![]() | 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. |
There are some notes about the origin of the term Sahaja currently in the article but I found more references that are earlier in time:
I think from these it's fair to say the term "Sahaja" and sahaja yoga is much older than the current article describes and was a fairly important term to buddhist and vaishnava hindu tantra before the 12th century. Any thoughts on this? Otherwise I can propose a specific edit to request a change. - Owlmonkey ( talk) 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Owlmonkey... I am sure that we don't have to define the changing historical meaning of the words in the name of the society. That society has a birth date and is registered. We can start from that date and the meaning given by the founder of the Society in question: Sahaja Yoga. Defining the meaning and the reason for the choice of the words is the bailliewick of the PR department of the Society, not the Wiki editors. We are only to report on the words as they are meant by the society and others, and not get into "original research", which is a "no-no" on Wiki...
4d-don-- don ( talk) 17:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I thougt I'd remove the following since I can't see how it relates to the article/lady, unless there is a quote from a Sahaja Yoga source saying this is further indication of her divinity. "Shri Markandeya Purana has prophesied the incarnation of the Adi Shakti for the salvation of human beings... Indian Jyotisha Acharya Kaka Bhujandar Tatvacharya noted in his renowned Nadi Grantha, some 2,000 years ago, that a great yogi will appear on the earth and this yogi will have all the powers (shaktis) of the Adi Shakti."</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.51.55 ( talk) 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you please change the following text in the opening paragraph:
"Several newspapers and a French report have referred to the movement as a cult, a branding that has been disputed in a Belgium court."
to
"A recent court case in Brussels has ruled that Sahaja Yoga has been wrongly labeled as a cult and awarded the group compensation."
as the former does not indicate that a ruling has taken place which is a very significant moment for Sahaja Yoga, nor that fact that compensation has been awarded.
An English reference for this can be found here: http://hrwf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113%3Abelgium-2008&Itemid=54#_Toc202982585
(I see there is only a French reference at the moment, further down) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windinthetrees ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC) - 122.109.27.54 - Windinthetrees ( talk) 06:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought we could leave out the reference to the appeal as that is covered later down in the article and this is a summary area. So I would prefer "A 2008 court case in Brussels has ruled that Sahaja Yoga had been wrongly labeled as a cult by a Belgian state authority and awarded the group compensation."
The quote by Willy Fautré is relevant and should be included in my opinion. - Windinthetrees ( talk) 00:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Problem is - how to get the page changed when it is locked? 122.109.27.54 ( talk) 12:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
We have consensus. Freelion ( talk) 11:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone got any objection to the longer text (new reference - see above) being added to the end of the "Cult allegations" section? Freelion ( talk) 02:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, except can we change "Human Rights without frontiers" into a wikipedia hyperlink as there is a wikipedia article on this organisation already in wikipedia. Also, can we add the following to provide some context:
"Human Rights Without Frontiers has contributed to the report of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights on the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 62/154 of 18 December 2007 on Defamation of Religions by sending its report on the situation in Belgium." The reference for this is: " http://hrwf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113%3Abelgium-2008&Itemid=54" - Windinthetrees ( talk) 05:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
As these legal responses to cult allegations are highly significant, can we take the last two paragraphs which currently fall under "cult allegations" and put these into a separate section under "Criticisms", following the "Cult allegations" sub-section, and call it "Sahaja Yoga wins compensation for wrongfully being labelled as a cult". - Windinthetrees ( talk) 04:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.".
The third paragraph under "The term", which is about copyrighting of the term, WIPO court case and subsequent expenditure uses only primary sources and is therefore
WP:OR. It should be removed in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
Furthermore, under the "medical research" section, the following is original research making an allegation of conflict of interest, which has never been published anywhere:
"It should be noted that the (senior) researcher of all the above studies is a Sahaja Yogi and attends to
Nirmala Srivastava's personal medical needs.
[6]
and
"It should be noted that one of the authors of the latter study was a Sahaja Yogi and was appointed by
Nirmala Srivastava as the first director of the International SahajaYoga Research and Health Center.
[7]".
In accordance with Wikipedia policies, these should also be removed.
Freelion (
talk)
13:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Owlmonkey, glad to know you're still watching. I would rewrite the third paragraph under the term as follows:
In 2000 the term 'Sahaja Yoga' was trademarked in the
United States by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma.
[2] In 2001 a complaint by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma to the
World Intellectual Property Organization regarding the use of the term was rejected (despite the dissenting opinion of the presiding panelist), in part due to the determination that the words 'Sahaja' and 'Yoga' are descriptive Sanskrit words heard in Buddhism, used by saint
Kabir and also referred to by
Guru Nanak in
Sikhism
[3]
We could add that during the year ending 30 June 2004 there were trademark costs of GBP 16,590 recorded by Life Eternal Trust, UK, but this seems like just an ordinary fact to me.
Freelion (
talk)
04:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The two sentences referred to in the medical section are only relevant in relation to the assertion of conflict of interest. This assertion has not been published anywhere and by making it here, we are challenging the objectivity of the research. As editors, it is not our place to do that. So I believe these sentences should be removed, there is no other way to make them relevant. Freelion ( talk) 04:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, we have consensus on the rewritten third paragraph of "the Term", would an administrator kindly swap it with the following:
In 2000 the term 'Sahaja Yoga' was trademarked in the
United States by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma.
[4] In 2001 a complaint by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma to the
World Intellectual Property Organization regarding the use of the term was rejected (despite the dissenting opinion of the presiding panelist), in part due to the determination that the words 'Sahaja' and 'Yoga' are descriptive Sanskrit words heard in Buddhism, used by saint
Kabir and also referred to by
Guru Nanak in
Sikhism
[5]
Freelion (
talk)
12:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Owlmonkey, you have succinctly defined my issue with the medical section and eloquently explained your point. Thankyou for being so lucid. I agree with you that it's perfectly fair to note the associations when qualifying contributions. I've rewritten the medical section as follows:
Some studies have suggested that Sahaja Yoga meditation may have some effect in addressing some medical ailments. One study reports results with asthma patients. [6] Sahaja Yoga practitioners were asked to assist in the trials and one of the researchers was a practising Sahaja Yogi. [7] Short-term effects on asthma were noticed, by both objective and subjective measures. [6] According to an article in the Medical Observer Weekly, Sahaja Yoga meditation was found to be "significantly more effective than a generic form of meditation in reducing stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms" [8].
A pilot study (N = 14, no control group) on the effect of Sahaja Yoga meditation conducted by Dr Ramesh Manocha of the Royal Hospital for Women in Sydney, Dr. Barbara Semmar of the department of Psychology at Bond University and Dr. Deborah Black of the Faculty of Medicine at the School of Community Medicine of the University of New South Wales on menopausal symptoms showed that "Changes in vasomotor symptoms, especially hot flashes, were most prominent as a significant decrease of 67% at post-treatment and 57% at follow-up" [9] Dr. Ramesh Manocha, was thanked by Nirmala Srivastava's husband for assisting in his wife's medical team in Australia in 2006. [8]
A news report on a preliminary study suggested that Sahaja Yoga meditation "may be the most effective form of treatment for occupational stress". [10]
A case study showed that test subjects who were practising Sahaja Yoga meditation had "significant improvement in VCS (Visual Contrast Sensitivity)", and that meditation appeared to bring about changes in some of the electrophysiological responses studied in epileptic patients. [11] Another study indicated that Sahaja Yoga meditation results in fewer and less acute epileptic seizures [12] This quote needs a citation A review of the studies determined that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the efficacy of Sahaja Yoga meditation in treating epilepsy [13] and that further studies were needed. One of the authors of this study, Dr U.C Rai, former head of the Physiology Department of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, and professor in various medical colleges in Delhi, was appointed by Nirmala Srivastava as the first director of the International SahajaYoga Research and Health Center in 1996. [9]
Mishra reported that Sahaja Yoga meditation resulted in a "significant increase" in beta-endorphins between control and meditating subjects.
[14] The endogeneous opiates, b-endorphins, are known to have a role in body homeostasis. They strengthen the immune system, and are involved in the maintenance of a healthy psychological functioning. They can even combat cancer cells, which could explain so-called 'miraculous cures' in cancer patients after the practice of Yoga meditation.
[15].
Freelion (
talk)
16:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Changes to the medical section have been agreed to by consensus. New code is above (remove green highlighting).
Freelion (
talk)
10:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
"Sahaja Yoga meditation appears to bring about changes in some of the electrophysiological responses studied in epileptic patients"
From the article:"Judith Coney has written that partnerships have been broken up by Nirmala Srivastava on the basis of being destructive, and that while breakdown of relationships arranged by Nirmala Srivastava is officially unknown, unofficially it is known to occur". [1] This quote needs a citation
The above information actually comes from the article in "Growing Up As Mother's Children: Socializing a Second Generation in Sahaja Yoga" by Judith Coney in Children in New Religions Susan J. Palmer, Charlotte Hardman, Rutgers University Press (July 1999), page 121. However, it's been misquoted. The quote is as follows: "Divorce, for example, or the breakdown of relationships arranged by Sri Mataji, is officially unknown in Sahaja Yoga but unofficially fairly common.". This is not about Shri Mataji breaking up relationships, it's about the marriages arranged by Shri Mataji not always working.
I suggest we remove that sentence and replace it with "Judith Coney has written that marriages arranged by Shri Mataji are not always successful." [2] Freelion ( talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Freelion that this is a more accurate statement. - Windinthetrees ( talk) 04:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
In the marriage section, please remove the following:
Judith Coney has written that partnerships have been broken up by Nirmala Srivastava on the basis of being destructive, and that while breakdown of relationships arranged by Nirmala Srivastava is officially unknown, unofficially it is known to occur". [3] This quote needs a citation
and replace it with:
Judith Coney has written that marriages arranged by Shri Mataji are not always successful. [4]
as per consensus. Freelion ( talk) 10:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
According to the source used to imply that Sahaja Yoga was used as a synonym for Siddha Yoga, Siddha Yoga differentiates itself from Sahaja Yoga. "there are two radically different direct approaches to awakening kundalini. One approach requires initiation by a guru and relies upon a technique called shaktipat, or ``descent of shakti. It is variously called: Siddha Mahayoga, Kundalini Mahayoga or Sahaja Yoga (Spontaneous Yoga). "
The paragraph previously used to justify the synonym refered to the Kriyas.
I note thast both in this article and the one on Nirmala Srivastava edits have been reverted without reason by willbebak - is there any explanation for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.19.110 ( talk) 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Coney also reported the allegation that "when Swiss parents protested to Sri Mataji about their children going away from the age of three, thinking that the command to send their offspring came from the national leader rather than her, she personally reinforced his orders and, moreover, ordered them to have no contact with their children for at least a year."[96]
This comes from page 159 of Judith Coney's book and is in the context of the extent to which parents choose to send their offspring to a Sahaja Yoga school differing between countries in Europe. She wrote that in Switzerland most of the children are educated in Sahaja schools. The story is repeated as an allegation but not necessarily as a criticism. I think you could interpret this story critically or otherwise, depending on which side of the fence you sit. It seems irrelevant to include anywhere else in the article so I suggest it be removed. Freelion ( talk) 06:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
In the context of complaints about the way children are dealt with in SY, it does seem relevant. But actually this allegation came from within the movement itself and does not necessarily indicate a complaint. It could have been narrated with a sense of awe, for example. Shri Mataji's orders, as we know, are treated with absolute respect and she has encouraged parents to be less attached to their children. Practicing Sahaja Yogis would be aware of this. So what I'm saying is that the inclusion of this story in the criticisms section is more of a value judgement by an editor; if it really is a criticism, who is the criticiser? Freelion ( talk) 02:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Just on that, when is it OK to delete sourced material? I mean, there's a lot of sourced material out there that editors can choose from but I would argue that some of the material in this article has been chosen specifically to fit with some editor's agenda. How can we determine whether or not a certain cherry picked reference is really relevant?
For example, this reference I have shown is not relevant to a section on criticisms unless you look at it from the editor's point of view. So now we have this reference which is no longer relevant for the section it has been sourced for. Do we we really have to find a new place for it? Freelion ( talk) 04:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been in touch with Inform to get more info on Sahaja Yoga. They have told me that the link referred to in this article "...was not published by Inform and the leaflet used in the Wikipedia article dates from around 2002 and is no longer circulated by Inform." If this is the case, should Wikipedia be using this link? Freelion ( talk) 07:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
It means that they are not the ones hosting that PDF online since it is no longer circulated by the organisation. Someone else has posted it at that URL. The leaflet may not have ever been published as such, only made available from their office or posted to people who make enquiries. They are currently preparing an updated version, they told me. Freelion ( talk) 06:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I just thought that if the organisation that created the leaflet has withdrawn it from circulation, that means they no longer stand behind what it says. What if we just wait until they finish the new one? Freelion ( talk) 06:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
That's fair enough. I would like to integrate some of the points from this section into other sections or new sections of the article. As mentioned further above, it's my opinion that some of these criticisms have never been made and that they are only criticisms from a previous editor of the article. Some of the points could do with some context. I've got some more sources which I hope can add light to the subject. Freelion ( talk) 12:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:EL recommends avoiding external links to sites that "mislead the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."
The authors of the two sites listed under "Critical sites" make many unsupported allegations. Interpretations are made of the movement using the assumption that it is somehow destructive, however, this assumption itself is unsubstantiated by any of the information presented.
I would describe the sites as opinion pieces. By linking to them we are giving them undue free publicity. They do not represent accurate research and are no more valid than any other personal website whether critical or not. Freelion ( talk) 03:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Trimmed down External links section, and added {{ No more links}}. There were way too many links. Cirt ( talk) 14:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently there is dissension in the Sahaja Yoga movement regarding the role of the husband and one of the daughters of the founding teacher. In the context of this dissension, the World Council was abolished in a Letter under Shri Mataji's signature, but rather obviously written by the husband (Sir C.P.Srivastava), circulated in mid January 2010. How should this be incorporated into the wikipedia article? ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogiwallah ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
What does this text have to do with Sahaja Yoga? If it's not directly related to SY then it should go into an article about Barker or media coverage of new religious movements. Will Beback talk 04:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
We cannot copy material from other website and paste it here.
I'd request the editor who added these to correct the copying,. Otherwise I'll revert the recent changes, as I don't want to have to go through these one by one and doing the work myself. Will Beback talk 04:53, 3 August 2010 (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. |
There are some notes about the origin of the term Sahaja currently in the article but I found more references that are earlier in time:
I think from these it's fair to say the term "Sahaja" and sahaja yoga is much older than the current article describes and was a fairly important term to buddhist and vaishnava hindu tantra before the 12th century. Any thoughts on this? Otherwise I can propose a specific edit to request a change. - Owlmonkey ( talk) 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Owlmonkey... I am sure that we don't have to define the changing historical meaning of the words in the name of the society. That society has a birth date and is registered. We can start from that date and the meaning given by the founder of the Society in question: Sahaja Yoga. Defining the meaning and the reason for the choice of the words is the bailliewick of the PR department of the Society, not the Wiki editors. We are only to report on the words as they are meant by the society and others, and not get into "original research", which is a "no-no" on Wiki...
4d-don-- don ( talk) 17:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I thougt I'd remove the following since I can't see how it relates to the article/lady, unless there is a quote from a Sahaja Yoga source saying this is further indication of her divinity. "Shri Markandeya Purana has prophesied the incarnation of the Adi Shakti for the salvation of human beings... Indian Jyotisha Acharya Kaka Bhujandar Tatvacharya noted in his renowned Nadi Grantha, some 2,000 years ago, that a great yogi will appear on the earth and this yogi will have all the powers (shaktis) of the Adi Shakti."</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.51.55 ( talk) 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you please change the following text in the opening paragraph:
"Several newspapers and a French report have referred to the movement as a cult, a branding that has been disputed in a Belgium court."
to
"A recent court case in Brussels has ruled that Sahaja Yoga has been wrongly labeled as a cult and awarded the group compensation."
as the former does not indicate that a ruling has taken place which is a very significant moment for Sahaja Yoga, nor that fact that compensation has been awarded.
An English reference for this can be found here: http://hrwf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113%3Abelgium-2008&Itemid=54#_Toc202982585
(I see there is only a French reference at the moment, further down) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windinthetrees ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC) - 122.109.27.54 - Windinthetrees ( talk) 06:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought we could leave out the reference to the appeal as that is covered later down in the article and this is a summary area. So I would prefer "A 2008 court case in Brussels has ruled that Sahaja Yoga had been wrongly labeled as a cult by a Belgian state authority and awarded the group compensation."
The quote by Willy Fautré is relevant and should be included in my opinion. - Windinthetrees ( talk) 00:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Problem is - how to get the page changed when it is locked? 122.109.27.54 ( talk) 12:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
We have consensus. Freelion ( talk) 11:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone got any objection to the longer text (new reference - see above) being added to the end of the "Cult allegations" section? Freelion ( talk) 02:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, except can we change "Human Rights without frontiers" into a wikipedia hyperlink as there is a wikipedia article on this organisation already in wikipedia. Also, can we add the following to provide some context:
"Human Rights Without Frontiers has contributed to the report of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights on the implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 62/154 of 18 December 2007 on Defamation of Religions by sending its report on the situation in Belgium." The reference for this is: " http://hrwf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113%3Abelgium-2008&Itemid=54" - Windinthetrees ( talk) 05:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
As these legal responses to cult allegations are highly significant, can we take the last two paragraphs which currently fall under "cult allegations" and put these into a separate section under "Criticisms", following the "Cult allegations" sub-section, and call it "Sahaja Yoga wins compensation for wrongfully being labelled as a cult". - Windinthetrees ( talk) 04:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.".
The third paragraph under "The term", which is about copyrighting of the term, WIPO court case and subsequent expenditure uses only primary sources and is therefore
WP:OR. It should be removed in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
Furthermore, under the "medical research" section, the following is original research making an allegation of conflict of interest, which has never been published anywhere:
"It should be noted that the (senior) researcher of all the above studies is a Sahaja Yogi and attends to
Nirmala Srivastava's personal medical needs.
[6]
and
"It should be noted that one of the authors of the latter study was a Sahaja Yogi and was appointed by
Nirmala Srivastava as the first director of the International SahajaYoga Research and Health Center.
[7]".
In accordance with Wikipedia policies, these should also be removed.
Freelion (
talk)
13:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Owlmonkey, glad to know you're still watching. I would rewrite the third paragraph under the term as follows:
In 2000 the term 'Sahaja Yoga' was trademarked in the
United States by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma.
[2] In 2001 a complaint by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma to the
World Intellectual Property Organization regarding the use of the term was rejected (despite the dissenting opinion of the presiding panelist), in part due to the determination that the words 'Sahaja' and 'Yoga' are descriptive Sanskrit words heard in Buddhism, used by saint
Kabir and also referred to by
Guru Nanak in
Sikhism
[3]
We could add that during the year ending 30 June 2004 there were trademark costs of GBP 16,590 recorded by Life Eternal Trust, UK, but this seems like just an ordinary fact to me.
Freelion (
talk)
04:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The two sentences referred to in the medical section are only relevant in relation to the assertion of conflict of interest. This assertion has not been published anywhere and by making it here, we are challenging the objectivity of the research. As editors, it is not our place to do that. So I believe these sentences should be removed, there is no other way to make them relevant. Freelion ( talk) 04:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, we have consensus on the rewritten third paragraph of "the Term", would an administrator kindly swap it with the following:
In 2000 the term 'Sahaja Yoga' was trademarked in the
United States by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma.
[4] In 2001 a complaint by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma to the
World Intellectual Property Organization regarding the use of the term was rejected (despite the dissenting opinion of the presiding panelist), in part due to the determination that the words 'Sahaja' and 'Yoga' are descriptive Sanskrit words heard in Buddhism, used by saint
Kabir and also referred to by
Guru Nanak in
Sikhism
[5]
Freelion (
talk)
12:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Owlmonkey, you have succinctly defined my issue with the medical section and eloquently explained your point. Thankyou for being so lucid. I agree with you that it's perfectly fair to note the associations when qualifying contributions. I've rewritten the medical section as follows:
Some studies have suggested that Sahaja Yoga meditation may have some effect in addressing some medical ailments. One study reports results with asthma patients. [6] Sahaja Yoga practitioners were asked to assist in the trials and one of the researchers was a practising Sahaja Yogi. [7] Short-term effects on asthma were noticed, by both objective and subjective measures. [6] According to an article in the Medical Observer Weekly, Sahaja Yoga meditation was found to be "significantly more effective than a generic form of meditation in reducing stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms" [8].
A pilot study (N = 14, no control group) on the effect of Sahaja Yoga meditation conducted by Dr Ramesh Manocha of the Royal Hospital for Women in Sydney, Dr. Barbara Semmar of the department of Psychology at Bond University and Dr. Deborah Black of the Faculty of Medicine at the School of Community Medicine of the University of New South Wales on menopausal symptoms showed that "Changes in vasomotor symptoms, especially hot flashes, were most prominent as a significant decrease of 67% at post-treatment and 57% at follow-up" [9] Dr. Ramesh Manocha, was thanked by Nirmala Srivastava's husband for assisting in his wife's medical team in Australia in 2006. [8]
A news report on a preliminary study suggested that Sahaja Yoga meditation "may be the most effective form of treatment for occupational stress". [10]
A case study showed that test subjects who were practising Sahaja Yoga meditation had "significant improvement in VCS (Visual Contrast Sensitivity)", and that meditation appeared to bring about changes in some of the electrophysiological responses studied in epileptic patients. [11] Another study indicated that Sahaja Yoga meditation results in fewer and less acute epileptic seizures [12] This quote needs a citation A review of the studies determined that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the efficacy of Sahaja Yoga meditation in treating epilepsy [13] and that further studies were needed. One of the authors of this study, Dr U.C Rai, former head of the Physiology Department of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry, and professor in various medical colleges in Delhi, was appointed by Nirmala Srivastava as the first director of the International SahajaYoga Research and Health Center in 1996. [9]
Mishra reported that Sahaja Yoga meditation resulted in a "significant increase" in beta-endorphins between control and meditating subjects.
[14] The endogeneous opiates, b-endorphins, are known to have a role in body homeostasis. They strengthen the immune system, and are involved in the maintenance of a healthy psychological functioning. They can even combat cancer cells, which could explain so-called 'miraculous cures' in cancer patients after the practice of Yoga meditation.
[15].
Freelion (
talk)
16:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Changes to the medical section have been agreed to by consensus. New code is above (remove green highlighting).
Freelion (
talk)
10:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
"Sahaja Yoga meditation appears to bring about changes in some of the electrophysiological responses studied in epileptic patients"
From the article:"Judith Coney has written that partnerships have been broken up by Nirmala Srivastava on the basis of being destructive, and that while breakdown of relationships arranged by Nirmala Srivastava is officially unknown, unofficially it is known to occur". [1] This quote needs a citation
The above information actually comes from the article in "Growing Up As Mother's Children: Socializing a Second Generation in Sahaja Yoga" by Judith Coney in Children in New Religions Susan J. Palmer, Charlotte Hardman, Rutgers University Press (July 1999), page 121. However, it's been misquoted. The quote is as follows: "Divorce, for example, or the breakdown of relationships arranged by Sri Mataji, is officially unknown in Sahaja Yoga but unofficially fairly common.". This is not about Shri Mataji breaking up relationships, it's about the marriages arranged by Shri Mataji not always working.
I suggest we remove that sentence and replace it with "Judith Coney has written that marriages arranged by Shri Mataji are not always successful." [2] Freelion ( talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Freelion that this is a more accurate statement. - Windinthetrees ( talk) 04:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
In the marriage section, please remove the following:
Judith Coney has written that partnerships have been broken up by Nirmala Srivastava on the basis of being destructive, and that while breakdown of relationships arranged by Nirmala Srivastava is officially unknown, unofficially it is known to occur". [3] This quote needs a citation
and replace it with:
Judith Coney has written that marriages arranged by Shri Mataji are not always successful. [4]
as per consensus. Freelion ( talk) 10:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
According to the source used to imply that Sahaja Yoga was used as a synonym for Siddha Yoga, Siddha Yoga differentiates itself from Sahaja Yoga. "there are two radically different direct approaches to awakening kundalini. One approach requires initiation by a guru and relies upon a technique called shaktipat, or ``descent of shakti. It is variously called: Siddha Mahayoga, Kundalini Mahayoga or Sahaja Yoga (Spontaneous Yoga). "
The paragraph previously used to justify the synonym refered to the Kriyas.
I note thast both in this article and the one on Nirmala Srivastava edits have been reverted without reason by willbebak - is there any explanation for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.19.110 ( talk) 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Coney also reported the allegation that "when Swiss parents protested to Sri Mataji about their children going away from the age of three, thinking that the command to send their offspring came from the national leader rather than her, she personally reinforced his orders and, moreover, ordered them to have no contact with their children for at least a year."[96]
This comes from page 159 of Judith Coney's book and is in the context of the extent to which parents choose to send their offspring to a Sahaja Yoga school differing between countries in Europe. She wrote that in Switzerland most of the children are educated in Sahaja schools. The story is repeated as an allegation but not necessarily as a criticism. I think you could interpret this story critically or otherwise, depending on which side of the fence you sit. It seems irrelevant to include anywhere else in the article so I suggest it be removed. Freelion ( talk) 06:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
In the context of complaints about the way children are dealt with in SY, it does seem relevant. But actually this allegation came from within the movement itself and does not necessarily indicate a complaint. It could have been narrated with a sense of awe, for example. Shri Mataji's orders, as we know, are treated with absolute respect and she has encouraged parents to be less attached to their children. Practicing Sahaja Yogis would be aware of this. So what I'm saying is that the inclusion of this story in the criticisms section is more of a value judgement by an editor; if it really is a criticism, who is the criticiser? Freelion ( talk) 02:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Just on that, when is it OK to delete sourced material? I mean, there's a lot of sourced material out there that editors can choose from but I would argue that some of the material in this article has been chosen specifically to fit with some editor's agenda. How can we determine whether or not a certain cherry picked reference is really relevant?
For example, this reference I have shown is not relevant to a section on criticisms unless you look at it from the editor's point of view. So now we have this reference which is no longer relevant for the section it has been sourced for. Do we we really have to find a new place for it? Freelion ( talk) 04:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been in touch with Inform to get more info on Sahaja Yoga. They have told me that the link referred to in this article "...was not published by Inform and the leaflet used in the Wikipedia article dates from around 2002 and is no longer circulated by Inform." If this is the case, should Wikipedia be using this link? Freelion ( talk) 07:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
It means that they are not the ones hosting that PDF online since it is no longer circulated by the organisation. Someone else has posted it at that URL. The leaflet may not have ever been published as such, only made available from their office or posted to people who make enquiries. They are currently preparing an updated version, they told me. Freelion ( talk) 06:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I just thought that if the organisation that created the leaflet has withdrawn it from circulation, that means they no longer stand behind what it says. What if we just wait until they finish the new one? Freelion ( talk) 06:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
That's fair enough. I would like to integrate some of the points from this section into other sections or new sections of the article. As mentioned further above, it's my opinion that some of these criticisms have never been made and that they are only criticisms from a previous editor of the article. Some of the points could do with some context. I've got some more sources which I hope can add light to the subject. Freelion ( talk) 12:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:EL recommends avoiding external links to sites that "mislead the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."
The authors of the two sites listed under "Critical sites" make many unsupported allegations. Interpretations are made of the movement using the assumption that it is somehow destructive, however, this assumption itself is unsubstantiated by any of the information presented.
I would describe the sites as opinion pieces. By linking to them we are giving them undue free publicity. They do not represent accurate research and are no more valid than any other personal website whether critical or not. Freelion ( talk) 03:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Trimmed down External links section, and added {{ No more links}}. There were way too many links. Cirt ( talk) 14:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently there is dissension in the Sahaja Yoga movement regarding the role of the husband and one of the daughters of the founding teacher. In the context of this dissension, the World Council was abolished in a Letter under Shri Mataji's signature, but rather obviously written by the husband (Sir C.P.Srivastava), circulated in mid January 2010. How should this be incorporated into the wikipedia article? ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogiwallah ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
What does this text have to do with Sahaja Yoga? If it's not directly related to SY then it should go into an article about Barker or media coverage of new religious movements. Will Beback talk 04:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
We cannot copy material from other website and paste it here.
I'd request the editor who added these to correct the copying,. Otherwise I'll revert the recent changes, as I don't want to have to go through these one by one and doing the work myself. Will Beback talk 04:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)