really, because they are designed to promote a point-of-view perhaps they'd be better on blogs where people can continue to build their case?

Thanks, Renee --Renee 06:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

Hi Folks,

This page is getting very long. Should we archive it and start afresh?

Renee --Renee 06:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

first paragraph

Shashwat,

I notice you just did SIX changes in an hour without any discussion. This is not Wiki policy and is not in the collaborative nature of Wiki.

Regarding the first paragraph, - you said yourself that you didn't want the word "claims" above in the introduction section - it is against Wiki policy to use the word, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid - it is grammatically incorrect and akward

Can we all agree (Sfacets already did) that we simply say "Sahaj Marg is a meditation system..." I understand, Shashwat, it's a meditation system you fiercely dislike, but that doesn't not make it a meditation system.

Regarding the philosophy paragraph, I see you unilaterally moved it. The philosophy section should go after the description of the practice. Also, it represents your strong point-of-view about the leader, when this is mis-represented here (and your POV comes across because you put leader in every word). You've done the same thing for constant remembrance which is false. I can provide many quotations from both Babuji and Chariji that constant remembrance is remembering the divine essence. If it helps, you can remember the master as a representation of the divine essence, but that's one of many options and you present it as the only option, which is a selective distortion of the facts.

Renee --Renee 09:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Dear All,

I re-edited the sections on the leader to make them more neutral. Shashwat strongly wants the leader in there so I added "divine essence" and that the leader represents the divine, in the philosophy section.

Also, the obedience section belongs in the teachings. It doesn't make sense to have it before the practice. This ordering reflects a point-of-view where this is meant simply to be an encyclopedic entry.

I think transmission should be moved it, because it helps to explain the practice more.

Comments and discussion welcome!

Renee --Renee 09:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To Jossi

Dear Jossi,

Do you still think the article is too long up to the section on "masters and leadership?" We've tried to reduce it substantially and make it more neutral.

Also, I tend to agree with Don that the two pages, Shri Ram Chandra Mission and Sahaj Marg should not be merged. One represents a meditation practice that multiple groups use as their basis, where as the Mission is a governing organization of just one of the groups.

Advice is welcome.

Renee --Renee 09:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee,

I left a reply on my userpage for you. I can only echo Jossi's comments above. If you both can settle for something that is not what you would have wanted, but is something you can live with, there is plenty of hope here. Revert wars are very wearing on all concerned, and don't get tolerated in Wikipedia for long. People get banned. Do you have specific references to the subject by respected sources? This is necessary, as otherwise you have only opinions and interpretations to work with. Rumiton 09:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rumiton. I've tried inserting references where possible in the document (again, I haven't worked on the teachings which I agree are long and rambling and represent a specific point-of-view). Do you think it reads okay up to the masters and leadership section? I've tried leaving in Shashwat's strong POV regarding the leader and then adding divine essence which is (according to Sahaj Marg) what the leader represents, but I can live with what's written up to the masters and leadership section. Thanks, Renee --Renee 10:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I will join the discussion soon !! --Shashwat pandey 10:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the earlier section still needs quite a bit of work. It seems to be written in an Anglo-Indian style that has its own charm, but which looks out of place in an English-language encyclopedia. The definite article ('the') is sometimes missing and other semantic peculiarities obscure the meaning. For example, what exactly is under dispute? Is it the ownership of the Sahaj Marg trademark (sic)? Or are there other more tangible assets? You must remember you are writing for a reader who knows nothing of the organisation or its history. Also there are some misspellings (California.) Maybe you might first download the text to a Word Processor and do a spell check, then paste it back in. Then we can look further at the writing style. Cheers, and don't give up. Rumiton 10:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rumiton, Yes, I can see your points. It seems that it was originally written by a non-native English speaker. Once we hear from Shashwat I can go in and clean it up in terms of flow and grammar, Thanks, Renee --Renee 11:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you could do that immediately. It is not the article that is under mediation, it is two of the editors. They have an obligation to report interim changes to the mediator, but cleaning up the article should be done regardless. Rumiton 11:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton,

This was tougher than I thought. There was a lot of redundancy so I deleted things when they were said twice. Also, I went back and reread most of this talk page and tried to take Sethie's points into account about accurately having the text reflect the citations. There was one citation that was a google translation of a personal page so I cut that.

I had to move the Constant Remembrance section to the Practice section, because it doesn't make sense to have it before the practice section when it's part of the practice (and honestly, it was put there to promote a POV about focusing on the leader).

I have no idea why the blurb about Babuji appears (the no philosophy talk) and wonder if it should be cut? Please advise? It seems really out of place.

Finally, in the masters and leadership section, I took out the allegations, as according to Wiki policy, we cannot post allegations, but only the facts. (Otherwise, anyone could allege anything they want. It was to be proven in a court of law.) What are the facts is that the case for who controls the name SRCM is in dispute. I have found court cases so far that showed the SRCM-Cal has won in all of the lower courts and that they proved the other side committed forgery. Having said this, I don't think this stuff belongs on the Sahaj Marg practice page but on the SRCM page (which I haven't even begun to work on yet).

I think everyone's in agreement that the Sahaj Marg practice page should focus just on the practice and not the various organizations associated with it.

Renee --Renee 16:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Grammar & Flow Clean-up

Hi Folks,

Per Rumiton's and Sfacets previous comments, I'll go in and clean up the grammar and flow of the piece up to the teachings portion.

Do people think the long teachings sections belong here?

I'd vote to delete all of it. Here are the reasons:

- the way the quotations are selectively pulled is meant to push a specific POV

- the way the topics are selectively chosen is meant to push a specific POV

- the way the sections are written is long, rambling, poor grammatically, and again, meant to push a POV

I think that all of this can be deleted without losing anything in the article. It all belongs on a blog anyways.

Comments?

Renee --Renee 14:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The intro section

Sahaj Marg according to the leader of the group is a system of obedience and not meditation, the leader has clearly said that obedience is first criteria for Sahaj Marg, as he feel that there have been many who have meditated for thousands of yrs and have failed. hence it cannot be stated as system of meditation when the group leader himself say's it is about obedience !!!

Regarding trade mark, it has been first registered as trade mark only, Sahaj marg is not an organization but SRCM is, dispute was regarding Sahaj marg and not SRCM, hence that statement is also false that Sahaj Marg is registered as organization, it is not. see the provided refrence for details.--Shashwat pandey 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat, Please review the websites and the articles. Sahaj Marg is clearly a meditation system (see the rest of the Wiki article for that matter, it focuses on the practice of Sahaj Marg through various meditation techniques.

No where does any literature say that Sahaj Marg is a "system of obedience." You have selectively chosen text to promote a specific POV that we have discussed previously.

I have left in much of your POV about the leader, but to deny that Sahaj Marg is a meditation system is unreasonable, and will be reported.

Regarding the trademark, I think you are correct. According to the research I did, SRCM (NOT Sahaj Marg) was first registered as an organization in India, and then according to your research was it the words "Sahaj Marg" or was it the SRCM that was trademarked in the US? This is an important distinction.

Renee --Renee 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat,

I just say your most recent unilateral changes on the article, where you state: "The goal of the Sahaj Marg practice is to become one with divine, represent by the leader involved in various criminal/acts of violence and forgery activities."

This represents another flagrant POV violation, along with the one I noted above, where you replaced "a system of meditation" with "a system of obedience to the leader."

On top of it, in the first paragraph alone under "Philosophy" that you just changed, there are FIVE grammatical/spelling errors. (And I just cleaned up all of the grammar and spelling per Rumiton's suggestion.)

I am reporting this further abuse of the Wiki system.

Renee --Renee 19:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive created --Renee 08:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)