![]() | 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. |
{{ editprotected}} The Marriage section currently states "Sahaja Yoga hosts a voluntary arranged marriage system. In India those interested need to fill in a form [1] detailing their backgrounds." There are 2 problems with this: firstly, the page referenced has been blanked and should be changed to an archived version; secondly, the words 'In India' should be removed as this is an international site and the page does not mention that the forms are only for people in India.-- Simon D M ( talk) 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If the site no longer states that then it shouldn't be used as a source. Also the mirror of the source mentions the marriages being held in India. Sfacets 11:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it shows that people of different nationalities got married in India that year. Add a real reference if you have one. Sfacets 13:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
So use that link. Sfacets 13:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Too bad you can't have it both ways then. Sfacets 13:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But it isn't valid... since it is no longer on the website. Sfacets 21:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Linking to a webarchive is perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. It's interesting that after being up for over 2 years, the page suddenly got blanked when WP linked to it. It's as if somebody has got something to hide. -- Simon D M 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Kennedy would agree. Sfacets 08:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You provided no evidence that form were utilized in other countries. Sfacets 10:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
SY is a religion, by its own statements. It's obviously an organization. So the category:Religion organizations appears accurate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The name Sahaja Yoga has been trademarked in the US by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma although the term goes back at least to the 15th Century Indian mystic Kabir. [6] [7] There has recently been significant expenditure on legally protecting the term in Europe. [8]
Sfacets deleted the latter sentence saying it was "comment on a primary source". I'd welcome comment from neutral editors on what uses of primary sources are acceptable, what constitutes 'comment' and whether that is acceptable. -- Simon D M ( talk) 17:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with fundamentalist Christian editors is that they are have serious NPOV issues and intentions behind all their edits, even if they are following the rules. Because Sahaja Yoga is a moderate and tolerant movement it is often attacked by those on the extremities. Practitioners of Sahaja Yoga respect the fundamental right for all to have their own POV however fundamentalism is one thing that is not tolerated and will always be spoken out against. Sahaja Yoga does have some views that would be considered unusual to people of the main stream, and it does question the status-quo in a way that is appropriate in a free thinking and democratic world. For a long time fundamentalist Christianity has had problems with Sahaja yoga for just this reason. It makes sense that fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalists in general feel threatened by the philosophical, historical and social questions Sahaja Yoga raises. In general fundamentalist Christians are against all forms of eastern practices such as yoga not to mention all other religions and are by definition intolerant and arrogant people. Perhaps editors of such persuasion think they are doing Gods work by attacking any other movement or religion, no matter how moderate, that is not compatible with their own belief?
Could all those fundamentalist Christians editors on a crusade against Sahaja Yoga stop editing the Sahaja Yoga Page? Such editors are tampering with the neutrality of this article by using the rules of wikipedia and are thus attacking the fundamental democratic principles behind Wikipedia itself. Should this continue and the neutral editors of the article continue to be attacked, it will not be long before we will bring the fundamental beliefs and true identities of such editors to the attention of the wikipedia Authority. Teamantime ( talk) 01:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Fundamentalism is only a problem if it is affecting editing adversely, in that regard I only see evidence of SY fundamentalism, no other. -- Simon D M ( talk) 15:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The interpretation of Sahajayoga which is moderate and tolerant is being interpreted as per the concenience of Anti Sahajayoga editors. This interpretation as per Anti Sahajayoga activist's convenience is the core problem. --Commwatch 19:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commwatch ( talk • contribs)
Is it true that all the editors who tryed to tell the truth about SY as been banned from wikipedia ? -- Agenor 77 ( talk) 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph about the Rome school is essentially pasted from the article about the Sahaja India school. Repeating it here is using undue weight. It should be removed from this article. Freelion ( talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This reference does not contain any criticism of the movement or its founder. I do not see the relevance of it being in this article. Freelion ( talk) 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
If it is relevant to include information about people who have a close relationship with the movement, then I propose a new section on Simon Dicon Montford, who has had a close relationship with the movement for the last 10 years or more. As a vocal critic of the movement, it would be relevant to highlight his pattern of behaviour. Freelion ( talk) 03:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the following: "Nevertheless the writer was surprised by the "openness" of the practitioners and suggested the possibility that "they genuinely have nothing to hide". He said "one of the key definitions of a cult is the rigour with which it strives to recruit new members" and remarked on the lack of any sales tactics at the Sahaja Yoga program he attended." Firstly, I don't see what this is doing in a Criticisms section. Secondly, the use of the source is selective (mentions 'nothing to hide' possibility but not 'PR charm offensive' possibility) and exaggerates ('lack of any sales tactics' is not the same as having 'had more trouble getting rid of a double- glazing salesman').-- Simon D M ( talk) 23:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no issue here... Sfacets 12:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Why and how come yoga templet was used in this article and why not cult templet ? -- Cult free world ( talk) 07:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
mind control and brainwashing is very much part of practice. here is the reference of the same [12]
-- Cult free world ( talk) 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
This is what WP:RS say's, can you cite the specific policy which prohibits Amazon review as “un-reliable” however there are many reference of cult watch groups (rick-ross etc) and some government reports as well, that can be used I guess.
However there is no reliable source for the claim made currently, as it is taken directly from the group site, which is a primary source, and hence cannot be accepted, however a secondary source for the same is acceptable, as in case of above reference, which is a reliable source as per wiki policy.
If my knowledge is incorrect, please correct it.
-- Cult free world ( talk) 08:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Cult free world ( talk) 11:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
hi Sfacets,
-- Cult free world ( talk) 10:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Cult free world ( talk) 11:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Cult free world ( talk) 13:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
In this diff you said: "I will stop editing the articles mentioned above for some time, in accordance with genuine requests, and will concentrate on other articles." Are we to understand that, within 5 days of your latest block expiring, you are back to editing the articles in question? -- Simon D M ( talk) 10:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The Ananda Marga wiki page makes the following claim "Anandamurtiiji taught many systems of meditation such as ... Sahaja Yoga ... " Is this true? Is it worth linking? DDB ( talk) 09:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Eileen Barker from Inform advises that the media is the most influential source of information about New Religious Movements and that the majority of that information is of a negative nature. The media have an interest in attracting and keeping readers, most of whom are likely to be attracted by sensational stories. Suppliers of information may well have an agenda that leads them to adjust their product to meet a perceived demand. [2]
Freelion, do you think that every article on a new religious movement that refers to press coverage should have a paragraph similar to this? Or might it be more parsimonious to have such discussion in one place. -- Simon D M ( talk) 14:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Simon u keep changing this without saying why. If you do it one more time i will report you to the administrators for abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michalis 9 ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Aregenor77, this is already in the Nirmala Srivastava article and that of her husband, can you give any reason (other that trying to imply respectability) for repeatedly inserting it in the lead of this article? -- Simon D M ( talk) 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The last substantive comment made was as follows: WP:LEAD clearly states that the lead of articles should reflect the contents of that article, not other articles. -- Simon D M ( talk) 18:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Reference given in the templet is a primary source, self-realization is something which is only claimed by all cults, there is no proof from direct perception as such, also as per wiki guidelines extra-ordinary claims need at-least reference form a secondary reliable source.
The templet should contain crisp, to the point, information about this cult, both side's.
-- Cult free world ( talk) 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
As per wiki, there is more then enough proof, that SY is a
cult. there are
secondary,
reliable and
neutral sources available, but what is the source (using similar evidance) for self-realization ? if feeling cold is self realization, then people in
tundra region need absolutely no cult at all for self-realization!!
Using same analogy as Agenor 77 brainwashing is obvious hence Agenor 77 will agree with me if we add a section on brainwashing in this article.
-- Cult free world ( talk) 19:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Which reference are you talking about ? -- Cult free world ( talk) 08:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I simply loved that link, thanks, :D, i have made only minor edits, that too, not more then 3 or 4, so far on any article, ofcourse i will not edits anything which i do not know, or am unable to discuss the same on talk page !. Take it light, we can work with a smile. :) --
Cult free world (
talk)
09:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This section indicates that Sahaja yoga has somehow originated this concept and from style of writing this section it appears that SY has exclusive knowledge about this concept. This however is part of traditional hindu philosophy, and methods and procedures are meticulously elaborated in various vedantic texts including Upnishads. Some information can also be found here also [15] the tone, style of writing and presentation of this section needs to re-looked and changed appropriately so as to make sure, that the article does not become a PR page for SY.
Chakras and Nadis are part of traditional Hindu philosophy and there cannot be any exclusive claim about ownership of the these terms or methods. If any cult claims that it has modified the concept, then that in itself indicates that the cult has belief that the original concept is not valid any more and they have modified the truth to suit present day people. Which should be stated in that manner only, as according to ancient hindu texts, where these concept have originated, are accepted as absolute truth, by those who beleive in ORIGINAL texts rather then its modification by some mordern day cult, Any modification in original concepts indicates that it was not absolute to begin with. Hence this contradiction from original concept must be added in the section.
-- Cult free world ( talk) 06:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Kakar writes that Nirmala Srivastava's own additions to this widespread traditional trantric model lie in traditional Christian morality, an elaboration of the health aspects and a scientific, neurological veneer. [3]
which I would have thought was pretty clear. I'll change the article to make it clear from the beginning and remove the tags. If you have any more concerns, feel free to replace them. -- Simon D M ( talk) 10:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPOV, WP:COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.167.142 ( talk) 07:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
((--: :--)) -- Cult free world ( talk) 10:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Citing oneself ??
Financial ??
Legal antagonists ??
Self-promotion ?? (don't even have a self on wikipedia...)
Autobiography ?? (don't have one yet !)
Close relationships ?? (with whom)
Campaigning ?? (for whom)
Please provide a reference where you feel a POV push ?-- Cult free world ( talk) 10:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say that you are campaining. So yes there does seem to be a conflict of interest. Describing something using non-neutral terms is against Wikipedia policy - see policy. Frhermore your username is inapropriate, may be seen as offensive. Please maintain a neutral editing stance and discuss why your unconcealed non-neutral edits should be permitted in the article. 124.170.167.142 ( talk) 14:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say that you are campaining
Describing something using non-neutral terms is against Wikipedia policy
Frhermore your username is inapropriate, may be seen as offensive.
Please maintain a neutral editing stance and discuss why your unconcealed non-neutral edits should be permitted in the article.
Yours TRULY -- Cult free world ( talk) 15:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You are not being neutral because you are stating allegations as fact. Please read the policies on Wikipedia. Also please realize that Wikipedia should not be used as a source. 124.170.167.142 ( talk) 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
1. Sahaja Yoga has been a subject of criticism and has been associated with a number of problems, some arising from "Sahaja Yoga's emphasis on complete devotion to Nirmala Srivastava". [5] Various sources have also described Sahaja Yoga as a cult.
2. Sathya Sai Baba, Rajneesh, Jim Jones and many more modern day self proclaimed saints and sages have also claimed to be an incarnation, citing smiler religious texts, most of them, have been listed as cult figure's. [6]
I have removed the following paragraphs for discussion:
It seems to me that the above two paragraphs do not serve to improve this article.
The first paragraph tries to discredit this NRM by linking the term "Sahaja Yoga" with some well known destructive cults, the teachings of which have no similarity or outcome with those of Sahaja Yoga. It's a very poor excuse indeed.
The second paragraph is only a vehicle to promote the personal website of a vocal critic of this movement.
I think we can do better, like referencing Sankaracharya who also used the term "Sahaja". Freelion ( talk) 11:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. And at the moment there is only concensus among the "anti-Sahaja Yoga" editors. I've taken out the reference to the personal website in this section because it is a gratuitous self promotion (Simon DM owns the domain). 203.110.151.250 ( talk) 01:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest requesting moderation by a neutral non-contributing third party - since any consensus reached between editors with COI is debatable. 124.170.164.157 ( talk) 11:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest placing a Request for mediation so a neutral editor can help sort things out. 124.170.164.157 ( talk) 21:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
what is the dispute ? -- Cult free world ( talk) 11:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't really need your trust - the point is I'm not offering to mediate here, or contribute to the article (having little knowledge of the subject). All I know is from what I can see on the article history and the discussion page which shows that there have been multiple instances of COI/biased editing, and am suggesting that rather than continue to edit the article in a non-neutral manner, seek moderation and talk it through. 124.170.228.9 ( talk) 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. 124.170.169.126 ( talk) 02:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Recently it has been noted that allegations, like cult, brainwashing mind control etc are removed from the article, stating that it is either extra ordinary claim, or COI or vandalism, whereas self claimed elements such as self realization, awakening et-al are not viewed such ? any explanation from those who have removed it.
Brainwashing and psychological harm caused by Sahaja Yoga on its victim is what is reported and explained in a report, which was submitted to National Assemble of France which was debated and accepted as such, and then published on internet. is this reference not enough ? or is this not extra ordinary that this group was subject to discussion in National Assemble of a republic but these statements are removed from the article, from anon user's who claims that anonymity is used only for administrative tasks. When extra ordinary claim such as self realization is also removed from the article, then it is claimed that that removal is vandalism but removal of brainwashing is not ? please explain.
My request to anon user 124.170.169.XXX is kindly leave the administrative tasks to administrators and if editing article, please use your ID so that it does not create confusing, as your edits may be viewed as trolling. -- Cult free world ( talk) 11:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If a self published article can be considered reliable, then a cftf report is also reliable, i have no objection in placing self-realization in article till it is accompanied with mind control and brainwashing. we need to put both pictures, and must not avoid other view's, lets not take the task of spoon feeding, but present both view, and allow reader's to decide what they want to take. self-realization or brainwashing ! please give in your comments so that i can add other view also, so as to balance the article. --
Cult free world (
talk)
09:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Which other editors ? -- Agenor 77 ( talk) 23:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Sahaja Yoga; 21:37 . . (+90) . . Cult free world (Talk | contribs) (care to see the talk page ?? this is something which is agreed upon by other editor's.)
Wikipedia isn't about views, although plenty are expressed here. It is clear that the addition of "brainwashing" by Cult free world is an attempt to discredit the organization, an nothing more, and as such is disruptive. I would urge (as I previously have done) that you request moderation if you continue to add obviously biased material. 124.170.85.216 ( talk) 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this tag needed any more ? -- Cult free world ( talk) 11:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite obviously. 124.170.85.216 ( talk) 07:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You both are the only sources of contention.
I've removed the third paragraph from the introduction because it is a minority view being pushed by two anti-cult fanatics.
203.110.151.250 (
talk)
04:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please put the neutrality tag back on the front of the article. This article is being dominated by anti cult activists who wish to misrepresent the subject for their own purposes. This article does not reflect the subject well and does not reflect a consensus. Why is it that whenever someone tries to push back the tide of negative representations, this page gets frozen?
Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 6/editprotected
I really want to be able to take your comments and participation seriously. There are a few things you can do that would help me to do this:
1) create an account and/or do not ip hop.
2) sign your edits
3) focus on content, NOT contributors, actual edits, not hypothetical motives for edits. Thanks! Sethie ( talk) 02:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about opinions on the subject matter. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about opinions on the subject matter at the Reference desk. |
Sethie ( talk) 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}Please put the neutrality tag back on the front of the article. This article is being dominated by anti cult activists. Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 6/editprotected Freelion ( talk) 01:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Freelion ( talk) 11:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for re-entering actual dialogue.
If you look in the controversy section, you will see four citations that alledge it is like a cult/cultish/a cult.
If you have a [{WP:RS]] which rebuts these claims, I would be in favor of it being included.
I would be open to changing the lead to "There are some controversies surrounding the movement, including some allegations that the group is a cult."
How does that sound to you? Sethie ( talk) 18:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-- Cult free world ( talk) 07:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Inform only reflects the "directed criticism", that is by a small number of authors (trying to sell books), some vigilante ex-members and newspapers who are only reporting about the vigilante ex-members (a negative slant sells more papers). I'm sure that some of these sources would love to believe that their efforts result in controversy "surrounding" the movement but that is just vanity. In truth, criticism is directed at the movement from a small number of sources (minority view). Freelion ( talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Inform warns against using media reports as objective references about new religious movements due to their interest in creating sensationalist stories. Likewise authors who write books on the subject have their sales in mind and write for their audience. Freelion ( talk) 05:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Freelion, INFORM based their comments on all the information they had to hand which includes extensive contacts with member, ex-members, parents of members, etc. One of the past directors even wrote her PhD and a book based on participant observation. INFORM also draw on a wider knowledge of similar movements and the social scientific study or religion. They don't just 'reflect' one party's opinions. -- Simon D M ( talk) 11:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The above section has been removed for discussion. At the moment it is a load of referenced POV hogwash designed not to inform, but to attack the movement. Re-write and discuss before re-inserting. 203.110.151.250 ( talk) 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The medical studies subsection should come under the meditation subsection, ie requires an extra '=' each side of the heading. The long standing structure seems to have been broken in recent frantic editing. I do not believe this is controversial. --
Simon D M (
talk)
08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Done Agreed. The section in question seems to reference medical studies on meditation, so being a subsection of the topic referred to is reasonable.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed moving some content about this tradition's view of Self-realization from that article onto this page. Discussion is on the self-realization article's talk page. - Owlmonkey ( talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
SY is describe as an Eastern Apocalyptic sect in this French Government report: AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION D'ENQUÊTE (1) SUR LES SECTES.
See also: Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France#Commission of 1995
Perhaps this is worthy of mention.
-- Simon D M ( talk) 14:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Not worthy at all, SY is not a apocalyptic --Ag 05:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 ( talk • contribs)
This fits in well in the "cult" section which already discusses the French view of the group. But I can't add it, I can't read the original french. - Owlmonkey ( talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest expanding the following sentence:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made a Unique Discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse
[18] after attending a
Rajneesh meditation camp in
Nargol
citation needed on May 5, 1970.
[19]
into the following new paragraph:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse [20]. She had previously visited different religious people including Rajneesh [21] and found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. Finding the situation hopeless, she began to search inside herself for a solution. [22]
Freelion ( talk) 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This expands on Shri Mataji's presence at the camp and avoids the apparent misrepresentation that she made the unique discovery as a result of being at the camp. In the following I have only added the date:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse [22] on May 5, 1970. She had previously visited different religious people including Rajneesh [23] and found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. Finding the situation hopeless, she began to search inside herself for a solution. [22]
Freelion ( talk) 03:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The above suggestion seems to have been agreed upon.
Freelion (
talk)
01:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The camp is mentioned in the Nirmala Srivastava article. The only controversial thing with the page in its current form is the way it is worded. It incorrectly suggests that the camp had something to do with the unique discovery. There is no mention of Shri Mataji's opinion of Rajneesh and others and the reason for her inward search. It needs to be changed and clearing this up will prevent further edit wars. Freelion ( talk) 05:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Rajneesh's techniques bear no similarity to SY. The existing paragraph is wrong and this is a simple clarification. You are just trying being disruptive. Freelion ( talk) 12:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
What I am proposing is the following:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse
[24] on May 5, 1970. She had previously visited different religious people including Rajneesh
[25] and found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. Finding the situation hopeless, she began to search inside herself for a solution.
[22]
Left in its current form, the paragraph incorrectly implies that Nirmala Srivastava somehow got the idea of the 'unique discovery' from the camp. This new reference clarifies the event.
Freelion (
talk)
08:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Drop the word "previously" then, it still makes sense. The rest of it is accurate to the source. Freelion ( talk) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay then:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse
[26] on May 5, 1970. She visited different religious people including Rajneesh
[27] and said that she found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. She said she found the situation hopeless and began searching inside herself for a solution.
[22]
Let me know if there are any more probs.
Freelion (
talk)
23:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This section is about Nirmala Srivastava. There is already a section on Beliefs which features Coney. At the moment we are just correcting a misleading paragraph, which in its current form incorrectly implies that Nirmala Srivastava somehow got the idea of her 'unique discovery' from attending a Rajneesh camp. All we are doing is adding a new reference which clarifies the event. I believe the wording is NPOV and accurately reflects the source. Can we agree on this? Freelion ( talk) 01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Then why does it suggest that Shri Mataji somehow got the idea of her 'unique discovery' from attending a Rajneesh camp? This is misinformation and this new source clarifies it. Do you have a problem with the new source? No. Do you have a problem with the wording? No, it's been discussed and rectified to the satisfaction of all parties. Freelion ( talk) 03:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No way! This is all about you stalling for time! This is about the simple addition of a new (third party) source to correct a misleading paragraph. Three editors have agreed to it and the wording is NPOV. This should be enough. Stalling for time is just disruption. No one can fault the new source or the wording - there is no legitimate objection to the addition of this new source. Freelion ( talk) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not a puff piece, it's more like a frank and honest look at the movement. It was co-produced with the University of Munich Television and Film and Bayerischer Rundfunk Claudia Gladziejewski. I don't know if Dassel is a Sahaja Yogi, it doesn't really matter. Just because someone has tried and experienced the benefits of the meditation, does that make them a Sahaja Yogi? Don't forget that Coney is just a sociologist who, as you have revealed, took specific measures to avoid experiencing any benefit from the meditation. (Remove Personal Attacks) But we don't have to compare every new source to Coney and this discussion is not about Coney, it's about the insertion of a new legitimate source; the simple process of which you seem determined to disrupt. Freelion ( talk) 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for joining us again Owlmonkey, you are a breath of fresh air. In addition to your suggestion I think we could effectively express Nirmala Srivastava's disillusionment and value of morality by including part of the new reference that I have been suggesting:
She visited different religious people including Rajneesh
[28] and said that she found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual.
[22]
This reference also serves to distance Nirmala Srivastava from the teachings of Rajneesh.
Freelion (
talk)
10:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
As you say, this section is on beliefs about Nirmala Srivastava by Sahaja Yogis. The existing first sentence tells some basic facts:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made a Unique Discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse
[29] after attending a
Rajneesh meditation camp in
Nargol
citation needed on May 5, 1970.
[30]
However, by the way it is worded, the reader may get the false impression that Nirmala Srivastave received her unique discovery as a result of attending the Rajneesh camp. Her own words shed more light on the issue and the substitution of the following will elucidate more of the story to the reader:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse
[31] on May 5, 1970. She visited different religious people including a Rajneesh meditation camp
[32] and said that she found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. She said she found the situation hopeless and began searching inside herself for a solution.
[22]
Simon D M is attempting to block the inclusion of this new reference by labeling it "self published". He accusing Sahaja Yoga of inducing the University of Munich Television and Film and Bayerischer Rundfunk Claudia Gladziejewski into co-producing the film but offers no proof. It is a baseless accusation in an attempt to discredit a perfectly legitimate reference. The film "Nirmala Devi: Freedom and Liberation" contains a quote by Nirmala Devi herself which is quite relevant to this paragraph. In the past, Simon D M has been happy to use quotes of Sahaja Yoga's founder in a pejorative sense no matter where they come from. It is interesting to note his double standards here. To summarise, the first sentence is misleading and the subject needs to be elucidated.
Freelion (
talk)
03:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Freelion, you write "the reader may get the false impression that Nirmala Srivastave received her unique discovery as a result of attending the Rajneesh camp". Your claim that such an impression is false is just your original research. The article presently just states facts. We could improve it by adding material from from reliable 3rd party sources. See WP:RS. -- Simon D M ( talk) 08:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not original research when I have a reliable third party source, which I have provided. See previous argument - you have no cause to reject this reference, apart from it not confirming your own POV. Freelion ( talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Again you ignore the fact that this film has been produced in collaboration with two other parties: the University of Munich Television and Film and Bayerischer Rundfunk Claudia Gladziejewski. Just because someone has tried the technique and even practises it, does not disqualify anything they might say about it. So your argument that this is not a reliable source is bunk. This source does not necessarily invalidate other sources and it should be included so that the reader can make up their own mind. Furthermore, as previously stated, the source contains the words of the founder herself and her words have been used before without regard to where they come from. So there you are Simon, all your arguments are gone. Unless the fact that you simply didn't like the film count, which it doesn't. Your personal abuse of the quality of the source only serves to highlight your agressive anti-Sahaja Yoga agenda. Freelion ( talk) 02:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:SPS states that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." Unless you can prove that Nirmala Devi or Sahaja Yoga payed to have this film created by 3 separate parties, including the University of Munich, then you can't call this a self published source.
By "on a par with Coney" you probably mean an academic and/or peer-reviewed source. On this,
WP:RS says: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context."
If I was you I would abandon your attempts to discredit the film "Nirmala Devi: Freedom and Liberation" as a reliable source. People might get the idea that you have an agenda to misrepresent Sahaja Yoga.
Freelion (
talk)
05:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made a Unique Discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse
[33] after attending a
Rajneesh meditation camp in
Nargol
citation needed on May 5, 1970.
[34]
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse
[35] on May 5, 1970. She visited different religious people including Rajneesh
[36] and said that she found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. She said she found the situation hopeless and began searching inside herself for a solution.
[22]
Does anyone have any objections? Freelion ( talk) 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Since there is no further objection, would an administrator kindly do the above edit. This should be a new first paragraph in the Nirmala Srivastava section. The next paragraph continues with "Nirmala Srivastava, who claims to reside in the Sahasrara chakra..."
Freelion (
talk)
00:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem with the Chakras and nadis section - Kakar has been incorrectly quoted. The words about Shri Mataji having been a former medical student have been omitted from the quoted reference. Also, in the Chakras and nadis section, the phrase "Kakar also writes that Nirmala Srivastava, as a former medical student has sought to give the theory a scientific, neurological veneer by..." can not be justified by referring to page 197 of the text. On page 197 he writes "Mataji, following the theories of Vasant Rele, equates sushumna [nadi] with the parasympathetic nervous system, ida [nadi] with the left and pingala [nadi] with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system and the chakras with the plexuses." These mistakes have been corrected and I suggest that the following be used as a replacement paragraph:
Sahaja Yoga, like many Eastern and New Age systems, believes that in addition to our physical body there is a subtle body comprised of nadis (channels) and chakras (energy centers), which look after our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well being [25]. These concepts, first found in ancient Indian scriptures, have been added to by Nirmala Srivastava. Kakar writes that her additions to this widespread traditional 'tantric' model include giving it a scientific, neurological veneer, the elaboration of the health aspects and the introduction of notions of traditional Christian morality. [26] Kakar believes that Nirmala Srivastava has followed the theories of Vasant Rele, equating the sushumna [nadi] with the parasympathetic nervous system, ida [nadi] with the left and pingala [nadi] with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system and the chakras with the plexuses. [27]
Freelion ( talk) 03:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If I may politely say so, the problem is with the article, not the editor, Simon. The sentence "Kakar also writes that Nirmala Srivastava, as a former medical student has sought to give the theory a scientific, neurological veneer by following the theories of Vasant Rele..." Kakar never wrote that or made that connection, it's just a repetition of something already quoted from page 196 and the editor is trying to link them together. So all I've done basically is remove that repetition and introduce the ref from p197 with "Kakar believes that Nirmala Srivastava has followed the theories of Vasant Rele" Freelion ( talk) 05:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Any objections?
Freelion (
talk)
08:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Not bad. I've reintroduced the words "as a former medical student she has sought to give it a scientific, neurological veneer" into the reference from the source. Made the paraphrasing of the additions to this widespread model into the same order as they appear in the source. Fixed a dead link (after "Disease is said to occur when the subtle qualities of the chakras are neglected or denied.")
Freelion (
talk)
02:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sahaja Yoga, like many Eastern and New Age systems, believes that in addition to our physical body there is a subtle body comprised of nadis (channels) and chakras (energy centers). Kakar writes that Nirmala Srivastava's additions to this widespread traditional ' tantric' model include giving it a scientific, neurological veneer, the elaboration of the health aspects and the introduction of notions of traditional Christian morality. [35] Kakar also writes that Nirmala Srivastava, "following the theories of Vasant Rele, equates sushumna [nadi] with the parasympathetic nervous system, ida [nadi] with the left and pingala [nadi] with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system and the chakras with the plexuses." [36]
Sahaja Yoga teaches that there are seven main chakras [37] and that each chakra possesses different qualities and looks after different aspects of our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well being. [38] Disease is said to occur when the subtle qualities of the chakras are neglected or denied. [39] Each chakra has a presiding deity who may become deactivated in extreme cases causing cancer. [40] For example, the deities residing in the Sahasrara chakra are said to be Kalki and Adi Shakti and the chakra is said to be damaged by atheism and doubt in God [41]
I've taken the liberty of making a few minor & non-controversial changes in the text above. Actually the link wasn't dead, but the change doesn't matter and I've repeated it in the other place where the same page was referenced. Let's go with the above. -- Simon D M ( talk) 10:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I have a new highly relevant reference for this section.
In 2008 the Belgian newspapers De Morgen, De Standaard and the Evening reported that the Country Court of Brussels ordered the Belgian state to pay 1,500 Euros compensation to Sahaja Yoga for wrongly labeling the movement as a sect (cult). The Centre of Information and Opinion on Harmful Sectarian Organizations (CIAOSN) had given an unfavourable report on the meditation movement which was found to be unobjective and had resulted in the movement being defamed.
[42]
Freelion (
talk)
06:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, how about:
In 2008 the Belgian newspapers De Morgen, De Standaard and the Evening reported that the Country Court of Brussels ordered the Belgian state to pay 1,500 Euros compensation to Sahaja Yoga for wrongly labeling the movement as a sect (cult). The Centre of Information and Opinion on Harmful Sectarian Organizations (CIAOSN) had given an unfavourable report on the meditation movement which was found to be unobjective and had resulted in the movement being defamed. The state appealed.
[43]
Freelion (
talk)
08:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an addition to the Cult allegations section. Freelion ( talk) 05:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Clarification of the designation of Cult for Sahaj Yoga....
The CIAOSN report is [ here!]
with this court-ordered disclaimer (at the end):
1° l'avis du 7 mars 2005 ne signifie pas que l’a.s.b.l. Sahaja Yoga België doit être considérée comme une organisation sectaire nuisible ou comme une subdivision d'une organisation sectaire nuisible ; (translated: The advice of Mar.7, 2005 does not mean that the "a.s.b.l. Sahaja Yoga Belgium is to be considered a harmful sectarian organization or a subdivision of a harmful sectarian organization.)
2° l'arrêt est consultable sur le site internet du C.I.A.O.S.N (Arrêt 12/06/2006) (Translated: This arrest is to be placed on the internet sit of the C.I.A.O.S.N. (Arrest 12/06/2006)
I just read the article by CIAOSN and the court ruling. I am fluent in both languages. The report stands as is with the inclusion. (see above).
My take (POV) is that the designation of "harmful sect" ("Secte nuisible" in French) does not necessarily apply in all circumstances as some meditators will come for the calm atmosphere and it will not necessarily be harmful to them. Some other meditators will get more heavily involved in the organization. So the courts has ruled that the addendum stating that the report does not mean that Sahaja Yoga is a "harmful sect" is added at the end of the report even though the content of the report is not altered and is not "illegal" or slanderous.
The brand of "cult" or "harmful secte" seems to be what the Belgian court does not want, even by implication. In other words, an article can describe the activities of an organization, without the BRAND (name calling), as the brand has different meaning for different people and cultures. Belgium has 6 official languages.
4d-Don-- don ( talk) 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that even in English, the word 'cult' is used unscientifically and often gets used as a convenient disparaging label. Freelion ( talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Cult allegations
One can't get away from using the word "cult" if one quotes newspaper articles, as the "sensational" sells newspapers, and the reporters are not highly knowledgeable of the societal aspects of "branding" a group as the courts are. But, when refering to lists by "government agencies" one could use the cautionary approach. A group can be said to be on a list prepared by a committee, but that does not mean to imply, as the courts in Belgium have ruled, that all groups on such a list all have the same level of dangerosity or "cultish abherrations" or are necessarily "harmful sects" in all circumstances. It is the "harmful" aspect that can be deemed un-desireable, as all religions can be defined as "cults" or "sects" of some sort or other. Some Holy Books of "official" Religions are overtly more dangerous than Sahaja Yoga. Some are "cults of a living Personality" and some are cults of a "mystical" figure (historic or mythic) or of a principle and some (many) have political, nationalist, etc. undertones. In France (government circles), the words now "in vogue" are "sectarian abherrations", to define the "harmful" part of the "sectes".
Using the "journalistic" approach in wording ("according to"...etc.) and in sourcing the "cult" allegations and statements, would go a long way in balancing the "cult" or "harmful sect" or "sectarian abherration" aspect of the article. It is not a fact that Sahaja Yoga is a cult. It is an "allegation". Expose the information with journalistic phraseology without using such statements as: "various groups have deemed Sahaja Yoga a cult" approach. Source all allegations individually. The "advice" of the court in Belgium can also be added to the article as is.
4d-don-- don ( talk) 17:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In the light of what 4d-don said above, I'm sure we could do a lot better than the existing third paragraph in the introduction section:
Sahaja Yoga has been a subject of criticism and has been associated with a number of problems, some arising from "Sahaja Yoga's emphasis on complete devotion to Nirmala Srivastava".
[5] Various sources have also described Sahaja Yoga as a
cult.
Thank-you, 4d-don, for joining this discussion.
Freelion (
talk)
10:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
As per 4d-don's suggestions and
WP:LEAD, I propose the following substitution for the above mentioned sentence:
Several newspapers and a French National assembly report have referred to the movement a cult but the Country Court of Brussels ruled that Sahaja Yoga had been wrongly labeled as a cult and awarded compensation.
Freelion (
talk)
03:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The introduction is currently not a neutral summary. The cult allegations section has changed and this should be reflected in the introduction as per my suggested text. Freelion ( talk) 03:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The section has a new reference which refutes the cult allegations. Be
honest Simon, unless you admit your anti Sahaja Yoga agenda, you really have no basis for disagreeing with this new wording. It is a concise and accurate summary, I've even streamlined it some more, just for you. All I am talking about changing is
Various sources have also described Sahaja Yoga as a
cult.
to the following:
Several newspapers and a French report have branded the movement a
cult but a Brussels court ruled that Sahaja Yoga had been wrongly labeled as a cult.
Freelion (
talk)
02:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of brevity, I suggest the following; it's shorter than your version:
Several newspapers and a French report have branded the movement a
cult but a Brussels court ruled otherwise.
Freelion (
talk)
05:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it is still being disputed. So how about the following, which is more descriptive, but only slightly longer:
Several newspapers and a French report have referred to the movement as a cult, a branding that has been disputed in a Belgium court.
Would anyone else like to comment?
Freelion (
talk)
01:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Since there is no further objection, please replace the existing 3rd paragraph in the intoduction:
Sahaja Yoga has been a subject of criticism and has been associated with a number of problems, some arising from "Sahaja Yoga's emphasis on complete devotion to Nirmala Srivastava".
[5] Various sources have also described Sahaja Yoga as a
cult.
with the following:
Several newspapers and a French report have referred to the movement as a cult, a branding that has been disputed in a Belgium court.
Freelion (
talk)
00:10, 23 June 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. |
inform
was invoked but never defined (see the
help 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. |
{{ editprotected}} The Marriage section currently states "Sahaja Yoga hosts a voluntary arranged marriage system. In India those interested need to fill in a form [1] detailing their backgrounds." There are 2 problems with this: firstly, the page referenced has been blanked and should be changed to an archived version; secondly, the words 'In India' should be removed as this is an international site and the page does not mention that the forms are only for people in India.-- Simon D M ( talk) 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If the site no longer states that then it shouldn't be used as a source. Also the mirror of the source mentions the marriages being held in India. Sfacets 11:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it shows that people of different nationalities got married in India that year. Add a real reference if you have one. Sfacets 13:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
So use that link. Sfacets 13:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Too bad you can't have it both ways then. Sfacets 13:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But it isn't valid... since it is no longer on the website. Sfacets 21:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Linking to a webarchive is perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. It's interesting that after being up for over 2 years, the page suddenly got blanked when WP linked to it. It's as if somebody has got something to hide. -- Simon D M 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Kennedy would agree. Sfacets 08:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You provided no evidence that form were utilized in other countries. Sfacets 10:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
SY is a religion, by its own statements. It's obviously an organization. So the category:Religion organizations appears accurate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The name Sahaja Yoga has been trademarked in the US by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma although the term goes back at least to the 15th Century Indian mystic Kabir. [6] [7] There has recently been significant expenditure on legally protecting the term in Europe. [8]
Sfacets deleted the latter sentence saying it was "comment on a primary source". I'd welcome comment from neutral editors on what uses of primary sources are acceptable, what constitutes 'comment' and whether that is acceptable. -- Simon D M ( talk) 17:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with fundamentalist Christian editors is that they are have serious NPOV issues and intentions behind all their edits, even if they are following the rules. Because Sahaja Yoga is a moderate and tolerant movement it is often attacked by those on the extremities. Practitioners of Sahaja Yoga respect the fundamental right for all to have their own POV however fundamentalism is one thing that is not tolerated and will always be spoken out against. Sahaja Yoga does have some views that would be considered unusual to people of the main stream, and it does question the status-quo in a way that is appropriate in a free thinking and democratic world. For a long time fundamentalist Christianity has had problems with Sahaja yoga for just this reason. It makes sense that fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalists in general feel threatened by the philosophical, historical and social questions Sahaja Yoga raises. In general fundamentalist Christians are against all forms of eastern practices such as yoga not to mention all other religions and are by definition intolerant and arrogant people. Perhaps editors of such persuasion think they are doing Gods work by attacking any other movement or religion, no matter how moderate, that is not compatible with their own belief?
Could all those fundamentalist Christians editors on a crusade against Sahaja Yoga stop editing the Sahaja Yoga Page? Such editors are tampering with the neutrality of this article by using the rules of wikipedia and are thus attacking the fundamental democratic principles behind Wikipedia itself. Should this continue and the neutral editors of the article continue to be attacked, it will not be long before we will bring the fundamental beliefs and true identities of such editors to the attention of the wikipedia Authority. Teamantime ( talk) 01:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Fundamentalism is only a problem if it is affecting editing adversely, in that regard I only see evidence of SY fundamentalism, no other. -- Simon D M ( talk) 15:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The interpretation of Sahajayoga which is moderate and tolerant is being interpreted as per the concenience of Anti Sahajayoga editors. This interpretation as per Anti Sahajayoga activist's convenience is the core problem. --Commwatch 19:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commwatch ( talk • contribs)
Is it true that all the editors who tryed to tell the truth about SY as been banned from wikipedia ? -- Agenor 77 ( talk) 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph about the Rome school is essentially pasted from the article about the Sahaja India school. Repeating it here is using undue weight. It should be removed from this article. Freelion ( talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This reference does not contain any criticism of the movement or its founder. I do not see the relevance of it being in this article. Freelion ( talk) 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
If it is relevant to include information about people who have a close relationship with the movement, then I propose a new section on Simon Dicon Montford, who has had a close relationship with the movement for the last 10 years or more. As a vocal critic of the movement, it would be relevant to highlight his pattern of behaviour. Freelion ( talk) 03:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the following: "Nevertheless the writer was surprised by the "openness" of the practitioners and suggested the possibility that "they genuinely have nothing to hide". He said "one of the key definitions of a cult is the rigour with which it strives to recruit new members" and remarked on the lack of any sales tactics at the Sahaja Yoga program he attended." Firstly, I don't see what this is doing in a Criticisms section. Secondly, the use of the source is selective (mentions 'nothing to hide' possibility but not 'PR charm offensive' possibility) and exaggerates ('lack of any sales tactics' is not the same as having 'had more trouble getting rid of a double- glazing salesman').-- Simon D M ( talk) 23:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no issue here... Sfacets 12:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Why and how come yoga templet was used in this article and why not cult templet ? -- Cult free world ( talk) 07:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
mind control and brainwashing is very much part of practice. here is the reference of the same [12]
-- Cult free world ( talk) 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
This is what WP:RS say's, can you cite the specific policy which prohibits Amazon review as “un-reliable” however there are many reference of cult watch groups (rick-ross etc) and some government reports as well, that can be used I guess.
However there is no reliable source for the claim made currently, as it is taken directly from the group site, which is a primary source, and hence cannot be accepted, however a secondary source for the same is acceptable, as in case of above reference, which is a reliable source as per wiki policy.
If my knowledge is incorrect, please correct it.
-- Cult free world ( talk) 08:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Cult free world ( talk) 11:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
hi Sfacets,
-- Cult free world ( talk) 10:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Cult free world ( talk) 11:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Cult free world ( talk) 13:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
In this diff you said: "I will stop editing the articles mentioned above for some time, in accordance with genuine requests, and will concentrate on other articles." Are we to understand that, within 5 days of your latest block expiring, you are back to editing the articles in question? -- Simon D M ( talk) 10:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The Ananda Marga wiki page makes the following claim "Anandamurtiiji taught many systems of meditation such as ... Sahaja Yoga ... " Is this true? Is it worth linking? DDB ( talk) 09:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Eileen Barker from Inform advises that the media is the most influential source of information about New Religious Movements and that the majority of that information is of a negative nature. The media have an interest in attracting and keeping readers, most of whom are likely to be attracted by sensational stories. Suppliers of information may well have an agenda that leads them to adjust their product to meet a perceived demand. [2]
Freelion, do you think that every article on a new religious movement that refers to press coverage should have a paragraph similar to this? Or might it be more parsimonious to have such discussion in one place. -- Simon D M ( talk) 14:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Simon u keep changing this without saying why. If you do it one more time i will report you to the administrators for abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michalis 9 ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Aregenor77, this is already in the Nirmala Srivastava article and that of her husband, can you give any reason (other that trying to imply respectability) for repeatedly inserting it in the lead of this article? -- Simon D M ( talk) 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The last substantive comment made was as follows: WP:LEAD clearly states that the lead of articles should reflect the contents of that article, not other articles. -- Simon D M ( talk) 18:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Reference given in the templet is a primary source, self-realization is something which is only claimed by all cults, there is no proof from direct perception as such, also as per wiki guidelines extra-ordinary claims need at-least reference form a secondary reliable source.
The templet should contain crisp, to the point, information about this cult, both side's.
-- Cult free world ( talk) 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
As per wiki, there is more then enough proof, that SY is a
cult. there are
secondary,
reliable and
neutral sources available, but what is the source (using similar evidance) for self-realization ? if feeling cold is self realization, then people in
tundra region need absolutely no cult at all for self-realization!!
Using same analogy as Agenor 77 brainwashing is obvious hence Agenor 77 will agree with me if we add a section on brainwashing in this article.
-- Cult free world ( talk) 19:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Which reference are you talking about ? -- Cult free world ( talk) 08:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I simply loved that link, thanks, :D, i have made only minor edits, that too, not more then 3 or 4, so far on any article, ofcourse i will not edits anything which i do not know, or am unable to discuss the same on talk page !. Take it light, we can work with a smile. :) --
Cult free world (
talk)
09:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This section indicates that Sahaja yoga has somehow originated this concept and from style of writing this section it appears that SY has exclusive knowledge about this concept. This however is part of traditional hindu philosophy, and methods and procedures are meticulously elaborated in various vedantic texts including Upnishads. Some information can also be found here also [15] the tone, style of writing and presentation of this section needs to re-looked and changed appropriately so as to make sure, that the article does not become a PR page for SY.
Chakras and Nadis are part of traditional Hindu philosophy and there cannot be any exclusive claim about ownership of the these terms or methods. If any cult claims that it has modified the concept, then that in itself indicates that the cult has belief that the original concept is not valid any more and they have modified the truth to suit present day people. Which should be stated in that manner only, as according to ancient hindu texts, where these concept have originated, are accepted as absolute truth, by those who beleive in ORIGINAL texts rather then its modification by some mordern day cult, Any modification in original concepts indicates that it was not absolute to begin with. Hence this contradiction from original concept must be added in the section.
-- Cult free world ( talk) 06:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Kakar writes that Nirmala Srivastava's own additions to this widespread traditional trantric model lie in traditional Christian morality, an elaboration of the health aspects and a scientific, neurological veneer. [3]
which I would have thought was pretty clear. I'll change the article to make it clear from the beginning and remove the tags. If you have any more concerns, feel free to replace them. -- Simon D M ( talk) 10:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPOV, WP:COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.167.142 ( talk) 07:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
((--: :--)) -- Cult free world ( talk) 10:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Citing oneself ??
Financial ??
Legal antagonists ??
Self-promotion ?? (don't even have a self on wikipedia...)
Autobiography ?? (don't have one yet !)
Close relationships ?? (with whom)
Campaigning ?? (for whom)
Please provide a reference where you feel a POV push ?-- Cult free world ( talk) 10:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say that you are campaining. So yes there does seem to be a conflict of interest. Describing something using non-neutral terms is against Wikipedia policy - see policy. Frhermore your username is inapropriate, may be seen as offensive. Please maintain a neutral editing stance and discuss why your unconcealed non-neutral edits should be permitted in the article. 124.170.167.142 ( talk) 14:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say that you are campaining
Describing something using non-neutral terms is against Wikipedia policy
Frhermore your username is inapropriate, may be seen as offensive.
Please maintain a neutral editing stance and discuss why your unconcealed non-neutral edits should be permitted in the article.
Yours TRULY -- Cult free world ( talk) 15:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You are not being neutral because you are stating allegations as fact. Please read the policies on Wikipedia. Also please realize that Wikipedia should not be used as a source. 124.170.167.142 ( talk) 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
1. Sahaja Yoga has been a subject of criticism and has been associated with a number of problems, some arising from "Sahaja Yoga's emphasis on complete devotion to Nirmala Srivastava". [5] Various sources have also described Sahaja Yoga as a cult.
2. Sathya Sai Baba, Rajneesh, Jim Jones and many more modern day self proclaimed saints and sages have also claimed to be an incarnation, citing smiler religious texts, most of them, have been listed as cult figure's. [6]
I have removed the following paragraphs for discussion:
It seems to me that the above two paragraphs do not serve to improve this article.
The first paragraph tries to discredit this NRM by linking the term "Sahaja Yoga" with some well known destructive cults, the teachings of which have no similarity or outcome with those of Sahaja Yoga. It's a very poor excuse indeed.
The second paragraph is only a vehicle to promote the personal website of a vocal critic of this movement.
I think we can do better, like referencing Sankaracharya who also used the term "Sahaja". Freelion ( talk) 11:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. And at the moment there is only concensus among the "anti-Sahaja Yoga" editors. I've taken out the reference to the personal website in this section because it is a gratuitous self promotion (Simon DM owns the domain). 203.110.151.250 ( talk) 01:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest requesting moderation by a neutral non-contributing third party - since any consensus reached between editors with COI is debatable. 124.170.164.157 ( talk) 11:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest placing a Request for mediation so a neutral editor can help sort things out. 124.170.164.157 ( talk) 21:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
what is the dispute ? -- Cult free world ( talk) 11:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't really need your trust - the point is I'm not offering to mediate here, or contribute to the article (having little knowledge of the subject). All I know is from what I can see on the article history and the discussion page which shows that there have been multiple instances of COI/biased editing, and am suggesting that rather than continue to edit the article in a non-neutral manner, seek moderation and talk it through. 124.170.228.9 ( talk) 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. 124.170.169.126 ( talk) 02:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Recently it has been noted that allegations, like cult, brainwashing mind control etc are removed from the article, stating that it is either extra ordinary claim, or COI or vandalism, whereas self claimed elements such as self realization, awakening et-al are not viewed such ? any explanation from those who have removed it.
Brainwashing and psychological harm caused by Sahaja Yoga on its victim is what is reported and explained in a report, which was submitted to National Assemble of France which was debated and accepted as such, and then published on internet. is this reference not enough ? or is this not extra ordinary that this group was subject to discussion in National Assemble of a republic but these statements are removed from the article, from anon user's who claims that anonymity is used only for administrative tasks. When extra ordinary claim such as self realization is also removed from the article, then it is claimed that that removal is vandalism but removal of brainwashing is not ? please explain.
My request to anon user 124.170.169.XXX is kindly leave the administrative tasks to administrators and if editing article, please use your ID so that it does not create confusing, as your edits may be viewed as trolling. -- Cult free world ( talk) 11:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If a self published article can be considered reliable, then a cftf report is also reliable, i have no objection in placing self-realization in article till it is accompanied with mind control and brainwashing. we need to put both pictures, and must not avoid other view's, lets not take the task of spoon feeding, but present both view, and allow reader's to decide what they want to take. self-realization or brainwashing ! please give in your comments so that i can add other view also, so as to balance the article. --
Cult free world (
talk)
09:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Which other editors ? -- Agenor 77 ( talk) 23:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Sahaja Yoga; 21:37 . . (+90) . . Cult free world (Talk | contribs) (care to see the talk page ?? this is something which is agreed upon by other editor's.)
Wikipedia isn't about views, although plenty are expressed here. It is clear that the addition of "brainwashing" by Cult free world is an attempt to discredit the organization, an nothing more, and as such is disruptive. I would urge (as I previously have done) that you request moderation if you continue to add obviously biased material. 124.170.85.216 ( talk) 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this tag needed any more ? -- Cult free world ( talk) 11:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite obviously. 124.170.85.216 ( talk) 07:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You both are the only sources of contention.
I've removed the third paragraph from the introduction because it is a minority view being pushed by two anti-cult fanatics.
203.110.151.250 (
talk)
04:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please put the neutrality tag back on the front of the article. This article is being dominated by anti cult activists who wish to misrepresent the subject for their own purposes. This article does not reflect the subject well and does not reflect a consensus. Why is it that whenever someone tries to push back the tide of negative representations, this page gets frozen?
Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 6/editprotected
I really want to be able to take your comments and participation seriously. There are a few things you can do that would help me to do this:
1) create an account and/or do not ip hop.
2) sign your edits
3) focus on content, NOT contributors, actual edits, not hypothetical motives for edits. Thanks! Sethie ( talk) 02:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about opinions on the subject matter. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about opinions on the subject matter at the Reference desk. |
Sethie ( talk) 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}Please put the neutrality tag back on the front of the article. This article is being dominated by anti cult activists. Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 6/editprotected Freelion ( talk) 01:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Freelion ( talk) 11:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for re-entering actual dialogue.
If you look in the controversy section, you will see four citations that alledge it is like a cult/cultish/a cult.
If you have a [{WP:RS]] which rebuts these claims, I would be in favor of it being included.
I would be open to changing the lead to "There are some controversies surrounding the movement, including some allegations that the group is a cult."
How does that sound to you? Sethie ( talk) 18:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-- Cult free world ( talk) 07:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Inform only reflects the "directed criticism", that is by a small number of authors (trying to sell books), some vigilante ex-members and newspapers who are only reporting about the vigilante ex-members (a negative slant sells more papers). I'm sure that some of these sources would love to believe that their efforts result in controversy "surrounding" the movement but that is just vanity. In truth, criticism is directed at the movement from a small number of sources (minority view). Freelion ( talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Inform warns against using media reports as objective references about new religious movements due to their interest in creating sensationalist stories. Likewise authors who write books on the subject have their sales in mind and write for their audience. Freelion ( talk) 05:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Freelion, INFORM based their comments on all the information they had to hand which includes extensive contacts with member, ex-members, parents of members, etc. One of the past directors even wrote her PhD and a book based on participant observation. INFORM also draw on a wider knowledge of similar movements and the social scientific study or religion. They don't just 'reflect' one party's opinions. -- Simon D M ( talk) 11:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The above section has been removed for discussion. At the moment it is a load of referenced POV hogwash designed not to inform, but to attack the movement. Re-write and discuss before re-inserting. 203.110.151.250 ( talk) 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The medical studies subsection should come under the meditation subsection, ie requires an extra '=' each side of the heading. The long standing structure seems to have been broken in recent frantic editing. I do not believe this is controversial. --
Simon D M (
talk)
08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Done Agreed. The section in question seems to reference medical studies on meditation, so being a subsection of the topic referred to is reasonable.
UltraExactZZ
Claims ~
Evidence
15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed moving some content about this tradition's view of Self-realization from that article onto this page. Discussion is on the self-realization article's talk page. - Owlmonkey ( talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
SY is describe as an Eastern Apocalyptic sect in this French Government report: AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION D'ENQUÊTE (1) SUR LES SECTES.
See also: Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France#Commission of 1995
Perhaps this is worthy of mention.
-- Simon D M ( talk) 14:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Not worthy at all, SY is not a apocalyptic --Ag 05:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 ( talk • contribs)
This fits in well in the "cult" section which already discusses the French view of the group. But I can't add it, I can't read the original french. - Owlmonkey ( talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest expanding the following sentence:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made a Unique Discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse
[18] after attending a
Rajneesh meditation camp in
Nargol
citation needed on May 5, 1970.
[19]
into the following new paragraph:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse [20]. She had previously visited different religious people including Rajneesh [21] and found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. Finding the situation hopeless, she began to search inside herself for a solution. [22]
Freelion ( talk) 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This expands on Shri Mataji's presence at the camp and avoids the apparent misrepresentation that she made the unique discovery as a result of being at the camp. In the following I have only added the date:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse [22] on May 5, 1970. She had previously visited different religious people including Rajneesh [23] and found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. Finding the situation hopeless, she began to search inside herself for a solution. [22]
Freelion ( talk) 03:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The above suggestion seems to have been agreed upon.
Freelion (
talk)
01:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The camp is mentioned in the Nirmala Srivastava article. The only controversial thing with the page in its current form is the way it is worded. It incorrectly suggests that the camp had something to do with the unique discovery. There is no mention of Shri Mataji's opinion of Rajneesh and others and the reason for her inward search. It needs to be changed and clearing this up will prevent further edit wars. Freelion ( talk) 05:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Rajneesh's techniques bear no similarity to SY. The existing paragraph is wrong and this is a simple clarification. You are just trying being disruptive. Freelion ( talk) 12:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
What I am proposing is the following:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse
[24] on May 5, 1970. She had previously visited different religious people including Rajneesh
[25] and found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. Finding the situation hopeless, she began to search inside herself for a solution.
[22]
Left in its current form, the paragraph incorrectly implies that Nirmala Srivastava somehow got the idea of the 'unique discovery' from the camp. This new reference clarifies the event.
Freelion (
talk)
08:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Drop the word "previously" then, it still makes sense. The rest of it is accurate to the source. Freelion ( talk) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay then:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse
[26] on May 5, 1970. She visited different religious people including Rajneesh
[27] and said that she found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. She said she found the situation hopeless and began searching inside herself for a solution.
[22]
Let me know if there are any more probs.
Freelion (
talk)
23:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This section is about Nirmala Srivastava. There is already a section on Beliefs which features Coney. At the moment we are just correcting a misleading paragraph, which in its current form incorrectly implies that Nirmala Srivastava somehow got the idea of her 'unique discovery' from attending a Rajneesh camp. All we are doing is adding a new reference which clarifies the event. I believe the wording is NPOV and accurately reflects the source. Can we agree on this? Freelion ( talk) 01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Then why does it suggest that Shri Mataji somehow got the idea of her 'unique discovery' from attending a Rajneesh camp? This is misinformation and this new source clarifies it. Do you have a problem with the new source? No. Do you have a problem with the wording? No, it's been discussed and rectified to the satisfaction of all parties. Freelion ( talk) 03:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No way! This is all about you stalling for time! This is about the simple addition of a new (third party) source to correct a misleading paragraph. Three editors have agreed to it and the wording is NPOV. This should be enough. Stalling for time is just disruption. No one can fault the new source or the wording - there is no legitimate objection to the addition of this new source. Freelion ( talk) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not a puff piece, it's more like a frank and honest look at the movement. It was co-produced with the University of Munich Television and Film and Bayerischer Rundfunk Claudia Gladziejewski. I don't know if Dassel is a Sahaja Yogi, it doesn't really matter. Just because someone has tried and experienced the benefits of the meditation, does that make them a Sahaja Yogi? Don't forget that Coney is just a sociologist who, as you have revealed, took specific measures to avoid experiencing any benefit from the meditation. (Remove Personal Attacks) But we don't have to compare every new source to Coney and this discussion is not about Coney, it's about the insertion of a new legitimate source; the simple process of which you seem determined to disrupt. Freelion ( talk) 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for joining us again Owlmonkey, you are a breath of fresh air. In addition to your suggestion I think we could effectively express Nirmala Srivastava's disillusionment and value of morality by including part of the new reference that I have been suggesting:
She visited different religious people including Rajneesh
[28] and said that she found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual.
[22]
This reference also serves to distance Nirmala Srivastava from the teachings of Rajneesh.
Freelion (
talk)
10:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
As you say, this section is on beliefs about Nirmala Srivastava by Sahaja Yogis. The existing first sentence tells some basic facts:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made a Unique Discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse
[29] after attending a
Rajneesh meditation camp in
Nargol
citation needed on May 5, 1970.
[30]
However, by the way it is worded, the reader may get the false impression that Nirmala Srivastave received her unique discovery as a result of attending the Rajneesh camp. Her own words shed more light on the issue and the substitution of the following will elucidate more of the story to the reader:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse
[31] on May 5, 1970. She visited different religious people including a Rajneesh meditation camp
[32] and said that she found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. She said she found the situation hopeless and began searching inside herself for a solution.
[22]
Simon D M is attempting to block the inclusion of this new reference by labeling it "self published". He accusing Sahaja Yoga of inducing the University of Munich Television and Film and Bayerischer Rundfunk Claudia Gladziejewski into co-producing the film but offers no proof. It is a baseless accusation in an attempt to discredit a perfectly legitimate reference. The film "Nirmala Devi: Freedom and Liberation" contains a quote by Nirmala Devi herself which is quite relevant to this paragraph. In the past, Simon D M has been happy to use quotes of Sahaja Yoga's founder in a pejorative sense no matter where they come from. It is interesting to note his double standards here. To summarise, the first sentence is misleading and the subject needs to be elucidated.
Freelion (
talk)
03:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Freelion, you write "the reader may get the false impression that Nirmala Srivastave received her unique discovery as a result of attending the Rajneesh camp". Your claim that such an impression is false is just your original research. The article presently just states facts. We could improve it by adding material from from reliable 3rd party sources. See WP:RS. -- Simon D M ( talk) 08:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not original research when I have a reliable third party source, which I have provided. See previous argument - you have no cause to reject this reference, apart from it not confirming your own POV. Freelion ( talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Again you ignore the fact that this film has been produced in collaboration with two other parties: the University of Munich Television and Film and Bayerischer Rundfunk Claudia Gladziejewski. Just because someone has tried the technique and even practises it, does not disqualify anything they might say about it. So your argument that this is not a reliable source is bunk. This source does not necessarily invalidate other sources and it should be included so that the reader can make up their own mind. Furthermore, as previously stated, the source contains the words of the founder herself and her words have been used before without regard to where they come from. So there you are Simon, all your arguments are gone. Unless the fact that you simply didn't like the film count, which it doesn't. Your personal abuse of the quality of the source only serves to highlight your agressive anti-Sahaja Yoga agenda. Freelion ( talk) 02:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:SPS states that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." Unless you can prove that Nirmala Devi or Sahaja Yoga payed to have this film created by 3 separate parties, including the University of Munich, then you can't call this a self published source.
By "on a par with Coney" you probably mean an academic and/or peer-reviewed source. On this,
WP:RS says: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context."
If I was you I would abandon your attempts to discredit the film "Nirmala Devi: Freedom and Liberation" as a reliable source. People might get the idea that you have an agenda to misrepresent Sahaja Yoga.
Freelion (
talk)
05:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made a Unique Discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse
[33] after attending a
Rajneesh meditation camp in
Nargol
citation needed on May 5, 1970.
[34]
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse
[35] on May 5, 1970. She visited different religious people including Rajneesh
[36] and said that she found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. She said she found the situation hopeless and began searching inside herself for a solution.
[22]
Does anyone have any objections? Freelion ( talk) 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Since there is no further objection, would an administrator kindly do the above edit. This should be a new first paragraph in the Nirmala Srivastava section. The next paragraph continues with "Nirmala Srivastava, who claims to reside in the Sahasrara chakra..."
Freelion (
talk)
00:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem with the Chakras and nadis section - Kakar has been incorrectly quoted. The words about Shri Mataji having been a former medical student have been omitted from the quoted reference. Also, in the Chakras and nadis section, the phrase "Kakar also writes that Nirmala Srivastava, as a former medical student has sought to give the theory a scientific, neurological veneer by..." can not be justified by referring to page 197 of the text. On page 197 he writes "Mataji, following the theories of Vasant Rele, equates sushumna [nadi] with the parasympathetic nervous system, ida [nadi] with the left and pingala [nadi] with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system and the chakras with the plexuses." These mistakes have been corrected and I suggest that the following be used as a replacement paragraph:
Sahaja Yoga, like many Eastern and New Age systems, believes that in addition to our physical body there is a subtle body comprised of nadis (channels) and chakras (energy centers), which look after our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well being [25]. These concepts, first found in ancient Indian scriptures, have been added to by Nirmala Srivastava. Kakar writes that her additions to this widespread traditional 'tantric' model include giving it a scientific, neurological veneer, the elaboration of the health aspects and the introduction of notions of traditional Christian morality. [26] Kakar believes that Nirmala Srivastava has followed the theories of Vasant Rele, equating the sushumna [nadi] with the parasympathetic nervous system, ida [nadi] with the left and pingala [nadi] with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system and the chakras with the plexuses. [27]
Freelion ( talk) 03:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If I may politely say so, the problem is with the article, not the editor, Simon. The sentence "Kakar also writes that Nirmala Srivastava, as a former medical student has sought to give the theory a scientific, neurological veneer by following the theories of Vasant Rele..." Kakar never wrote that or made that connection, it's just a repetition of something already quoted from page 196 and the editor is trying to link them together. So all I've done basically is remove that repetition and introduce the ref from p197 with "Kakar believes that Nirmala Srivastava has followed the theories of Vasant Rele" Freelion ( talk) 05:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Any objections?
Freelion (
talk)
08:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Not bad. I've reintroduced the words "as a former medical student she has sought to give it a scientific, neurological veneer" into the reference from the source. Made the paraphrasing of the additions to this widespread model into the same order as they appear in the source. Fixed a dead link (after "Disease is said to occur when the subtle qualities of the chakras are neglected or denied.")
Freelion (
talk)
02:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sahaja Yoga, like many Eastern and New Age systems, believes that in addition to our physical body there is a subtle body comprised of nadis (channels) and chakras (energy centers). Kakar writes that Nirmala Srivastava's additions to this widespread traditional ' tantric' model include giving it a scientific, neurological veneer, the elaboration of the health aspects and the introduction of notions of traditional Christian morality. [35] Kakar also writes that Nirmala Srivastava, "following the theories of Vasant Rele, equates sushumna [nadi] with the parasympathetic nervous system, ida [nadi] with the left and pingala [nadi] with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system and the chakras with the plexuses." [36]
Sahaja Yoga teaches that there are seven main chakras [37] and that each chakra possesses different qualities and looks after different aspects of our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well being. [38] Disease is said to occur when the subtle qualities of the chakras are neglected or denied. [39] Each chakra has a presiding deity who may become deactivated in extreme cases causing cancer. [40] For example, the deities residing in the Sahasrara chakra are said to be Kalki and Adi Shakti and the chakra is said to be damaged by atheism and doubt in God [41]
I've taken the liberty of making a few minor & non-controversial changes in the text above. Actually the link wasn't dead, but the change doesn't matter and I've repeated it in the other place where the same page was referenced. Let's go with the above. -- Simon D M ( talk) 10:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I have a new highly relevant reference for this section.
In 2008 the Belgian newspapers De Morgen, De Standaard and the Evening reported that the Country Court of Brussels ordered the Belgian state to pay 1,500 Euros compensation to Sahaja Yoga for wrongly labeling the movement as a sect (cult). The Centre of Information and Opinion on Harmful Sectarian Organizations (CIAOSN) had given an unfavourable report on the meditation movement which was found to be unobjective and had resulted in the movement being defamed.
[42]
Freelion (
talk)
06:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, how about:
In 2008 the Belgian newspapers De Morgen, De Standaard and the Evening reported that the Country Court of Brussels ordered the Belgian state to pay 1,500 Euros compensation to Sahaja Yoga for wrongly labeling the movement as a sect (cult). The Centre of Information and Opinion on Harmful Sectarian Organizations (CIAOSN) had given an unfavourable report on the meditation movement which was found to be unobjective and had resulted in the movement being defamed. The state appealed.
[43]
Freelion (
talk)
08:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an addition to the Cult allegations section. Freelion ( talk) 05:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Clarification of the designation of Cult for Sahaj Yoga....
The CIAOSN report is [ here!]
with this court-ordered disclaimer (at the end):
1° l'avis du 7 mars 2005 ne signifie pas que l’a.s.b.l. Sahaja Yoga België doit être considérée comme une organisation sectaire nuisible ou comme une subdivision d'une organisation sectaire nuisible ; (translated: The advice of Mar.7, 2005 does not mean that the "a.s.b.l. Sahaja Yoga Belgium is to be considered a harmful sectarian organization or a subdivision of a harmful sectarian organization.)
2° l'arrêt est consultable sur le site internet du C.I.A.O.S.N (Arrêt 12/06/2006) (Translated: This arrest is to be placed on the internet sit of the C.I.A.O.S.N. (Arrest 12/06/2006)
I just read the article by CIAOSN and the court ruling. I am fluent in both languages. The report stands as is with the inclusion. (see above).
My take (POV) is that the designation of "harmful sect" ("Secte nuisible" in French) does not necessarily apply in all circumstances as some meditators will come for the calm atmosphere and it will not necessarily be harmful to them. Some other meditators will get more heavily involved in the organization. So the courts has ruled that the addendum stating that the report does not mean that Sahaja Yoga is a "harmful sect" is added at the end of the report even though the content of the report is not altered and is not "illegal" or slanderous.
The brand of "cult" or "harmful secte" seems to be what the Belgian court does not want, even by implication. In other words, an article can describe the activities of an organization, without the BRAND (name calling), as the brand has different meaning for different people and cultures. Belgium has 6 official languages.
4d-Don-- don ( talk) 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that even in English, the word 'cult' is used unscientifically and often gets used as a convenient disparaging label. Freelion ( talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Cult allegations
One can't get away from using the word "cult" if one quotes newspaper articles, as the "sensational" sells newspapers, and the reporters are not highly knowledgeable of the societal aspects of "branding" a group as the courts are. But, when refering to lists by "government agencies" one could use the cautionary approach. A group can be said to be on a list prepared by a committee, but that does not mean to imply, as the courts in Belgium have ruled, that all groups on such a list all have the same level of dangerosity or "cultish abherrations" or are necessarily "harmful sects" in all circumstances. It is the "harmful" aspect that can be deemed un-desireable, as all religions can be defined as "cults" or "sects" of some sort or other. Some Holy Books of "official" Religions are overtly more dangerous than Sahaja Yoga. Some are "cults of a living Personality" and some are cults of a "mystical" figure (historic or mythic) or of a principle and some (many) have political, nationalist, etc. undertones. In France (government circles), the words now "in vogue" are "sectarian abherrations", to define the "harmful" part of the "sectes".
Using the "journalistic" approach in wording ("according to"...etc.) and in sourcing the "cult" allegations and statements, would go a long way in balancing the "cult" or "harmful sect" or "sectarian abherration" aspect of the article. It is not a fact that Sahaja Yoga is a cult. It is an "allegation". Expose the information with journalistic phraseology without using such statements as: "various groups have deemed Sahaja Yoga a cult" approach. Source all allegations individually. The "advice" of the court in Belgium can also be added to the article as is.
4d-don-- don ( talk) 17:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In the light of what 4d-don said above, I'm sure we could do a lot better than the existing third paragraph in the introduction section:
Sahaja Yoga has been a subject of criticism and has been associated with a number of problems, some arising from "Sahaja Yoga's emphasis on complete devotion to Nirmala Srivastava".
[5] Various sources have also described Sahaja Yoga as a
cult.
Thank-you, 4d-don, for joining this discussion.
Freelion (
talk)
10:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
As per 4d-don's suggestions and
WP:LEAD, I propose the following substitution for the above mentioned sentence:
Several newspapers and a French National assembly report have referred to the movement a cult but the Country Court of Brussels ruled that Sahaja Yoga had been wrongly labeled as a cult and awarded compensation.
Freelion (
talk)
03:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The introduction is currently not a neutral summary. The cult allegations section has changed and this should be reflected in the introduction as per my suggested text. Freelion ( talk) 03:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The section has a new reference which refutes the cult allegations. Be
honest Simon, unless you admit your anti Sahaja Yoga agenda, you really have no basis for disagreeing with this new wording. It is a concise and accurate summary, I've even streamlined it some more, just for you. All I am talking about changing is
Various sources have also described Sahaja Yoga as a
cult.
to the following:
Several newspapers and a French report have branded the movement a
cult but a Brussels court ruled that Sahaja Yoga had been wrongly labeled as a cult.
Freelion (
talk)
02:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of brevity, I suggest the following; it's shorter than your version:
Several newspapers and a French report have branded the movement a
cult but a Brussels court ruled otherwise.
Freelion (
talk)
05:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it is still being disputed. So how about the following, which is more descriptive, but only slightly longer:
Several newspapers and a French report have referred to the movement as a cult, a branding that has been disputed in a Belgium court.
Would anyone else like to comment?
Freelion (
talk)
01:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Since there is no further objection, please replace the existing 3rd paragraph in the intoduction:
Sahaja Yoga has been a subject of criticism and has been associated with a number of problems, some arising from "Sahaja Yoga's emphasis on complete devotion to Nirmala Srivastava".
[5] Various sources have also described Sahaja Yoga as a
cult.
with the following:
Several newspapers and a French report have referred to the movement as a cult, a branding that has been disputed in a Belgium court.
Freelion (
talk)
00:10, 23 June 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. |
inform
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).