![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Folks, Here's a dissertation on the history of Sahaj Marg. This would be a great, neutral, secondary source if we could find it. (Dissertations have to go through rigorous review of committee members, presentation to faculty and incorporation of comments, etc.) I've searched and all I get is the abstract.
Yogic transmission in Sahaj Marg of the Shri Ram Chandra mission: A religio-historical study, by Naidoo, Priyadarshini, M.A., University of South Africa (South Africa), 1995; AAT 0666936
Abstract (Summary) In this dissertation the phenomenological method together with the hermeneutical concepts of experience, devotion, constant remembrance and transmission focus on yogic transmission in Sahaj Marg of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission. Sahaj Marg is an adaptation of Raja Yoga. Sahaj Marg emphasises the practical approach and calls for the aspirant to follow the teachings and methods of the spiritual Master. Yogic transmission is the unique feature of this system. Preceptors have been trained by the Master to aid in the spiritual evolution of humanity. Pranahuti is defined by he Master as a forceless force for the spiritual transformation of humanity. This system can be followed by all aspirants, the only qualification being a willingness to follow the practice. Sahaj Marg has been created for the present day aspirant to achieve liberation in the quickest time possible.
I've searched the UNISA site and they don't seem to offer full texts of dissertations that far back. Any ideas? Renee ( talk) 05:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Renee
A dissertation, also called a "thesis" is a Publication reporting original research that is a requirement for a Ph.D. degree.
If a member of SRCM does his doctorate thesis on Sahaj Marg that is OK but wether is is acceptable as "original research" is clearly mentionned in the WIKI GUIDELINES...
It is no more credible than an article by a member in a "commercial rag"...and is just another POV by a member...The reviewers of the thesis will not judge on the "efficacy" or 'truth" of Sahaj Marg but on the "DISSERTATION" or the THESIS. It will not judge wether this meditation takes one to GOD...or the morality, ethics or SRCM. You can bet that if this person is a member, he will not mention any "negative" impact of anything to do with Sahaj Marg and as thus is not "at arm's lenght" and is not any more credible that a report by a member, in a University Newspaper.
4d-Don-- don ( talk) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Duty2love...
On one hand you say that we can't claim to know the TRUTH and then you go about claiming the the OPINIONS of 2 are not TRUE and should be "dismissed"...the larger the group does not make the MORE THE TRUTH. You use extremes to PROVE THE TRUTH...
This is a NEWSPAPER REPORT in a REPUTABLE Newspapers, and the journalist is not PUTTING OUT HIS POV but is REPORTING as an "arm's length" journalist...Do you mean, that it is a PRIMARY source and hence not TRUE? Or NOT WIKI ACCEPTABLE to be included in the ARTICLE...This is something that was done by SRCM members and is reported by a "secondary" source...WIKI says that is Acceptable...
I will repost it and hope that Sethie, showing good faith, will not delete it as it is not my POV but an article in a REPUTABLE NEWSPAPER, the content of which should be in the "controversies" section of the ARTICLE...because it is WIKI acceptable...It should at least be "discussed" here in the OPEN...
THE ARTICLES
Sethie...
Since I don't accept that NEWSPAPER articles are PRIMARY as per WIKI, then I am asking that you not erase this post so others may openly give their opinions as to wether these article are written by the PRIMARY SOURCE or is it from "interviewing" of people and the reporter is a "second or third" source, not PRIMARY as most newspaper articles are...
PLEASE don't erase so others may read and see that the reporter was on the scene, after the fact and was "interviewing" the actors...so not PRIMARY as per WIKI...Please show "good faith" ...
ALL EDITORS...
Could we get a broader input than only one editors on this site on:
Are the articles covered by these two respectable newspapers WIKI acceptable according to a "WIKI court of OPINION"? Are they PRIMARY or SECONDARY using COMMON SENSE as per WIKI. Read the PRIMARY Source GUIDELINES and discuss below...
Dainik Jagran dated 8th Nov 2003
Dainik Jagran [Dainik Jagran] is the most read newspaper in India. See this WIKI artice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper or this one: [Hindustan]
Thanks all for your comments!!
4d-don-- don ( talk) 17:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
To all...
Embhee...
You should wait and see the "original" before "judging" or you "pre-judge" called "prejudice"... It's good that Questions come to mind as "COMMON SENSE" demand thinking...Some part of the article may need confirmation, and some may not, but that is the nature of WIKI or "ENCYLOPEDIA" writing... It takes time and as a retired person, I have it...I hope you do...
I will contact the newspapers and attempt to get a "link" from them for the articles and PHOTOGRAPHS, so as to confirm the veracity of the incidents ... I am reading about some more such incidents at Karnataka, from Chari' s own words and verifying them also. In these articles, "they also have "pictures" so the credibility will be "VISIBLE"...Since the Supreme Court of India JUDGEMENT, Navneet has put this out: At last Chari, Uma Shankar Bajpai and 6 others have been charge sheeted for the criminal offence of tresspassing into the Ashram on 2nd June 2006. Their non-bailable warrants are being issued for the same from the lower court three days back. Navneet
So there will be "court" confirmation of the event soon...
Renee
To want to see the "original article" is legitimate, but to state that: Logically, if the events described really happened, they would be covered in an English language paper. The alleged events were three years apart. Can you provide secondary English language sources that covered each event? That might justify serious discussion.
That is not "logical" at all and/or show a "skewed" sense of logic. It is almost "insulting" to other "nationalities", who want to use "THEIR" language in their country and still remain "CREDIBLE". English is not the STANDARD of CREDIBILITY. These are "secondary" sources in HINDI and as such, can be deemed to be credible after viewing the ORIGINAL version and checking the Translation I offered... It was not mine so I can't comment on it...but as with most "faith-based" groups, I am sure you can find a translator you TRUST...
"Tabloids" are now the FORMAT of Many NEWSPAPERS and is not a standard of crediblity but a format for easy reading in a bus, train etc...as opposed to a "long sheet" which is the "OLD" FORMAT... As a matter of fact, the sources you mention in the articles already are probably "TABLOIDS"... should we check and take them OUT?
It could take some time to get a reply from the newspapers so "talk among yourselves" and...
Keep laughing because it's not FUNNY!! ;-))
4d-don-- don ( talk) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Don,
Since you have no other means to confirm, reading up the language of the articles you posted, I have serious doubts on the authenticity of these events. Simply because something is printed in paper, doesn't make it a truth. I am from India and having some friends and family members working in media, I know how possible it is to get anything printed, especially in local editions of newspapers of small towns. We see this happening all the time for political reasons. And looks like these are from local edition and not the national edition, that's why I asked you the edition, to which you didn't reply. You may see the kinds of complaints Press Council of India gets all the time
here.
Please stop posting things which you yourself are not sure of (since you are not from that country and my assumption here is you don't know Hindi), which has no credible source and which looks very much like an attempt to do libel and defamation WP:LIBEL, which has been constantly done for this topic, by the same handful number of people, of which even Wikipedia has the history. If you are really interested in the entire article then can we first focus on more solid and credible sources, if not then please speak up? Duty2love ( talk) 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)\
Don-
End of story. Sethie ( talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Duty2love
There are TWO newspapers in question... are LIFESTYLE Magazines, University Newspapers, dissertations, not of the same credibility? But here there are TWO SOURCES, not only ONE!!
I am attemting to get a link to the newspapers (with translations) in question. Apparently, the same "writing an article promoting a point of view" can happen in all newspapers, Advertising rags, (that promote a LIFESTYLE such as YOGA), and dissertations, thesis, and magazines such as the ones which are presented as "credible" and WIKI acceptable in this article... If I can't get something credible (according to the BROADER WIKI membership) It will not make it to that article...but we should be able to discuss it in WIKI "assume good faith" and fairness guidelines... If I get a "link" I will discuss it here as per WIKI guidlines...
Your accusations of "attempts to libel or defame" are POV and "soapboxing" but no one here will STOP you, not even me...That is not a game I PLAY... Maybe I should have you "blocked" as some here do. ;-)) You have a right to your opinion...I will protect your right to voice it here in discussion. This is not the first time I handle "controversy" and I am still a FREE man, no court found me GUILTY yet..
4d-Don-- don ( talk) 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie...
I am aware or the RED FLAG and I think that a "secondary" at-arm's length source (another newspaper) makes this one WIKI acceptable. If I get a link to the "original" with "translation" that is from the two (2)newspapers with photographs (and names). Plus, there is now a court case regarding this whole matter, naming Chari and 6 other members of the SRCM, according to Navneet, the Founder of SRCM's grandson. There will be a "judgement" in that case by then also (I hope). But we have time. I will present it again on this discussion page and as many on this page have a POV and/or an "ax to grind", I will also present it to a more NEUTRAL Broader WIKI Community as I will do with the "FRENCH" reports (2) and the Belgian site (1).
That should be WIKI acceptable and NPOV!
4d-don-- don ( talk) 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Folks, I suggest we delete this line: The practice of Sahaj Marg is recommended for those 18 years of age and older [8] and is free.[9] It doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Any objections? Renee ( talk) 05:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree - Let's do this before Don launches into another 5000-word rambling tirade (with every THIRD word in CAPS) about the "free" part. :)
I definitely think the free phrase should go because its controversial acc. to Don. The 18 and older part adds no value really. Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 05:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie
"THAT" means that you know I answered you on your talk page. If that "insults" you then your comment suggesting that I did not reply, or "I would ask others to reframe from dialogueing with Don as well until he has been open and honest about that" should be covered by the same "STANDARD" and it is, but you apply the standard differently for some, such as Shashwat and others including 4d-don. I don't care either way...You are allowed your POV and "soapboxing" but as an admin, you should try and be concensual with all, and seek concensus from all, not just some.
I guess some of you don't want the fact that SRCM is targeting children to be included (even as a gentle warning of under 18). Some of the PR material quotes children as young as 9yrs old "meditating" at their schools. Is SRCM PR material "wiki Acceptable"? SRCM is also one of the few groups mentionned in the Mivilludes Report of the French Government also (specifically as relating to children) and MIVILLUDES is the report that is to be used in "conjunction" with the 1995 report which is now deemed "less and less pertinent" (of course), but still used "in conjunction with the MIVILLUDES report, according the the Sources discussed above (Prime Minister Raffarin's Report).
There is not concensus here, but does that matter? (These reports are in French...Is French credible? Are any other languages? What about French NEWSPAPER ARTICLES? Are they Acceptable here? There are many of those and I can understand them and translate.
4d-Don--
don (
talk)
18:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this short enough for you? This is put out by [ Santosh's family Group]: Is it not Acccurate? This is more [ PR from SRCM] This is from another [ PR site]
Sahaj Marg Meditation is MEDITATION so the report is NPOV and covers all MEDITATION...
Babuji's limit on age is also in your Literature that you have already bought so can be read and added to the "sources"...Is Babuji still a Master of SRCM (Chennai)? His name and picture is still in the PR. Do you have any instructions from Chari that removes the age stipulation by Babuji?
The safeguard was to protect the children from "endoctrination" before the AGE of REASON, which some manipulative groups want to ignore. Some governments in some countries take NOTE of such groups who target children, and include them in REPORTS by commissions, specially when the groups are "foreigners".
4d-don-- don ( talk) 21:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Friends: After doing some reading on the topic under discussion, I feel that is that it is good to have this point mentioned about the age "recommendation". These days in the Internet, kids are "surfing" more than adults! I think this single sentence will help.
Renee: Can you please explain what you mean when by saying "It doesn't sound very encyclopedic". I guess that was the root cause why this was deleted. If you want to re-structure the sentence, that would be good.
Don: I feel the reference you have for this line is not needed. If people want to know why meditation is not recommended for age below 18, they can figure it out in other places. Embhee ( talk) 00:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
All (except those who obey above divisive "recommendations"
Cultfreeworld, talk-to-me, Shashwat, (some think they are the same person) and even Babuji (the Founder), and many more from SRCM (Shahjahanpur) agree with me...Age limit should be left in...Take my word for it or ask them, as we are supposed to believe other such statements above ... ;-))
4d-Don-- don ( talk) 17:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the page. Please don't engage in edit warring. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
My answers to Marathi: For point 1, I agree that this single sentence looks odd in the article, but I do not agree that this fact about age recommendation is not needed. I still feel that age recommendation is an important thing to have but at this stage, it is not fitting well with the article. For point 2, I totally agree. There is no need for that reference to be mentioned as part of that sentence. Oh well, anyways, the sentence has been removed and the page protected. So, it does not matter, at least for the next few days!!! If the consensus is to not mention age recommendation in the article, I am fine with it. The Earth will still keep rotating, whether that sentence is present in the Wiki or not. So I am happy. Embhee ( talk) 23:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
To all...
The reason 4d-don is (allegedly) the only dissenting ACTIVE voice on this page is because of the tactics used by this group with the support of one "admin". They (some that I contacted) are reading and waiting for less of a "time waster", they claim, such as "mediation" or "numbers" (voting?... (as duty2love mentionned above). Maybe, such as VOTING on the ISSUE! If it's just a case of "the biggest gang" bullies the others into submission, then so be it... (there are four of you and an admin, and only ONE of me, according to you.
Those who allege that Shashwat, CFW and Talk-to-me are ONE, also think that 4d-don is Shashwat, and that is just another divisive POV and not a very "respectful" one at that (as per WIKI). It is just a tactic, to get some "frustration comment" that can be used to have me "blocked" as we have witnessed with your divisive tactics with Shashwat. If anyone has PROOF, put it to the WIKI board and get it over with and stop your "inuendoes"... and attempt seriously at "CONCENSUS"... everyone here is an individual "ID" and is to be dealt with as such with respect as per WIKI (good faith).
So as not to waste our time "arguing" and "blocking" of dissenting voices, and since there is no possible "concensus" with those who chose to interpret the "Guideline" as "dogmatic" rules without COMMON SENSE, thus, without the need or the possibility for concensus, but just to then "BULLY" their way with the help of an "admin", then I am discussing with others (admins) on the other processes available so as to present a FAIR article that is not another PR site for SRCM or and the Practice of Sahaj Marg, without a warning about "AGE LIMIT", as it is now, and as was it was placed by the FOUNDER!... or without "controversies" (which is a falsehood by omissions and not "encyclopedic" but PR)
We will take one issue at a time to a "broader" community and use our time that way...
The Laws of the INTELLECT OF MAN will DECIDE! Or we will consider WIKI another victim of NUMBERS?
The last issue is : Sahaj Marg is only recommended for those above 18 years of age.. You (five) don't want it in. WE DO!
4d-don-- don ( talk) 16:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Folks, The dissertation thread got kind of lost so I'll repeat my question here -- has anyone else had any success in getting this dissertation from the University of South Africa?
I tried through my inter-library loan and they were not able to do it. Thanks, Renee ( talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie...
Your "disapointing pattern" is your emotional POV...keep it to yourself or "erase" your own words...to be FAIR! Since you erase other streams of conversation you deem Un-acceptable (un-biased?)... Erase yours also...or don't then feign "un-provoked" emotional POV by others who don't agree with you.
For someone who thinks that WIKI does not allow material that is part of this group's PR and/or that is printed in their own BOOKS (so WIKI), as "not acceptable" as PER WIKI, then your ability to judge "accurate" is not impressive...you don't seem to notice your own "inuendos" and "tone", so...? here's a "mirror"!
I will take this issue and others (age limit, Government Reports, etc...) to MEDIATION, to a "BROADER WIKI COMMUNITY" than your (and Renee's) interpretation. I have passed this issue by "MANY" Wikipedians, since it happened and they will come forward at the proper time, so they don't waste their time arguing ad nauseum with such a "non-concensual" group with a "conflict of Interest" as per WIKI. THEY WANT TO VOTE, Comment, and get on with their lives. If I am wrong, I will not get much support and I will CHANGE tactic. Maybe move to DELETE the article?... but I won't leave because of "BULLYING" or "intimidation", or threats of "BLOCKING".
Renee...I did not erase your post... I don't do that...if it was erased, blame the technology or one of you, who does that "willy-nilly" to those who don't agree with you, or simply to hide the facts... so as to reach concensus as per WIKI?...Maybe it was GOD or Babuji? lol ;-))
You gotta laugh, b'cause it ain't funny!
Keep on the Sunny Side of LIFE!
4d-don-- don ( talk) 14:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Dissertations are ORIGINAL RESEARCH...
According to [ WIKI], they are not acceptable and are PRIMARY Source according to University of North Florida here [ UNF]... And if this is by a MEMBER OF SRCM, it is even a CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and not CREDIBLE at all...
What is Original Research?
Original research is considered a primary source.
An article is considered original research if ...
* the author or authors of a study or experiment describe their hypothesis and the purpose of the study. * the researchers detail their research methods. * the results of the research are reported. * the researchers interpret their results and discuss possible implications.
Maybe Sethie can explain WIKI Guidelines on "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" to you....
4d-don-- don ( talk) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie...
Stop making accusations of "disappointing patterns" or other of your POV's on this "discussion page" as per Wiki "Good faith", and muzzle the others as you attempt to do with "US".....and then you won't see any accusations of anything by me..
I will take it to Mediation when all who are on our team are ready and have agreed with the action to take...
Some have not had a chance to comment yet but are reading this page... Everyone is busy and many have other things to do but it will get resolved when WE decide... Patience donkey! We have nothing but TIME! I have been at this for years...And I will be here for years yet, Babuji Willing!! (that means God willing to some) ;-))
Have a Good day...
4d-don-- don ( talk) 15:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised that this suggestion has spawned so much discussion, as I thought it was a pretty innocuous suggestion. Please correct me if I'm off but it seems that people are not disputing the accuracy of the line, A minimum age of 18 years is recommended before beginning the practice of Sahaj Marg meditation, rather, they are disputing whether it's a central feature of the practice and hence, whether or not it represents something trivial and/or pertinent to an encyclopedic entry. (For example, would it appear in the Sahaj Marg entry for Encyclopedia Brittanica?) I think Don's correct above where he states the reason for this recommendation was to ensure that people "were of age of reason" before they made a decision about what type of meditation they might want to practice. Also, I think this source for this statement is good. I have the pdf if anyone would like me to email it to them. So, I guess the question is, is it central enough to the topic to include? Renee ( talk) 18:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a list of suggested sources for this entry. I have come here by way of the posting on the RS Noticeboard and am not aware of your long discussions so please bare with me if any of these sources have already been suggested. PelleSmith ( talk) 14:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If you mention anything of the Practice, which is really a PR as it is now presented, you must mention who the PR is for so as to appear to be "balanced"... An AGE limit is very IMPORTANT... for those who have CHILDREN and want to protect them from indoctrination by any and all faith-based groups, such as religions.
According to Marathi's criteria, who incidently, constantly uses POV and personal attacks without being "reprimanded" by anyone, BOOKS are not "admissible" as they are not easily "able to access".
Newspaper articles are not all easy to access" either, nor are un-Published reports, or other "not easily" accessible but are still "accessible" and "admissible" according to WIKI, and not to be "hidden" from the PRACTICE section. I agree with not putting it (or the French Government Reports) in the "INTRO". Rather than "appease", the use the un-emotional: "concensus", is suggested.
Pelle Smith: The "interview" in question could be made available to all. So we can see if it is 'admissible" also. I have wanted to use Chari's words in speeches and interviews for a long time.. Thanks...
4d-don-- don ( talk) 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed instructions for anon ips to vote per
WP:MEAT,
WP:CON and very specifically
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY
Sethie (
talk)
20:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
AGE LIMIT IS MANDATORY no practice of this method should be extended to minors ( less than 18 years old )
PLEASE VOTE
Aksur (
talk)
21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC) —
Aksur (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Since Don deleted my post on this topic, here goes a second time. (Don - Who's doing the muzzling now?)
There was a reference to Raja Yoga in this article and it's gone now. I can't find when and where this reference was deleted. It needs to be posted back in. Anyone have any issues with that? Please vote.
The second issue I wanted to bring to the table has to do with the unwieldy size of this discussion page. Wikipedia recommends we archive topics not being discussed any longer on this page (You'll see the Wikipedia message if you try to edit the entire page).
There was a lot of stuff I see on this page that is not relevant to the article - [ Here] for example. I'll go through this page and list it out, so we can all agree to archive it.
Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(do not delete, change or edit)
So as to find the true "concensus", please give your input in this section regarding this entry to the Sahaj Marg Article... A short comment is appreciated. I will count the numbers in two weeks and then move to the next step of either putting in the sentence or going to mediation.
Don said:
Please include in the article, in the section called "Practice", in the last line of the section, in the same font and font size, (and not in the footnotes), the following sentence, which is in many published books, in the PR of the Mission and in interviews with and speeches of the current Guru of one of the 'Factions" of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission, the proponents of Sahaj Marg.
"According to Babuji, the Founder of the system, Sahaj Marg meditation is only recommended for those over 18 yrs of age"
4d-don--don (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie
Your accusations are reactionary, emotional, POV, un-founded and not WIKI acceptable... conduct yourself according to WIKI...Or I tell "poet gal" on you!! ;-)) There may be more readers interested in this issue who were "bullied" away, and now want a SAY!! If you want to see "meat-puppets", look at the "sinble purpose accounts" and COI among the editors that are now here, trying to keep other true NPOV "editors" away with "bullying", deleting, Non-concensual and non common-sense tactics....? Methinks you doth protest too much!! Hiding your meat-puppets and your "single purpose accounts" and your COI, by pointing at others. That is called the "concensus" on this ISSUE by YOU GUYS, not by US ... But it is not the TRUE CONCENSUS. I will count and decide the course of actiion in two weeks (Formal Mediation maybe...still reading and deciding). The numbers will help me decide...If I am alone, I will not pursue it... If others think like me, I will go to as far as JOSIE... Maybe there is a "bigger" issue here that is not "obvious" to all. If you and duty2love are right, I should find no one who agrees with me, and on WIKI, the biggest gang wins the fight according to DUTY2love! ;-))
Don-- don ( talk) 00:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Marathi...
You are not the one to decide what is to be kept and deleted...Delete your own posts, not other people's... Your POV on what is RELEVANT is not NPOV and not WIKI. Archive from the TOP not the current discussion...Do not pick and chose what YOU WANT deleted or "out of sight"... Your accusation of "muzzling" is un-founded and I did not delete your material...If it got deleted, it was by mistake and you can always find it just like I have to do when you delete mine (not by mistatke) or others that don't agree with you...or you get others to delete other's post for you...
4d-don-- don ( talk) 00:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Don: You deleted an important text
here by Marathi. This has happened from your edit in the past too. I am not sure if you are deleting these accidentally or on purpose. When you submit your edits, please do a preview before you save, this way you can be sure that you don't edit other people's text.
Regarding your question, I had already mentioned my opinion that it is ok to have the age limit mentioned. But, it is very important to note Marathi's point that voting is not the way to get consensus, at least in the wiki world. Embhee ( talk) 01:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
About the deletions...
I think one possible scenario could be that Marathi was caught in a "Edit conflict" with me and I just back-paged and re-edited and Inadvertently deleted his "new post"... I will check that out... the ones from the past, I don't know...I don't intentionally "amend", change, or "selectively delete" other's posts or attempt to "hide" controversial material...I want all the DISCUSSION to remain visible for the new editors, so they may be "up-to speed" from the get go .... Some are not so inclined. Please stop deleting and amending and editing other's (my) posts as per WIKI guidelines...
About the Age LIMIT...
There have been enough references in BOOKS (read any of Babuji's first books) and you will see it in there...Read any of the PR in many "secondary" sources newspapers, interviews, speeches, etc.. and you will find it in there... because there are more of you, you think that you win and that you have a concensus. As per WIKI a PRIMARY can be also a "SECONDARY" source..and these are not "ABSOLUTE" terms...Anyone who has done any writing knows that. A mediator should be more aware of WIKI interpretations than those on this page...
Be patient...It will resolve itself... If I am alone with Shashwat and arksur I will still go for "mediation" on this as WIKI is not about "numbers" as in a "democracy" as per Duty2love's previous statement to that effect...
As far as I can see, you can't see very far... ;-))
Don-- don ( talk) 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
All,
I don't see any problem with Don's suggestion of adding the age limit statement under Practice section.
Duty2love (
talk)
22:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
OK - No comments on the Raja Yoga mention - Should I take that to mean everyone's OK with putting in the reference again? Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked through Shashwat's "Propose page" and there was no reference for it.
Sethie (
talk)
06:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi folks, Only gone for a few days and lots of action! It seems clear there is no consensus on the age line: Duty, Don, and Embhee are okay with it, Sethie, Marathi, and myself think it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE (also, I think the word "only" should not be in it as it is not in the secondary reference). Here are two suggestions:
Marathi would like to discuss the Raja Yoga issue so I suggest we turn our attention to that now. What do you all think? Renee ( talk) 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie and ALL
Unless you have Poet Gal's Proxy you can't speak for her... If you have her proxy, please show it. She can speak for herself if she wants to enter this conversation, so all of us can see her true POV.
I would say that Arksur also wants the "STATEMENT of CAUTION" in...
A STATEMENT of CAUTION that is in BOOKS by the FOUNDER, and in this Faction's own PR does not fit it in the INDISCRIMITATE section of WIKI mentionned above...That is not an accurate description of this STATEMENT... A CAUTION on a label is not TRIVIAL... It was not meant to be TRIVIALIZED by Preceptors (priests) or abhyasis (practicants) or WIKI editors, by the FOUNDER and the other more serious protectors of children from those who would target them before the "AGE OF REASON"!
On the Raja Yoga issue, the word "is" is a POV by Renee and other MEMBERS of this Group, and not an accurate word in a Balanced NPOV WIKI article, to describe an "adulteration" of Raja Yoga starting at rung 7 of an "eightfold" System (Raja Yoga) (that relies on COMMON SENSE)... Sahaj Marg's claim i is more a "usurping" of the word Raja Yoga so as to appear "credible" to the more gullible (children). And should be disallowed under the same "indiscrimitate" section of WIKI guidelines mentioned above by Renee. Specially when OBEDIENCE, not "COMMON SENSE" is the most important step in ONE (faith-based SRCM) and the other is an "eightfold system" of "self-empowerment" (Raja Yoga)...(no OBEDIENCE but a lot of "COMMON SENSE"). And Specially when this Faction is targeting Children, has schools, and activities specifically aimed at children at their seminars to which children are specifically "invited". (see their OHIO seminar invitations, on SRCM WEB site)
Don-- don ( talk) 15:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
User:PTR suggested the use of this source. I hope this is acceptable to everyone? Any (credible) reason this cannot be adequate to say "Sahaj Marg is a variety of Raja Yoga" as mentioned in the book? Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Renee...
Which Group is involved with the UN? Is that SRCM (Shahjahanpur), the original registered in India in 1945, or the "Break-away" SRCM (California) group registered in California, in 1997, by Chari, the current President of SRCM (California). If there is no clarity on which SRCM we are talking about, as per the court case, then I would suggest that we don't make statements of notability and attach it to the "break away" group or to the "original" group until the court has decided in clear terms. It seems to me that it is SRCM (California) who, being political and seeking credibility, joined the UN DPI program, with the help of Mr. PUUL in Europe. As it is now, Navneet, Grandson of Babuji, and the President of SRCM (Shahjahanpur), thinks he won the Judgement and is moving on other charges (criminal) against Chari and 6 other members of SRCM (California).
To be fair, and so as not get into taking sides in a "court battle", the article should stay away from the SRCM battle and remain with SAHAJ Marg, which SRCM (California) has patented in the USA, so technically owns it, until the SRCM (Shahjahanpur), and Navneet, it's president, start court action to get it back... I asked Navneet about that and it is apparently coming... so let us be WIKI NEUTRAL and not take side when many court cases are still PENDING and some are yet to come...
Besides, that is not an activity of SAHAJ MARG (the Practice) which is the TOPIC of the article...not SRCM, which is still in court. I asked a while back to not mention SRCM or we would have to get into the MIRE of WHO is SRCM and Which SRCM? The courts are still out on that!! And could be for a while yet.
What a mess eh? Let us remain NEUTRAL as per WIKI.
I will remove that ACTIVITY section, unless I hear some other COMMON SENSE.
Don-- don ( talk) 23:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
RAja Yoga...
So as to not Plagiarize, we must "paraphrase" as per WIKI and attach our phrase to a "credible" source... A member of SRCM (California), the "break-away" group, is not credible to anyone, specially to those from SRCM (Shajahanpur) the original group...And to advertise or do PR in the "footnotes" is also not WIKI acceptable. Just the sources and not PR. (check out the PRACTICE section references).
There is no concensus on the Raja Yoga statements above that is taken right out of SRCM (California) PR ... Seek concensus .... not decisions by TWO!
It seems you don't like the one that says that Sahaj Marg is a Raja Yoga starting at rung #7 of the eightfold Raja Yoga system as is written at this site by this preceptor, who is now in India, writing a book with Chari's, your GURU"s, blessing. [ here] ;-))
That's OK... it is not acceptable anyway!
Changes from your previous "position"...
So now you think that Sahaj Marg is a variety of "traditional" raja yoga, modified and starting with rung #7, eh? Show me where "obedience", the most important feature in Sahaj Marg, according to Chari, is in traditional Raja Yoga? Don't you have to adhere or teach a 'majority" of the POINTS before you can make such a CLAIM. It sounds like a book written from the PR of the RELIGIONS in question. And by the way, is SAHAJ MARG a RELIGION as is claimed by the title of that BOOK? Should you also put that in the article? Does that make Sahaj Marg, "NOTABLE" now, as you previously claimed it was not?
Anyone who knows the difference will chuckle at the "claim'. So much for "credibility" and common sense. Oh Well...We'll have to take that one to "MEDIATION" also...later!
I would like to hire you guys later! ;-))
don-- don ( talk) 23:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
EMBHEE..Duty2love...and other "common sense" seekers
As we have entered the REALM of CENSURE, you can find my replies to you on my [ TALK PAGE]
DO NOT ERASE THIS DISCUSSION RELEVANT TO SAHAJ MARG BEING A RAJA YOGA as per WIKI
If you think you are WIKI acceptable by deleting comments on CONTENT, we all can start DELETING WHAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH OUR POV if you want... ;-))
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE STATEMENT IS WHAT IS DISCUSSED here...and the SOURCE!!
If ONE list (Religions) is OK...The so is the FRENCH COMMISSION REPORT (on "Sectes") ... YOU allowed everyone's POV's, (including personal attacks) that agreed with you on on THAT ONE also!! Even attempts to discredit and slander the COMMISSION MEMBERS...and even the COMMISSION of a Sovereign Country ITSELF.
Don-- don ( talk) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
soapboxing moved to Don's page
Hi Jaysweet..
I have much to contribute... For example:
If one group wants to claim to be a "raja yoga" and source it to a book about WORLD RElIGIONS and then, it becomes clear that the PRESIDENT and the Group in Question "attacks" other religions and all religions, then the credibility of that work is suspect. One would not put such a group in a BOOK ON WORLD RELIGIONS if one had researched the GROUPS to be added in the BOOK.
So it seems to be a book written from the PR of the RELIGIONS in question as many such books of "LISTS" are.
The Quotes above (now deleted by Sethie) are to show what the MISSION under one FACTION, SRCM (California) is TEACHING at their school and in the speeches of the PRESIDENT of this GROUP...To simply mention it is not believed by a few present. The Proposed Source is then suspect and should be "un-admissible" under the "common sense" criteria of WIKI.
Likewise with the CAUTION from the FOUNDER that "Sahaj Marg Meditaion is not recommended for those under 18yrs of age"
By all rules of "COMMON SENSE", that sentence should be in the article, in the Practice Section, in the same font as the rest, as the last line. It boggles the mind that someone would think that it should be left out and pretend that the article is "fair and balanced" and mostly, accurate.
Likewise with the Activities Section regarding one of the FACTIONS (SRCM(California) being on a UN DIP program. The intro (and the system) refers to the founder of the "original" group registered in 1945 in India and this section refers to the "break-away" faction, registered in California, in 1997. We are confusing the two groups, who are still in court regarding who will control the Mission. The last [ Judgement from the Supreme Court of India] seemed to favour the "original group" but it is not over. (see section 5-6) We should stay away from such statement in an article on SAHAJ MARG, so as to not confuse the readers. It could be included in an article on SRCM. I believe we have a concensus on that isuue with the readers here, but...
Thanks for your involvement...
Don-- don ( talk) 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Jaysweet
Please stay away from such statements such as "crazy talk"...That is not WIKI...
moved more soapoxing to Don's page
I agree with you on the "18yrs Caution Statement"...It has been my (and other readers) suggestion. It has been opposed here.
Thanks for you "considerate" response...
Don-- don ( talk) 16:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Don has been coming to wikipedia since 2006 [ [5]], and posting his opinion about various things here, trying to make this a discussion forum, all the while making little to no actual helpful change to the project. (19 edits to mainspace out of 300 edits!) [ [6]]
I am tired of it, and have and will move all such material not directly related to the article to his talk page... for those who wish to read it. My hunch is, most of it is cut and pasted from one of his 12 blogs [ [7]]. I for one am not going to see wikipedia be #13! Sethie ( talk) 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jaysweet...
I agree with your statement:
I read the "Activities" section and I must disagree with your assertion that it should be removed. On the contrary, I think we need more content there. There has apparently been quite a controversy over who "own" Sahaj Marg. I want to hear about it in the article! Far from "confusing" readers, I think that would help readers understand why there is debated over who is the "raja yoga," why there are disagreements over how to practice SM, etc. Let's expand this section!
I also agree with you and it should be in the article as such, A RELIGION...
I have heard plenty of religions criticize the idea of organized religion, but that doesn't mean it's not a religion. Is it an organization with a set of beliefs and rituals? Well, there ya go. It's a religion.
About the Age LIMIT...You say: I am inclined to leave it.
I don't know if you mean "leave it in" or Leave it OUT but I think the concensus is to leave it IN..
4d-don-- don ( talk) 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not educated enough in this subject to comment independently, but I think I have seen enough.
The consensus seems to be very much against Don's proposed changes. While it is always possible that one person is correct in the face of opposition from the majority, Don has not provided any sources that I find sufficient to back his claims. To take each one in detail:
Don has attacked a book on world religions using some rather roundabout logic that I'm not sure I entirely follow. I am still not sure what source is being referenced, but in any case, he is going to have to provide a more coherent reason for why it would not be considered a reliable source, particularly when consensus of the other editors here (who are all more knowledgeable than me) seems to be that it is a reliable source.
Renee has asserted that the controversy over ownership of the SMRC name has not been covered in the mainstream press. While it is impossible to definitely prove a negative assertion such as this, I think it is fair to say that the controversy should not be added to the article unless and until a mainstream news source is located which covers the controversy.
I don't have an opinion about the age limit thing, but the consensus is strongly against inclusion, so Don will just have to abide by that.
I recommend the following actions:
Is this acceptable? -- Jaysweet ( talk)
Hi Renee
You forgot to mention that the secondary sources have to be in "english" according to you...
Jaysweet
As per WIKI, I will be taking these issues to FORMAL MEDIATION soon...as there are some secondary sources on the ownership controversy (2 newspaper articles with photos, in India), but it is not deemed acceptable as they are not in English. I am still trying to get an "original" and an "official" translation.
As well, the "age limit Cautionary statement" not being in the article will be brought to Formal Mediation.
Thanks for your help...
4d-don-- don ( talk) 18:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jaysweet
This is what I have with an "un-official" translation and a scanned copy of the Hindi version of both newspapers. Also, I have the scanned copy of the doctors confirmation of the Injuries to the victims, but it is not "translated" and very difficult to translate because of the scanning process. I am trying to get a better copy of the doctor's report.
Caption in Dainik Jagran dated 8th Nov 2006
Caption under photograph, Dainik Jagran 8th november 2006
Administrative officer in consultation with ex-minister "Jansevak" who attack the mission property to capture it.
Note:-
Dainik Jagran ( http://www.epaper.jagran.com ) is the most read newspaper in India.
http://www.newswatchonline.in/news-analyses/circulation-audience/1691.html?q=news-analyses/circulation-audience/1691.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/001200608291820.htm
Hindustan, 3rd November 2006. Ram Chandra Mission captured, after Violence
Woman among 3 others injured
4d-don-- don ( talk) 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Jaysweet
I tried that already...The report again originated from the "Shahjahanpur" branch office and is of "local" interest although there were attempts to involve the Prime Minister and President of India, according to Navneet. I have someone in India trying to get official "hard copies". I tried for access to their archives without any luck. The best I can hope for (I think) is a "Hard copy" that I can scan, and get an "official" translation by a "reputed" translator... Much like one would have to do with a published book or a magazine. There are many on-line firms that offer that service for a fee. We'll see what the "Mediator" thinks of that!
Thanks for the input on the doctor's report...I will get it anyway for my own purpose. It only confirms to me that some injuries took place at some date, that lends credibility to the "newspaper" reports. Wether it is WIKI admissible or not, we will have to wait and see. It certainly confirms that some "injuries", that happened around the same time, were serious enough to warrant a doctor's treatment and report. The rest is conjecture.
I spoke to Navneet, the founder's grandson and current President of SRCM (Shahjahanpur), about this and this is what he said (on a blog): (Note: This seems to be from a seperate incident a few months earlier...I am trying to get court docket confirmation of this allegation also).
soapboxing/blogging moved to Don's talk page
Isn't this fun? ;-))
Keep on the Sunny Side of LIFE...4d-don--
don (
talk)
20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Jaysweet
If you want to converse with me, then you should not encourage "deletion" of the information I send you as per your request. If you want more info, please direct it to my Talk page...or I'll see you at "recess"...lol..;-))
4d-don-- don ( talk) 20:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Jaysweet
It was a reply from the current President of SRCM (Shahjahanpur) that seems to indcate that there could be more than one incident at the Ashram...I thought it was relevant.
Anyway...address any request for info from me to my talk page, so I can speak or write freely and discuss openly without the "BIG WIKI" eavesdropping.... lol
Bye for now...Do keep smiling for those who can't ;))
It's worse that this in war, they throw bombs and they don't yell: "WATCH OUT"!!
4d-don--
don (
talk)
20:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI - Added it in. Let me know what you think. Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 01:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Marathi and Renee
Your Source #4 of the Raja Yoga inclusion, is not available for checking for all readers...[ here]
Could you make it available to all readers for verification?
You gotta laugh b'cause it' s not funny... oh there's the bell...recess...;-))
4d-don-- don ( talk) 17:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Renee...
Yes...so as not to show POV-push, chose at least, the one that is not obviously by a MEMBER or a PRECEPTOR (where the person admits it in the article) and is not in a "LIFESTYLE" commercial rag, or Lifestyle section of a newspaper, where any "negative" about YOGA (in this case) is not going to be in the article, because according to us true WIKIpedians who try to adhere to the GUIDELINES, it looks like a "POV push", even though we all know that you would never do that and you are yourself, not a member of this Group! lol...
If we could get any system to adhere by it's own rules, we would have a better world be it Spiritual or WIKI!
4d-don-- don ( talk) 19:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
User:PelleSmith was kind enough to provide these two sources here and here. She has emailed me the pdf of the first, which is a scholarly source, and I'd be happy to email it to anyone who requests it.
Here is the description of Sahaj Marg from this source: Pearmain, Rosalind. 2005. "Transformational Experiences in Young People: The Meaning of a Safe Haven." International Journal of Children's Spirituality. 10(3):277-290.
I found a reprint of this second article on the SRCM website and have provided the link to it here. Devagupta, R. 2004. " A Terrible Longing in the Heart: An Interview with Shri Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari." Parabola. 29(3):28-32.
Unfortunately, I don't think the second will be of much use to us, however, because it is a primary source as PelleSmith pointed out here so can only be used for information that no one will challenge (and someone's bound to challenge every word or source here....). Is there anything worth including from the Pearmain article? Renee ( talk) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi team
Couple proposals:
1. I've been reading other articles on WP and their leads are much shorter. If no objections exist I'll leave the first two sentences in the lead on Sahaj Marg. The rest of the passage will move to "History." There's a natural break and it works well, I think.
2. I liked Sethie's practice of archiving threads that had not been discussed in two weeks and will proceed with doing this (assuming no one complains).
Opinions?
Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 05:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI. Is this newspaper article admissible as a reference for the daily practice (Meditation, cleaning, group meditations and 1x1 sittings with preceptors)? Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 09:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Guys
What do you think of paraphrasing the 10 maxims to this article?
Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This article looks like a advertising already. No more advertising please! Where is the balance that we found in other articles on WIKI?
jeanne-- J.d'arc ( talk) 18:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that Cult Free World is back making the same unilateral edits that got him repeatedly blocked.
Cult, if there is anything new you would like to discuss, please let's discuss it here. I know it can be frustrating working within the structure of Wikipedia but if you're willing to discuss issues, I'm sure we can reach consensus.
I didn't see anything new in your edits of the last couple of days but I could be wrong. Is there something you'd like to discuss? Renee ( talk) 14:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I went through all the several back-to-back edits made by
User:Cult free world and these changes are the same that was done before by him. There was nothing new and all these topics of court-cases, etc. we had gone through them and discussed and decided to keep them out of the page for lack of proper sources. I therefore went ahead and removed the edits done by
User:Cult free world. If he wants to make changes, we need to discuss it and come to a consensus and then make the change.
Embhee (
talk)
14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Culty - if this content wasn't admissible according to multiple editors and admins 2-3 months ago, why do you assume it's OK now? As explained to you a couple million times by users and admins alike, kindly discuss on this page before making any edits. BTW - Were'nt you under a topic ban?
Marathi_Mulgaa (
talk)
19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
First let me introduce some relevant info about myself. (You can read more on my user page of course)
I was a sincere practicant of Sahaj Marg for 12 yrs. I also was an official in the organization (SRCM) for 4 yrs. Apart from that I hold a PhD in mathematics, and was a scientific editor for 2 yrs. I believe I know what is considered the norm for references in an unbiased article.
So please do not dismiss what I say with too much ease.
This article on Sahaj Marg fails to acknowledge the FACT that Sahaj Marg has been subject of investigation by the French Government, and has been put on a list of potentially dangerous sects. A reference to the appropriate report is the VERY LEAST that this article should contain.
Furthermore, the number of references is large, and they all point to sources which are unequivocally positive towards Sahaj Marg. Even the text of the prayer is quoted in full in a reference (!).
The article in its current form therefore reeks of an advertorial. There are quite a number of critical blogs on the web on Sahaj Marg now, there is also a critical analysis on Sahaj Marg on www.relinfo.ch (a Swiss evangelical site aiming to help people avoid sects).
The concerns about Sahaj Marg may not always be well-formulated, but I think this article should not neglect the FACT that there ARE serious concerns about Sahaj Marg.
My advice is therefore to adopt a more neutral stance. Do not misuse the footnotes/references section for a long list of positive references. Cut down the references, and also put in two or three critical references (one to the French Government's report, one or two to some critical websites).
Friendly greetings Frank W ( talk) 10:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Folks, Here is the work that needs to be done to convert the references into a more professional format. I'm willing to try but wanted to make sure everyone was on board because newcomers will have a hard time (imho) adding references. Of course, they can just add them and then someone who's familiar with this Wiki reference style can re-format them properly.
The advantage of this method is that the reference is only cited once, instead of appearing everytime it's used to support a statement. This will take me a while to figure out so if someone else is not as intimidated as I by this format -- please jump in!!! Renee ( talk) 12:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I said that I would try to find some reliable secondary sources which show that Sahaj Marg is being viewed with real concern, at least in some European countries like France and Switzerland. I understand that the French government's reports do not count as secondary. Here I have come across an article in the Swiss daily newspaper Le Matin , published by respectable Edipresse.
(The rest below is on the assumption that this is a new source, and you have not already discounted it somewhere. If you did already discard it, then sorry, scratch my remark.)
You might notice that the French government's reports do play a role in the discussion in the article. Therefore, both the existence of these reports and their listing of SRCM as a possibly harmful sect are simple facts (that can be corroborated easily) which are truly relevant to the article on Sahaj Marg (in my POV of course). I would leave in the middle whether what the reports say is justified, because that is (as the article in Le Matin shows) disputed. But to leave out the existence of these reports, which play a verifiable part in French and Swiss society's views of Sahaj Marg, to me seems an omission.
I don't think any mention needs to be elaborate (better not, even). Just a line or two, saying: `In Switzerland and France, serious concerns have been raised with regard to Sahaj Marg as a possibly harmful sect.' And then for example the article above as a reference.
What do you think? (Don't worry, I'm not going to push this, I'm appealing to neutral POV that's all. More sources will turn up, because what I say is simply true: there are serious concerns in these European countries, and newspapers do write about them from time to time, even though SRCM is comparatively small.) Feel free to disagree and leave the article as it is.
Oh, I forgot, sorry, the newspaper article is in French...but there should be some trustworthy translator for you to consult. Frank W ( talk) 00:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear IP 69.242.90.72, I notice you deleted the controversies section. What are your specific objections to the section? Renee ( talk) 23:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear all, I have found another new source. This time it is an article in the world-class newspaper (this is the English wikipedia qualification!) Neue Zurcher Zeitung. Yes, it is a Swiss newspaper, in German. Now, with all respect, I think I won't accept you bringing up again the guidelines already mentioned above. I have already pointed out that they do not apply. The German can easily be translated, I will do so for you - in time. Together with the already good-quality newspaper article in Le Matin, I think there is plenty wiki-material to add Renee's sentence and these two sources to the wiki-article on Sahaj Marg.
The titel of the 30-10-1996 article is:
Ein Bundesrichter als Sektenführer?/Roland Schneider verlässt die Shri Ram Chandra Mission/fel. Lausanne, 29. Oktober
Translation: "A Federal judge as sect leader? / Roland Schneider leaves the Shri Ram Chandra Mission/fel. Lausanne, 29th October"
The article can be found in the Neue Zurcher Zeitung Archive, but it will cost me 6 euros. I don't mind, but I would appreciate your agreeing beforehand that this source is reliable verifiable etc. and therefore admissible. It (like the Le Matin article) simply reflects what I stated earlier: there are serious concerns about Sahaj Marg in Switzerland and France.
kind regards, Frank W ( talk) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Folks, Here's a dissertation on the history of Sahaj Marg. This would be a great, neutral, secondary source if we could find it. (Dissertations have to go through rigorous review of committee members, presentation to faculty and incorporation of comments, etc.) I've searched and all I get is the abstract.
Yogic transmission in Sahaj Marg of the Shri Ram Chandra mission: A religio-historical study, by Naidoo, Priyadarshini, M.A., University of South Africa (South Africa), 1995; AAT 0666936
Abstract (Summary) In this dissertation the phenomenological method together with the hermeneutical concepts of experience, devotion, constant remembrance and transmission focus on yogic transmission in Sahaj Marg of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission. Sahaj Marg is an adaptation of Raja Yoga. Sahaj Marg emphasises the practical approach and calls for the aspirant to follow the teachings and methods of the spiritual Master. Yogic transmission is the unique feature of this system. Preceptors have been trained by the Master to aid in the spiritual evolution of humanity. Pranahuti is defined by he Master as a forceless force for the spiritual transformation of humanity. This system can be followed by all aspirants, the only qualification being a willingness to follow the practice. Sahaj Marg has been created for the present day aspirant to achieve liberation in the quickest time possible.
I've searched the UNISA site and they don't seem to offer full texts of dissertations that far back. Any ideas? Renee ( talk) 05:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Renee
A dissertation, also called a "thesis" is a Publication reporting original research that is a requirement for a Ph.D. degree.
If a member of SRCM does his doctorate thesis on Sahaj Marg that is OK but wether is is acceptable as "original research" is clearly mentionned in the WIKI GUIDELINES...
It is no more credible than an article by a member in a "commercial rag"...and is just another POV by a member...The reviewers of the thesis will not judge on the "efficacy" or 'truth" of Sahaj Marg but on the "DISSERTATION" or the THESIS. It will not judge wether this meditation takes one to GOD...or the morality, ethics or SRCM. You can bet that if this person is a member, he will not mention any "negative" impact of anything to do with Sahaj Marg and as thus is not "at arm's lenght" and is not any more credible that a report by a member, in a University Newspaper.
4d-Don-- don ( talk) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Duty2love...
On one hand you say that we can't claim to know the TRUTH and then you go about claiming the the OPINIONS of 2 are not TRUE and should be "dismissed"...the larger the group does not make the MORE THE TRUTH. You use extremes to PROVE THE TRUTH...
This is a NEWSPAPER REPORT in a REPUTABLE Newspapers, and the journalist is not PUTTING OUT HIS POV but is REPORTING as an "arm's length" journalist...Do you mean, that it is a PRIMARY source and hence not TRUE? Or NOT WIKI ACCEPTABLE to be included in the ARTICLE...This is something that was done by SRCM members and is reported by a "secondary" source...WIKI says that is Acceptable...
I will repost it and hope that Sethie, showing good faith, will not delete it as it is not my POV but an article in a REPUTABLE NEWSPAPER, the content of which should be in the "controversies" section of the ARTICLE...because it is WIKI acceptable...It should at least be "discussed" here in the OPEN...
THE ARTICLES
Sethie...
Since I don't accept that NEWSPAPER articles are PRIMARY as per WIKI, then I am asking that you not erase this post so others may openly give their opinions as to wether these article are written by the PRIMARY SOURCE or is it from "interviewing" of people and the reporter is a "second or third" source, not PRIMARY as most newspaper articles are...
PLEASE don't erase so others may read and see that the reporter was on the scene, after the fact and was "interviewing" the actors...so not PRIMARY as per WIKI...Please show "good faith" ...
ALL EDITORS...
Could we get a broader input than only one editors on this site on:
Are the articles covered by these two respectable newspapers WIKI acceptable according to a "WIKI court of OPINION"? Are they PRIMARY or SECONDARY using COMMON SENSE as per WIKI. Read the PRIMARY Source GUIDELINES and discuss below...
Dainik Jagran dated 8th Nov 2003
Dainik Jagran [Dainik Jagran] is the most read newspaper in India. See this WIKI artice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper or this one: [Hindustan]
Thanks all for your comments!!
4d-don-- don ( talk) 17:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
To all...
Embhee...
You should wait and see the "original" before "judging" or you "pre-judge" called "prejudice"... It's good that Questions come to mind as "COMMON SENSE" demand thinking...Some part of the article may need confirmation, and some may not, but that is the nature of WIKI or "ENCYLOPEDIA" writing... It takes time and as a retired person, I have it...I hope you do...
I will contact the newspapers and attempt to get a "link" from them for the articles and PHOTOGRAPHS, so as to confirm the veracity of the incidents ... I am reading about some more such incidents at Karnataka, from Chari' s own words and verifying them also. In these articles, "they also have "pictures" so the credibility will be "VISIBLE"...Since the Supreme Court of India JUDGEMENT, Navneet has put this out: At last Chari, Uma Shankar Bajpai and 6 others have been charge sheeted for the criminal offence of tresspassing into the Ashram on 2nd June 2006. Their non-bailable warrants are being issued for the same from the lower court three days back. Navneet
So there will be "court" confirmation of the event soon...
Renee
To want to see the "original article" is legitimate, but to state that: Logically, if the events described really happened, they would be covered in an English language paper. The alleged events were three years apart. Can you provide secondary English language sources that covered each event? That might justify serious discussion.
That is not "logical" at all and/or show a "skewed" sense of logic. It is almost "insulting" to other "nationalities", who want to use "THEIR" language in their country and still remain "CREDIBLE". English is not the STANDARD of CREDIBILITY. These are "secondary" sources in HINDI and as such, can be deemed to be credible after viewing the ORIGINAL version and checking the Translation I offered... It was not mine so I can't comment on it...but as with most "faith-based" groups, I am sure you can find a translator you TRUST...
"Tabloids" are now the FORMAT of Many NEWSPAPERS and is not a standard of crediblity but a format for easy reading in a bus, train etc...as opposed to a "long sheet" which is the "OLD" FORMAT... As a matter of fact, the sources you mention in the articles already are probably "TABLOIDS"... should we check and take them OUT?
It could take some time to get a reply from the newspapers so "talk among yourselves" and...
Keep laughing because it's not FUNNY!! ;-))
4d-don-- don ( talk) 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Don,
Since you have no other means to confirm, reading up the language of the articles you posted, I have serious doubts on the authenticity of these events. Simply because something is printed in paper, doesn't make it a truth. I am from India and having some friends and family members working in media, I know how possible it is to get anything printed, especially in local editions of newspapers of small towns. We see this happening all the time for political reasons. And looks like these are from local edition and not the national edition, that's why I asked you the edition, to which you didn't reply. You may see the kinds of complaints Press Council of India gets all the time
here.
Please stop posting things which you yourself are not sure of (since you are not from that country and my assumption here is you don't know Hindi), which has no credible source and which looks very much like an attempt to do libel and defamation WP:LIBEL, which has been constantly done for this topic, by the same handful number of people, of which even Wikipedia has the history. If you are really interested in the entire article then can we first focus on more solid and credible sources, if not then please speak up? Duty2love ( talk) 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)\
Don-
End of story. Sethie ( talk) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Duty2love
There are TWO newspapers in question... are LIFESTYLE Magazines, University Newspapers, dissertations, not of the same credibility? But here there are TWO SOURCES, not only ONE!!
I am attemting to get a link to the newspapers (with translations) in question. Apparently, the same "writing an article promoting a point of view" can happen in all newspapers, Advertising rags, (that promote a LIFESTYLE such as YOGA), and dissertations, thesis, and magazines such as the ones which are presented as "credible" and WIKI acceptable in this article... If I can't get something credible (according to the BROADER WIKI membership) It will not make it to that article...but we should be able to discuss it in WIKI "assume good faith" and fairness guidelines... If I get a "link" I will discuss it here as per WIKI guidlines...
Your accusations of "attempts to libel or defame" are POV and "soapboxing" but no one here will STOP you, not even me...That is not a game I PLAY... Maybe I should have you "blocked" as some here do. ;-)) You have a right to your opinion...I will protect your right to voice it here in discussion. This is not the first time I handle "controversy" and I am still a FREE man, no court found me GUILTY yet..
4d-Don-- don ( talk) 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie...
I am aware or the RED FLAG and I think that a "secondary" at-arm's length source (another newspaper) makes this one WIKI acceptable. If I get a link to the "original" with "translation" that is from the two (2)newspapers with photographs (and names). Plus, there is now a court case regarding this whole matter, naming Chari and 6 other members of the SRCM, according to Navneet, the Founder of SRCM's grandson. There will be a "judgement" in that case by then also (I hope). But we have time. I will present it again on this discussion page and as many on this page have a POV and/or an "ax to grind", I will also present it to a more NEUTRAL Broader WIKI Community as I will do with the "FRENCH" reports (2) and the Belgian site (1).
That should be WIKI acceptable and NPOV!
4d-don-- don ( talk) 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Folks, I suggest we delete this line: The practice of Sahaj Marg is recommended for those 18 years of age and older [8] and is free.[9] It doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Any objections? Renee ( talk) 05:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree - Let's do this before Don launches into another 5000-word rambling tirade (with every THIRD word in CAPS) about the "free" part. :)
I definitely think the free phrase should go because its controversial acc. to Don. The 18 and older part adds no value really. Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 05:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie
"THAT" means that you know I answered you on your talk page. If that "insults" you then your comment suggesting that I did not reply, or "I would ask others to reframe from dialogueing with Don as well until he has been open and honest about that" should be covered by the same "STANDARD" and it is, but you apply the standard differently for some, such as Shashwat and others including 4d-don. I don't care either way...You are allowed your POV and "soapboxing" but as an admin, you should try and be concensual with all, and seek concensus from all, not just some.
I guess some of you don't want the fact that SRCM is targeting children to be included (even as a gentle warning of under 18). Some of the PR material quotes children as young as 9yrs old "meditating" at their schools. Is SRCM PR material "wiki Acceptable"? SRCM is also one of the few groups mentionned in the Mivilludes Report of the French Government also (specifically as relating to children) and MIVILLUDES is the report that is to be used in "conjunction" with the 1995 report which is now deemed "less and less pertinent" (of course), but still used "in conjunction with the MIVILLUDES report, according the the Sources discussed above (Prime Minister Raffarin's Report).
There is not concensus here, but does that matter? (These reports are in French...Is French credible? Are any other languages? What about French NEWSPAPER ARTICLES? Are they Acceptable here? There are many of those and I can understand them and translate.
4d-Don--
don (
talk)
18:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this short enough for you? This is put out by [ Santosh's family Group]: Is it not Acccurate? This is more [ PR from SRCM] This is from another [ PR site]
Sahaj Marg Meditation is MEDITATION so the report is NPOV and covers all MEDITATION...
Babuji's limit on age is also in your Literature that you have already bought so can be read and added to the "sources"...Is Babuji still a Master of SRCM (Chennai)? His name and picture is still in the PR. Do you have any instructions from Chari that removes the age stipulation by Babuji?
The safeguard was to protect the children from "endoctrination" before the AGE of REASON, which some manipulative groups want to ignore. Some governments in some countries take NOTE of such groups who target children, and include them in REPORTS by commissions, specially when the groups are "foreigners".
4d-don-- don ( talk) 21:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Friends: After doing some reading on the topic under discussion, I feel that is that it is good to have this point mentioned about the age "recommendation". These days in the Internet, kids are "surfing" more than adults! I think this single sentence will help.
Renee: Can you please explain what you mean when by saying "It doesn't sound very encyclopedic". I guess that was the root cause why this was deleted. If you want to re-structure the sentence, that would be good.
Don: I feel the reference you have for this line is not needed. If people want to know why meditation is not recommended for age below 18, they can figure it out in other places. Embhee ( talk) 00:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
All (except those who obey above divisive "recommendations"
Cultfreeworld, talk-to-me, Shashwat, (some think they are the same person) and even Babuji (the Founder), and many more from SRCM (Shahjahanpur) agree with me...Age limit should be left in...Take my word for it or ask them, as we are supposed to believe other such statements above ... ;-))
4d-Don-- don ( talk) 17:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the page. Please don't engage in edit warring. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
My answers to Marathi: For point 1, I agree that this single sentence looks odd in the article, but I do not agree that this fact about age recommendation is not needed. I still feel that age recommendation is an important thing to have but at this stage, it is not fitting well with the article. For point 2, I totally agree. There is no need for that reference to be mentioned as part of that sentence. Oh well, anyways, the sentence has been removed and the page protected. So, it does not matter, at least for the next few days!!! If the consensus is to not mention age recommendation in the article, I am fine with it. The Earth will still keep rotating, whether that sentence is present in the Wiki or not. So I am happy. Embhee ( talk) 23:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
To all...
The reason 4d-don is (allegedly) the only dissenting ACTIVE voice on this page is because of the tactics used by this group with the support of one "admin". They (some that I contacted) are reading and waiting for less of a "time waster", they claim, such as "mediation" or "numbers" (voting?... (as duty2love mentionned above). Maybe, such as VOTING on the ISSUE! If it's just a case of "the biggest gang" bullies the others into submission, then so be it... (there are four of you and an admin, and only ONE of me, according to you.
Those who allege that Shashwat, CFW and Talk-to-me are ONE, also think that 4d-don is Shashwat, and that is just another divisive POV and not a very "respectful" one at that (as per WIKI). It is just a tactic, to get some "frustration comment" that can be used to have me "blocked" as we have witnessed with your divisive tactics with Shashwat. If anyone has PROOF, put it to the WIKI board and get it over with and stop your "inuendoes"... and attempt seriously at "CONCENSUS"... everyone here is an individual "ID" and is to be dealt with as such with respect as per WIKI (good faith).
So as not to waste our time "arguing" and "blocking" of dissenting voices, and since there is no possible "concensus" with those who chose to interpret the "Guideline" as "dogmatic" rules without COMMON SENSE, thus, without the need or the possibility for concensus, but just to then "BULLY" their way with the help of an "admin", then I am discussing with others (admins) on the other processes available so as to present a FAIR article that is not another PR site for SRCM or and the Practice of Sahaj Marg, without a warning about "AGE LIMIT", as it is now, and as was it was placed by the FOUNDER!... or without "controversies" (which is a falsehood by omissions and not "encyclopedic" but PR)
We will take one issue at a time to a "broader" community and use our time that way...
The Laws of the INTELLECT OF MAN will DECIDE! Or we will consider WIKI another victim of NUMBERS?
The last issue is : Sahaj Marg is only recommended for those above 18 years of age.. You (five) don't want it in. WE DO!
4d-don-- don ( talk) 16:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Folks, The dissertation thread got kind of lost so I'll repeat my question here -- has anyone else had any success in getting this dissertation from the University of South Africa?
I tried through my inter-library loan and they were not able to do it. Thanks, Renee ( talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie...
Your "disapointing pattern" is your emotional POV...keep it to yourself or "erase" your own words...to be FAIR! Since you erase other streams of conversation you deem Un-acceptable (un-biased?)... Erase yours also...or don't then feign "un-provoked" emotional POV by others who don't agree with you.
For someone who thinks that WIKI does not allow material that is part of this group's PR and/or that is printed in their own BOOKS (so WIKI), as "not acceptable" as PER WIKI, then your ability to judge "accurate" is not impressive...you don't seem to notice your own "inuendos" and "tone", so...? here's a "mirror"!
I will take this issue and others (age limit, Government Reports, etc...) to MEDIATION, to a "BROADER WIKI COMMUNITY" than your (and Renee's) interpretation. I have passed this issue by "MANY" Wikipedians, since it happened and they will come forward at the proper time, so they don't waste their time arguing ad nauseum with such a "non-concensual" group with a "conflict of Interest" as per WIKI. THEY WANT TO VOTE, Comment, and get on with their lives. If I am wrong, I will not get much support and I will CHANGE tactic. Maybe move to DELETE the article?... but I won't leave because of "BULLYING" or "intimidation", or threats of "BLOCKING".
Renee...I did not erase your post... I don't do that...if it was erased, blame the technology or one of you, who does that "willy-nilly" to those who don't agree with you, or simply to hide the facts... so as to reach concensus as per WIKI?...Maybe it was GOD or Babuji? lol ;-))
You gotta laugh, b'cause it ain't funny!
Keep on the Sunny Side of LIFE!
4d-don-- don ( talk) 14:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Dissertations are ORIGINAL RESEARCH...
According to [ WIKI], they are not acceptable and are PRIMARY Source according to University of North Florida here [ UNF]... And if this is by a MEMBER OF SRCM, it is even a CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and not CREDIBLE at all...
What is Original Research?
Original research is considered a primary source.
An article is considered original research if ...
* the author or authors of a study or experiment describe their hypothesis and the purpose of the study. * the researchers detail their research methods. * the results of the research are reported. * the researchers interpret their results and discuss possible implications.
Maybe Sethie can explain WIKI Guidelines on "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" to you....
4d-don-- don ( talk) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie...
Stop making accusations of "disappointing patterns" or other of your POV's on this "discussion page" as per Wiki "Good faith", and muzzle the others as you attempt to do with "US".....and then you won't see any accusations of anything by me..
I will take it to Mediation when all who are on our team are ready and have agreed with the action to take...
Some have not had a chance to comment yet but are reading this page... Everyone is busy and many have other things to do but it will get resolved when WE decide... Patience donkey! We have nothing but TIME! I have been at this for years...And I will be here for years yet, Babuji Willing!! (that means God willing to some) ;-))
Have a Good day...
4d-don-- don ( talk) 15:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised that this suggestion has spawned so much discussion, as I thought it was a pretty innocuous suggestion. Please correct me if I'm off but it seems that people are not disputing the accuracy of the line, A minimum age of 18 years is recommended before beginning the practice of Sahaj Marg meditation, rather, they are disputing whether it's a central feature of the practice and hence, whether or not it represents something trivial and/or pertinent to an encyclopedic entry. (For example, would it appear in the Sahaj Marg entry for Encyclopedia Brittanica?) I think Don's correct above where he states the reason for this recommendation was to ensure that people "were of age of reason" before they made a decision about what type of meditation they might want to practice. Also, I think this source for this statement is good. I have the pdf if anyone would like me to email it to them. So, I guess the question is, is it central enough to the topic to include? Renee ( talk) 18:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a list of suggested sources for this entry. I have come here by way of the posting on the RS Noticeboard and am not aware of your long discussions so please bare with me if any of these sources have already been suggested. PelleSmith ( talk) 14:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If you mention anything of the Practice, which is really a PR as it is now presented, you must mention who the PR is for so as to appear to be "balanced"... An AGE limit is very IMPORTANT... for those who have CHILDREN and want to protect them from indoctrination by any and all faith-based groups, such as religions.
According to Marathi's criteria, who incidently, constantly uses POV and personal attacks without being "reprimanded" by anyone, BOOKS are not "admissible" as they are not easily "able to access".
Newspaper articles are not all easy to access" either, nor are un-Published reports, or other "not easily" accessible but are still "accessible" and "admissible" according to WIKI, and not to be "hidden" from the PRACTICE section. I agree with not putting it (or the French Government Reports) in the "INTRO". Rather than "appease", the use the un-emotional: "concensus", is suggested.
Pelle Smith: The "interview" in question could be made available to all. So we can see if it is 'admissible" also. I have wanted to use Chari's words in speeches and interviews for a long time.. Thanks...
4d-don-- don ( talk) 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed instructions for anon ips to vote per
WP:MEAT,
WP:CON and very specifically
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY
Sethie (
talk)
20:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
AGE LIMIT IS MANDATORY no practice of this method should be extended to minors ( less than 18 years old )
PLEASE VOTE
Aksur (
talk)
21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC) —
Aksur (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Since Don deleted my post on this topic, here goes a second time. (Don - Who's doing the muzzling now?)
There was a reference to Raja Yoga in this article and it's gone now. I can't find when and where this reference was deleted. It needs to be posted back in. Anyone have any issues with that? Please vote.
The second issue I wanted to bring to the table has to do with the unwieldy size of this discussion page. Wikipedia recommends we archive topics not being discussed any longer on this page (You'll see the Wikipedia message if you try to edit the entire page).
There was a lot of stuff I see on this page that is not relevant to the article - [ Here] for example. I'll go through this page and list it out, so we can all agree to archive it.
Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(do not delete, change or edit)
So as to find the true "concensus", please give your input in this section regarding this entry to the Sahaj Marg Article... A short comment is appreciated. I will count the numbers in two weeks and then move to the next step of either putting in the sentence or going to mediation.
Don said:
Please include in the article, in the section called "Practice", in the last line of the section, in the same font and font size, (and not in the footnotes), the following sentence, which is in many published books, in the PR of the Mission and in interviews with and speeches of the current Guru of one of the 'Factions" of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission, the proponents of Sahaj Marg.
"According to Babuji, the Founder of the system, Sahaj Marg meditation is only recommended for those over 18 yrs of age"
4d-don--don (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie
Your accusations are reactionary, emotional, POV, un-founded and not WIKI acceptable... conduct yourself according to WIKI...Or I tell "poet gal" on you!! ;-)) There may be more readers interested in this issue who were "bullied" away, and now want a SAY!! If you want to see "meat-puppets", look at the "sinble purpose accounts" and COI among the editors that are now here, trying to keep other true NPOV "editors" away with "bullying", deleting, Non-concensual and non common-sense tactics....? Methinks you doth protest too much!! Hiding your meat-puppets and your "single purpose accounts" and your COI, by pointing at others. That is called the "concensus" on this ISSUE by YOU GUYS, not by US ... But it is not the TRUE CONCENSUS. I will count and decide the course of actiion in two weeks (Formal Mediation maybe...still reading and deciding). The numbers will help me decide...If I am alone, I will not pursue it... If others think like me, I will go to as far as JOSIE... Maybe there is a "bigger" issue here that is not "obvious" to all. If you and duty2love are right, I should find no one who agrees with me, and on WIKI, the biggest gang wins the fight according to DUTY2love! ;-))
Don-- don ( talk) 00:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Marathi...
You are not the one to decide what is to be kept and deleted...Delete your own posts, not other people's... Your POV on what is RELEVANT is not NPOV and not WIKI. Archive from the TOP not the current discussion...Do not pick and chose what YOU WANT deleted or "out of sight"... Your accusation of "muzzling" is un-founded and I did not delete your material...If it got deleted, it was by mistake and you can always find it just like I have to do when you delete mine (not by mistatke) or others that don't agree with you...or you get others to delete other's post for you...
4d-don-- don ( talk) 00:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Don: You deleted an important text
here by Marathi. This has happened from your edit in the past too. I am not sure if you are deleting these accidentally or on purpose. When you submit your edits, please do a preview before you save, this way you can be sure that you don't edit other people's text.
Regarding your question, I had already mentioned my opinion that it is ok to have the age limit mentioned. But, it is very important to note Marathi's point that voting is not the way to get consensus, at least in the wiki world. Embhee ( talk) 01:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
About the deletions...
I think one possible scenario could be that Marathi was caught in a "Edit conflict" with me and I just back-paged and re-edited and Inadvertently deleted his "new post"... I will check that out... the ones from the past, I don't know...I don't intentionally "amend", change, or "selectively delete" other's posts or attempt to "hide" controversial material...I want all the DISCUSSION to remain visible for the new editors, so they may be "up-to speed" from the get go .... Some are not so inclined. Please stop deleting and amending and editing other's (my) posts as per WIKI guidelines...
About the Age LIMIT...
There have been enough references in BOOKS (read any of Babuji's first books) and you will see it in there...Read any of the PR in many "secondary" sources newspapers, interviews, speeches, etc.. and you will find it in there... because there are more of you, you think that you win and that you have a concensus. As per WIKI a PRIMARY can be also a "SECONDARY" source..and these are not "ABSOLUTE" terms...Anyone who has done any writing knows that. A mediator should be more aware of WIKI interpretations than those on this page...
Be patient...It will resolve itself... If I am alone with Shashwat and arksur I will still go for "mediation" on this as WIKI is not about "numbers" as in a "democracy" as per Duty2love's previous statement to that effect...
As far as I can see, you can't see very far... ;-))
Don-- don ( talk) 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
All,
I don't see any problem with Don's suggestion of adding the age limit statement under Practice section.
Duty2love (
talk)
22:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
OK - No comments on the Raja Yoga mention - Should I take that to mean everyone's OK with putting in the reference again? Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked through Shashwat's "Propose page" and there was no reference for it.
Sethie (
talk)
06:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi folks, Only gone for a few days and lots of action! It seems clear there is no consensus on the age line: Duty, Don, and Embhee are okay with it, Sethie, Marathi, and myself think it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE (also, I think the word "only" should not be in it as it is not in the secondary reference). Here are two suggestions:
Marathi would like to discuss the Raja Yoga issue so I suggest we turn our attention to that now. What do you all think? Renee ( talk) 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sethie and ALL
Unless you have Poet Gal's Proxy you can't speak for her... If you have her proxy, please show it. She can speak for herself if she wants to enter this conversation, so all of us can see her true POV.
I would say that Arksur also wants the "STATEMENT of CAUTION" in...
A STATEMENT of CAUTION that is in BOOKS by the FOUNDER, and in this Faction's own PR does not fit it in the INDISCRIMITATE section of WIKI mentionned above...That is not an accurate description of this STATEMENT... A CAUTION on a label is not TRIVIAL... It was not meant to be TRIVIALIZED by Preceptors (priests) or abhyasis (practicants) or WIKI editors, by the FOUNDER and the other more serious protectors of children from those who would target them before the "AGE OF REASON"!
On the Raja Yoga issue, the word "is" is a POV by Renee and other MEMBERS of this Group, and not an accurate word in a Balanced NPOV WIKI article, to describe an "adulteration" of Raja Yoga starting at rung 7 of an "eightfold" System (Raja Yoga) (that relies on COMMON SENSE)... Sahaj Marg's claim i is more a "usurping" of the word Raja Yoga so as to appear "credible" to the more gullible (children). And should be disallowed under the same "indiscrimitate" section of WIKI guidelines mentioned above by Renee. Specially when OBEDIENCE, not "COMMON SENSE" is the most important step in ONE (faith-based SRCM) and the other is an "eightfold system" of "self-empowerment" (Raja Yoga)...(no OBEDIENCE but a lot of "COMMON SENSE"). And Specially when this Faction is targeting Children, has schools, and activities specifically aimed at children at their seminars to which children are specifically "invited". (see their OHIO seminar invitations, on SRCM WEB site)
Don-- don ( talk) 15:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
User:PTR suggested the use of this source. I hope this is acceptable to everyone? Any (credible) reason this cannot be adequate to say "Sahaj Marg is a variety of Raja Yoga" as mentioned in the book? Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Renee...
Which Group is involved with the UN? Is that SRCM (Shahjahanpur), the original registered in India in 1945, or the "Break-away" SRCM (California) group registered in California, in 1997, by Chari, the current President of SRCM (California). If there is no clarity on which SRCM we are talking about, as per the court case, then I would suggest that we don't make statements of notability and attach it to the "break away" group or to the "original" group until the court has decided in clear terms. It seems to me that it is SRCM (California) who, being political and seeking credibility, joined the UN DPI program, with the help of Mr. PUUL in Europe. As it is now, Navneet, Grandson of Babuji, and the President of SRCM (Shahjahanpur), thinks he won the Judgement and is moving on other charges (criminal) against Chari and 6 other members of SRCM (California).
To be fair, and so as not get into taking sides in a "court battle", the article should stay away from the SRCM battle and remain with SAHAJ Marg, which SRCM (California) has patented in the USA, so technically owns it, until the SRCM (Shahjahanpur), and Navneet, it's president, start court action to get it back... I asked Navneet about that and it is apparently coming... so let us be WIKI NEUTRAL and not take side when many court cases are still PENDING and some are yet to come...
Besides, that is not an activity of SAHAJ MARG (the Practice) which is the TOPIC of the article...not SRCM, which is still in court. I asked a while back to not mention SRCM or we would have to get into the MIRE of WHO is SRCM and Which SRCM? The courts are still out on that!! And could be for a while yet.
What a mess eh? Let us remain NEUTRAL as per WIKI.
I will remove that ACTIVITY section, unless I hear some other COMMON SENSE.
Don-- don ( talk) 23:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
RAja Yoga...
So as to not Plagiarize, we must "paraphrase" as per WIKI and attach our phrase to a "credible" source... A member of SRCM (California), the "break-away" group, is not credible to anyone, specially to those from SRCM (Shajahanpur) the original group...And to advertise or do PR in the "footnotes" is also not WIKI acceptable. Just the sources and not PR. (check out the PRACTICE section references).
There is no concensus on the Raja Yoga statements above that is taken right out of SRCM (California) PR ... Seek concensus .... not decisions by TWO!
It seems you don't like the one that says that Sahaj Marg is a Raja Yoga starting at rung #7 of the eightfold Raja Yoga system as is written at this site by this preceptor, who is now in India, writing a book with Chari's, your GURU"s, blessing. [ here] ;-))
That's OK... it is not acceptable anyway!
Changes from your previous "position"...
So now you think that Sahaj Marg is a variety of "traditional" raja yoga, modified and starting with rung #7, eh? Show me where "obedience", the most important feature in Sahaj Marg, according to Chari, is in traditional Raja Yoga? Don't you have to adhere or teach a 'majority" of the POINTS before you can make such a CLAIM. It sounds like a book written from the PR of the RELIGIONS in question. And by the way, is SAHAJ MARG a RELIGION as is claimed by the title of that BOOK? Should you also put that in the article? Does that make Sahaj Marg, "NOTABLE" now, as you previously claimed it was not?
Anyone who knows the difference will chuckle at the "claim'. So much for "credibility" and common sense. Oh Well...We'll have to take that one to "MEDIATION" also...later!
I would like to hire you guys later! ;-))
don-- don ( talk) 23:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
EMBHEE..Duty2love...and other "common sense" seekers
As we have entered the REALM of CENSURE, you can find my replies to you on my [ TALK PAGE]
DO NOT ERASE THIS DISCUSSION RELEVANT TO SAHAJ MARG BEING A RAJA YOGA as per WIKI
If you think you are WIKI acceptable by deleting comments on CONTENT, we all can start DELETING WHAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH OUR POV if you want... ;-))
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE STATEMENT IS WHAT IS DISCUSSED here...and the SOURCE!!
If ONE list (Religions) is OK...The so is the FRENCH COMMISSION REPORT (on "Sectes") ... YOU allowed everyone's POV's, (including personal attacks) that agreed with you on on THAT ONE also!! Even attempts to discredit and slander the COMMISSION MEMBERS...and even the COMMISSION of a Sovereign Country ITSELF.
Don-- don ( talk) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
soapboxing moved to Don's page
Hi Jaysweet..
I have much to contribute... For example:
If one group wants to claim to be a "raja yoga" and source it to a book about WORLD RElIGIONS and then, it becomes clear that the PRESIDENT and the Group in Question "attacks" other religions and all religions, then the credibility of that work is suspect. One would not put such a group in a BOOK ON WORLD RELIGIONS if one had researched the GROUPS to be added in the BOOK.
So it seems to be a book written from the PR of the RELIGIONS in question as many such books of "LISTS" are.
The Quotes above (now deleted by Sethie) are to show what the MISSION under one FACTION, SRCM (California) is TEACHING at their school and in the speeches of the PRESIDENT of this GROUP...To simply mention it is not believed by a few present. The Proposed Source is then suspect and should be "un-admissible" under the "common sense" criteria of WIKI.
Likewise with the CAUTION from the FOUNDER that "Sahaj Marg Meditaion is not recommended for those under 18yrs of age"
By all rules of "COMMON SENSE", that sentence should be in the article, in the Practice Section, in the same font as the rest, as the last line. It boggles the mind that someone would think that it should be left out and pretend that the article is "fair and balanced" and mostly, accurate.
Likewise with the Activities Section regarding one of the FACTIONS (SRCM(California) being on a UN DIP program. The intro (and the system) refers to the founder of the "original" group registered in 1945 in India and this section refers to the "break-away" faction, registered in California, in 1997. We are confusing the two groups, who are still in court regarding who will control the Mission. The last [ Judgement from the Supreme Court of India] seemed to favour the "original group" but it is not over. (see section 5-6) We should stay away from such statement in an article on SAHAJ MARG, so as to not confuse the readers. It could be included in an article on SRCM. I believe we have a concensus on that isuue with the readers here, but...
Thanks for your involvement...
Don-- don ( talk) 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Jaysweet
Please stay away from such statements such as "crazy talk"...That is not WIKI...
moved more soapoxing to Don's page
I agree with you on the "18yrs Caution Statement"...It has been my (and other readers) suggestion. It has been opposed here.
Thanks for you "considerate" response...
Don-- don ( talk) 16:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Don has been coming to wikipedia since 2006 [ [5]], and posting his opinion about various things here, trying to make this a discussion forum, all the while making little to no actual helpful change to the project. (19 edits to mainspace out of 300 edits!) [ [6]]
I am tired of it, and have and will move all such material not directly related to the article to his talk page... for those who wish to read it. My hunch is, most of it is cut and pasted from one of his 12 blogs [ [7]]. I for one am not going to see wikipedia be #13! Sethie ( talk) 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jaysweet...
I agree with your statement:
I read the "Activities" section and I must disagree with your assertion that it should be removed. On the contrary, I think we need more content there. There has apparently been quite a controversy over who "own" Sahaj Marg. I want to hear about it in the article! Far from "confusing" readers, I think that would help readers understand why there is debated over who is the "raja yoga," why there are disagreements over how to practice SM, etc. Let's expand this section!
I also agree with you and it should be in the article as such, A RELIGION...
I have heard plenty of religions criticize the idea of organized religion, but that doesn't mean it's not a religion. Is it an organization with a set of beliefs and rituals? Well, there ya go. It's a religion.
About the Age LIMIT...You say: I am inclined to leave it.
I don't know if you mean "leave it in" or Leave it OUT but I think the concensus is to leave it IN..
4d-don-- don ( talk) 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not educated enough in this subject to comment independently, but I think I have seen enough.
The consensus seems to be very much against Don's proposed changes. While it is always possible that one person is correct in the face of opposition from the majority, Don has not provided any sources that I find sufficient to back his claims. To take each one in detail:
Don has attacked a book on world religions using some rather roundabout logic that I'm not sure I entirely follow. I am still not sure what source is being referenced, but in any case, he is going to have to provide a more coherent reason for why it would not be considered a reliable source, particularly when consensus of the other editors here (who are all more knowledgeable than me) seems to be that it is a reliable source.
Renee has asserted that the controversy over ownership of the SMRC name has not been covered in the mainstream press. While it is impossible to definitely prove a negative assertion such as this, I think it is fair to say that the controversy should not be added to the article unless and until a mainstream news source is located which covers the controversy.
I don't have an opinion about the age limit thing, but the consensus is strongly against inclusion, so Don will just have to abide by that.
I recommend the following actions:
Is this acceptable? -- Jaysweet ( talk)
Hi Renee
You forgot to mention that the secondary sources have to be in "english" according to you...
Jaysweet
As per WIKI, I will be taking these issues to FORMAL MEDIATION soon...as there are some secondary sources on the ownership controversy (2 newspaper articles with photos, in India), but it is not deemed acceptable as they are not in English. I am still trying to get an "original" and an "official" translation.
As well, the "age limit Cautionary statement" not being in the article will be brought to Formal Mediation.
Thanks for your help...
4d-don-- don ( talk) 18:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jaysweet
This is what I have with an "un-official" translation and a scanned copy of the Hindi version of both newspapers. Also, I have the scanned copy of the doctors confirmation of the Injuries to the victims, but it is not "translated" and very difficult to translate because of the scanning process. I am trying to get a better copy of the doctor's report.
Caption in Dainik Jagran dated 8th Nov 2006
Caption under photograph, Dainik Jagran 8th november 2006
Administrative officer in consultation with ex-minister "Jansevak" who attack the mission property to capture it.
Note:-
Dainik Jagran ( http://www.epaper.jagran.com ) is the most read newspaper in India.
http://www.newswatchonline.in/news-analyses/circulation-audience/1691.html?q=news-analyses/circulation-audience/1691.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/001200608291820.htm
Hindustan, 3rd November 2006. Ram Chandra Mission captured, after Violence
Woman among 3 others injured
4d-don-- don ( talk) 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Jaysweet
I tried that already...The report again originated from the "Shahjahanpur" branch office and is of "local" interest although there were attempts to involve the Prime Minister and President of India, according to Navneet. I have someone in India trying to get official "hard copies". I tried for access to their archives without any luck. The best I can hope for (I think) is a "Hard copy" that I can scan, and get an "official" translation by a "reputed" translator... Much like one would have to do with a published book or a magazine. There are many on-line firms that offer that service for a fee. We'll see what the "Mediator" thinks of that!
Thanks for the input on the doctor's report...I will get it anyway for my own purpose. It only confirms to me that some injuries took place at some date, that lends credibility to the "newspaper" reports. Wether it is WIKI admissible or not, we will have to wait and see. It certainly confirms that some "injuries", that happened around the same time, were serious enough to warrant a doctor's treatment and report. The rest is conjecture.
I spoke to Navneet, the founder's grandson and current President of SRCM (Shahjahanpur), about this and this is what he said (on a blog): (Note: This seems to be from a seperate incident a few months earlier...I am trying to get court docket confirmation of this allegation also).
soapboxing/blogging moved to Don's talk page
Isn't this fun? ;-))
Keep on the Sunny Side of LIFE...4d-don--
don (
talk)
20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Jaysweet
If you want to converse with me, then you should not encourage "deletion" of the information I send you as per your request. If you want more info, please direct it to my Talk page...or I'll see you at "recess"...lol..;-))
4d-don-- don ( talk) 20:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Jaysweet
It was a reply from the current President of SRCM (Shahjahanpur) that seems to indcate that there could be more than one incident at the Ashram...I thought it was relevant.
Anyway...address any request for info from me to my talk page, so I can speak or write freely and discuss openly without the "BIG WIKI" eavesdropping.... lol
Bye for now...Do keep smiling for those who can't ;))
It's worse that this in war, they throw bombs and they don't yell: "WATCH OUT"!!
4d-don--
don (
talk)
20:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI - Added it in. Let me know what you think. Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 01:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Marathi and Renee
Your Source #4 of the Raja Yoga inclusion, is not available for checking for all readers...[ here]
Could you make it available to all readers for verification?
You gotta laugh b'cause it' s not funny... oh there's the bell...recess...;-))
4d-don-- don ( talk) 17:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Renee...
Yes...so as not to show POV-push, chose at least, the one that is not obviously by a MEMBER or a PRECEPTOR (where the person admits it in the article) and is not in a "LIFESTYLE" commercial rag, or Lifestyle section of a newspaper, where any "negative" about YOGA (in this case) is not going to be in the article, because according to us true WIKIpedians who try to adhere to the GUIDELINES, it looks like a "POV push", even though we all know that you would never do that and you are yourself, not a member of this Group! lol...
If we could get any system to adhere by it's own rules, we would have a better world be it Spiritual or WIKI!
4d-don-- don ( talk) 19:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
User:PelleSmith was kind enough to provide these two sources here and here. She has emailed me the pdf of the first, which is a scholarly source, and I'd be happy to email it to anyone who requests it.
Here is the description of Sahaj Marg from this source: Pearmain, Rosalind. 2005. "Transformational Experiences in Young People: The Meaning of a Safe Haven." International Journal of Children's Spirituality. 10(3):277-290.
I found a reprint of this second article on the SRCM website and have provided the link to it here. Devagupta, R. 2004. " A Terrible Longing in the Heart: An Interview with Shri Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari." Parabola. 29(3):28-32.
Unfortunately, I don't think the second will be of much use to us, however, because it is a primary source as PelleSmith pointed out here so can only be used for information that no one will challenge (and someone's bound to challenge every word or source here....). Is there anything worth including from the Pearmain article? Renee ( talk) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi team
Couple proposals:
1. I've been reading other articles on WP and their leads are much shorter. If no objections exist I'll leave the first two sentences in the lead on Sahaj Marg. The rest of the passage will move to "History." There's a natural break and it works well, I think.
2. I liked Sethie's practice of archiving threads that had not been discussed in two weeks and will proceed with doing this (assuming no one complains).
Opinions?
Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 05:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI. Is this newspaper article admissible as a reference for the daily practice (Meditation, cleaning, group meditations and 1x1 sittings with preceptors)? Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 09:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Guys
What do you think of paraphrasing the 10 maxims to this article?
Marathi_Mulgaa ( talk) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This article looks like a advertising already. No more advertising please! Where is the balance that we found in other articles on WIKI?
jeanne-- J.d'arc ( talk) 18:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that Cult Free World is back making the same unilateral edits that got him repeatedly blocked.
Cult, if there is anything new you would like to discuss, please let's discuss it here. I know it can be frustrating working within the structure of Wikipedia but if you're willing to discuss issues, I'm sure we can reach consensus.
I didn't see anything new in your edits of the last couple of days but I could be wrong. Is there something you'd like to discuss? Renee ( talk) 14:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I went through all the several back-to-back edits made by
User:Cult free world and these changes are the same that was done before by him. There was nothing new and all these topics of court-cases, etc. we had gone through them and discussed and decided to keep them out of the page for lack of proper sources. I therefore went ahead and removed the edits done by
User:Cult free world. If he wants to make changes, we need to discuss it and come to a consensus and then make the change.
Embhee (
talk)
14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Culty - if this content wasn't admissible according to multiple editors and admins 2-3 months ago, why do you assume it's OK now? As explained to you a couple million times by users and admins alike, kindly discuss on this page before making any edits. BTW - Were'nt you under a topic ban?
Marathi_Mulgaa (
talk)
19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
First let me introduce some relevant info about myself. (You can read more on my user page of course)
I was a sincere practicant of Sahaj Marg for 12 yrs. I also was an official in the organization (SRCM) for 4 yrs. Apart from that I hold a PhD in mathematics, and was a scientific editor for 2 yrs. I believe I know what is considered the norm for references in an unbiased article.
So please do not dismiss what I say with too much ease.
This article on Sahaj Marg fails to acknowledge the FACT that Sahaj Marg has been subject of investigation by the French Government, and has been put on a list of potentially dangerous sects. A reference to the appropriate report is the VERY LEAST that this article should contain.
Furthermore, the number of references is large, and they all point to sources which are unequivocally positive towards Sahaj Marg. Even the text of the prayer is quoted in full in a reference (!).
The article in its current form therefore reeks of an advertorial. There are quite a number of critical blogs on the web on Sahaj Marg now, there is also a critical analysis on Sahaj Marg on www.relinfo.ch (a Swiss evangelical site aiming to help people avoid sects).
The concerns about Sahaj Marg may not always be well-formulated, but I think this article should not neglect the FACT that there ARE serious concerns about Sahaj Marg.
My advice is therefore to adopt a more neutral stance. Do not misuse the footnotes/references section for a long list of positive references. Cut down the references, and also put in two or three critical references (one to the French Government's report, one or two to some critical websites).
Friendly greetings Frank W ( talk) 10:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Folks, Here is the work that needs to be done to convert the references into a more professional format. I'm willing to try but wanted to make sure everyone was on board because newcomers will have a hard time (imho) adding references. Of course, they can just add them and then someone who's familiar with this Wiki reference style can re-format them properly.
The advantage of this method is that the reference is only cited once, instead of appearing everytime it's used to support a statement. This will take me a while to figure out so if someone else is not as intimidated as I by this format -- please jump in!!! Renee ( talk) 12:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I said that I would try to find some reliable secondary sources which show that Sahaj Marg is being viewed with real concern, at least in some European countries like France and Switzerland. I understand that the French government's reports do not count as secondary. Here I have come across an article in the Swiss daily newspaper Le Matin , published by respectable Edipresse.
(The rest below is on the assumption that this is a new source, and you have not already discounted it somewhere. If you did already discard it, then sorry, scratch my remark.)
You might notice that the French government's reports do play a role in the discussion in the article. Therefore, both the existence of these reports and their listing of SRCM as a possibly harmful sect are simple facts (that can be corroborated easily) which are truly relevant to the article on Sahaj Marg (in my POV of course). I would leave in the middle whether what the reports say is justified, because that is (as the article in Le Matin shows) disputed. But to leave out the existence of these reports, which play a verifiable part in French and Swiss society's views of Sahaj Marg, to me seems an omission.
I don't think any mention needs to be elaborate (better not, even). Just a line or two, saying: `In Switzerland and France, serious concerns have been raised with regard to Sahaj Marg as a possibly harmful sect.' And then for example the article above as a reference.
What do you think? (Don't worry, I'm not going to push this, I'm appealing to neutral POV that's all. More sources will turn up, because what I say is simply true: there are serious concerns in these European countries, and newspapers do write about them from time to time, even though SRCM is comparatively small.) Feel free to disagree and leave the article as it is.
Oh, I forgot, sorry, the newspaper article is in French...but there should be some trustworthy translator for you to consult. Frank W ( talk) 00:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear IP 69.242.90.72, I notice you deleted the controversies section. What are your specific objections to the section? Renee ( talk) 23:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear all, I have found another new source. This time it is an article in the world-class newspaper (this is the English wikipedia qualification!) Neue Zurcher Zeitung. Yes, it is a Swiss newspaper, in German. Now, with all respect, I think I won't accept you bringing up again the guidelines already mentioned above. I have already pointed out that they do not apply. The German can easily be translated, I will do so for you - in time. Together with the already good-quality newspaper article in Le Matin, I think there is plenty wiki-material to add Renee's sentence and these two sources to the wiki-article on Sahaj Marg.
The titel of the 30-10-1996 article is:
Ein Bundesrichter als Sektenführer?/Roland Schneider verlässt die Shri Ram Chandra Mission/fel. Lausanne, 29. Oktober
Translation: "A Federal judge as sect leader? / Roland Schneider leaves the Shri Ram Chandra Mission/fel. Lausanne, 29th October"
The article can be found in the Neue Zurcher Zeitung Archive, but it will cost me 6 euros. I don't mind, but I would appreciate your agreeing beforehand that this source is reliable verifiable etc. and therefore admissible. It (like the Le Matin article) simply reflects what I stated earlier: there are serious concerns about Sahaj Marg in Switzerland and France.
kind regards, Frank W ( talk) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |