Jump to content

Talk:Ananda Marga/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Old discussions

All web sites containing violence acts supposedly performed by Ananda Marga members, have only unproven charges and/or speculations. These links are purely negative propaganda by the unethical user BirgerLangkjer. I say this because he (apparently) purposely left out important parts of the discussion about this article that an "anonymous" user had erased and then he only recovered the parts of the text that follow his interests of negative propaganda. See the history of this discussion to confirm what I say here. User BirgerLangkjer only speculates, saying things like:

"My accusations are not slander - I have books, newspaper clippings and other papers (mostly in Danish and Swedish I'm afraid) to back them up. Do a little research, and you'll find that everything checks out."

Well I checked it out, and for example, in the text about arms drop in India, one can read:

"In the days after the arms drop at Purulia on 17 December, India’s news media were awash with speculation as to what had happened. Suspicion was directed mainly at Pakistan’s secret service once it was known that the aircraft had flown in from Karachi, while the West Bengali authorities denied having received a warning. Ananda Marga and the Bangladesh Government dismissed any involvement in ordering the arms, and some journalists speculated on possible links to arms for the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, but without proof."


So before anyone puts again this acts of violence links in the article, that person has to present a credible text with corroboration from offical authorities and not pure speculation by dubious sites.


Here is the whole discussion as of 28 June 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ananda_Marga&oldid=17749521


I see no mentioning here of the fact that Ananda Marga used to be a terrorist organization guilty of high jacking and ritual murder. Maybe it is because of the fact that everyone who know something about them is terrified of them...

One former member wrote:

I was a member of Ananda Marga for 10 years, many of which in a senior capacity. I have visited Indian HQ of the organization many times and was close to many senior monks there (these monks control the organization).

There are many positive aspects of the group's practices and beliefs. I do not want to diminish those but will focus here on the negative aspects because those were not well-highlighted anywhere on the web and they should be. Please note that I was an insider and know what I am talking about firsthand. I am not spreading false rumors, which would be morally abhorrent to me.

If one reviews the well-researched characteristics of destructive cults (browse cults 101 section of http://www.csj.org/), Ananda Marga will fit overwhelming majority of them. Notably, the group's literature is of the obvious cultish nature as compared to the traditional/authentic yoga and tantra literature.

From my own participation, I know that the group's beliefs are clearly totalitarian. Their dogmas (very concisely) are as follows: the group is the only true spiritual tradition; it is the best or only way to self-realization; its (now deceased) guru is the only true teacher and Messiah; it preaches one just world government (ruled by the monks and controlled by the group's ideology). I have preached these dogmas myself when recruiting new members.

Most government authorities (Interpol, CIA, FBI, Indian police, etc.) consider Ananda Marga a terrorist Hindu-fundamentalist cult with about 50 murders linked to it. Many of the senior monks who I knew openly admitted to killings of the defectors and local government officials who oppose the group (mostly in India).

Smuggling, document forging, passport forging, immigrant and tourist visa forging are common. I have observed them all firsthand. I have seen monks make visa stamps in a closet lab at a European Ananda Marga center. These stamps were used on their (Indian) passports to successfully enter several European countries. Gold, and pharmaceutical smuggling were frequently discussed but I have not seen it with my own eyes. I have participated in light smuggling myself -- video cameras, computers, pistachios and almonds to India. Such light smuggling was very common in my days in the organization.

In addition, I have observed rampant discrimination of Caucasians in the monastic structure of the organization. Indian races are deemed supreme by the ruling elite. While preaching internationalism, the organization is completely controlled by Indians.


You, as a leading Danish Christian countercult activist seem to be rather biased against the Ananda Marga organisation. You are quoting whom? Most things written there are either twisted or outright false and all things written there are blatantly meant to smear and vilify.

  1. The philosophy of Ananda Marga strongly opposes religious dogma and preaches universal spirituality and has never and would never say that they are "the only true spiritual tradition". In fact within Ananda Marga there is a special organisation called Eka Manava Samaj (One Human Society) which promotes the unity and cooperation between all spiritual paths.
  2. Ananda Marga does not say and has never said anywhere that its guru is the "only true teacher and Messiah". In fact unlike Christianity or Islam, Ananda Marga recognises at least three great teachers of which three of the greatest are considered to be Shiva, Krishna and Buddha. Parts of the teachings and practises of Ananda Marga are inspired on Buddhism and the teachings of Buddha, Shiva and Krishna are part of its literature.
  3. Ananda Marga advocates a worldwide justice system (justice for all), worldwide human rights and a world governement led by moralists (people following morality rather than self-serving people). Such moralists can come from all walks of life. Such a world government would only check on the abuse of political, judicial and economic powers at lower levels and uphold worldwide human rights. Ananda Marga is not unique in its wish for worldwide justice and economic prosperity for all.
  4. The literature of Ananda Marga is most certainly not of a cultish nature. Rather the teachings and literature of Ananda Marga are of a mystic or esoteric religious nature like the teachings in Sufism and other mystic traditions (including Christian mysticism). The teachings of mysticism (unlike exoteric religion) are universal and oppose religious dogmas, sectarian ideas and narrowmindedness. See: [1]
  5. The accusations of so-called "ritual murder" were made in the 1970's by the Communist government of West-Bengal at a time when Ananda Marga was being heavily suppressed and persecuted. During the emergency period of the government of Indira Ghandi, most opposition parties as well as the mission of Ananda Marga were banned and many of their leaders were imprisoned on false charges. Such made-up accusations were clearly meant to vilify the mission of Ananda Marga and discredit it through the media. In fact many missionary workers including nuns were imprisoned or murdered at this time. Ananda Marga was an easy target in this respect because Tantra-Yoga is still often associated with left-hand practices. In fact Ananda Marga is a right-hand path and promotes people making a positive contribution to society rather than withdrawing from society.
  6. Ananda Marga's ideology strongly opposes racism and discrimination on grounds of cultural background. The workers of Ananda Marga come from all cultures and all parts of the world and many of its married couples are from different cultural or ethnic backgrounds.Andriesb 07:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I freely admit that I am biased against Ananda Marga because of their reputation in the past. I'd be foolish not to be. Ananda Marga is one of the most sinister and dangerous cults in the world because of their many violent acts and the sheer lunacy of it's adherents.

  • In 1979 3 Margies tried to highjack a Russian airplane with 34 passengers onboard. They poured gasoline all over the floor and tried to throw a firebomb into the cockpit. They were overpowered by security officers and passengers.
  • In 1981 the naked body of Bishvanath Singh was found in a black plastic bag on a Swedish lake. Singh was a former leader in Ananda Marga who had broken out and started his own movement called the "Moksha Foundation". He was invited to Stockholm under the pretext that he was going to hold lectures and meet several prominent Swedish politicians etc. It turned out that none of these people had heard of Singh or had any appointment to see him. It was all a ruse. 2 members of Ananda Marga (including a young man by the name Sten Rothenborg and a young Westgerman man) picked Bishvanath Singh up at the airport and he wasn't seen again untill his body was found.
  • Atleast 6 former Ananda Margas have been murdered for leaving the movement.
  • 8 sects members burned themselves to death in order to protest against the Indian governments persecution of Sarkar including an Australian millionair's daughter, Lynette Phillips.
  • In 1995 a British armsdealer and a Danish Ananda Marga follower who is wanted by Danish police in connection with armed robbery hired a Latvian airplane and dropped a large number of weapons including AK-47s over Bengal India. It is believed that the weapons were intended for Ananda Marga. The Dane, Niels Christian Nielsen, ended up on Interpol's top-ten list of wanted criminals. The elusive Dane was not arrested but has moved freely in and out of Denmark and even participated in a few Danish television and radio programs, despite being a confessed criminal (gold smuggler). Purulia Armsdrop

So you see there is plenty of evidence of Ananda Marga's sinister nature, but apparently you, Andriesb, doesn't feel that this interesting information belongs on Wikipedia. The article as it is now sounds like an advertisement for Ananda Marga - completely ignoring the unpleasent aspects of it's history. The death of their guru may have taken the edge of them, but they are still fanatics who are capable of acts of violence: Ananda Marg hub turns battleground, monk killed

I guess this is why Wikipedia will never have good information on existing totalitarian cults, since cult members will always monitor these articles and root out out any criticism no matter how well-documented.

--BirgerLangkjer 11:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We all know what the corrupt Indian government of Indira Ghandi was up to during the time of the emergency. They had every reason to slander Ananda Marga because people in all kinds of high positions were joining A.M. and following the high moral standards of this yoga path. Such a thing is not appreciated in corrupt networks. Does this at all remind you of the persecution of a slightly older movement you know very well? Let me quote from your xenophobic intolerant christian web-site [2]

>>>"The neo-religiosity in its many forms and deviations has already become a strong religious factor in most parts of the world. A large percentage of the worlds population seek to combine some form of the teaching of reincarnation with Christianity. They tend to believe that, in one way or another, God is identical with the inner self or is the essence of the universal field of energy or force. They have picked up a view which regards man as a collection of energies with auras, astral bodies, etc. The 1970s and early 1980s were the years of change in popular religiosity, but the churches hardly noticed it. The task of the Dialog Center is to continue to draw attention to this important challenge. Therefore, the Dialog Center seeks to train its members for this task, and by means of various publications (pamphlets, magazines, and books), meetings, and lectures around the world seeks to spread information and accurate knowledge about the NRMs.">>>

According to this quote your organisation seems to be taking aim at all of esoteric religion including Buddhism. If Ananda Marga was really as "dangerous" as you are trying to make me believe, why would you dare to write such slanderous accusations? Why don't you just come clear about your aim to abuse the platform of this encyclopedia for your organised mudslinging and bashing of NRM's? Were you yourself trained by the anti-cult missionaries of the Dialog Center?Andriesb 13:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andriesb, BirgerLangkjer, I re-inserted the accustions of violence by Ananda Marga because I think that this controversy should be treated here. I have no idea whether these accusations are untrue or not or whether this violence were unfortunate incidents made in the past that Ananda Marga accepts and regrets and has tried compensate. It is my unfortunate experience that some NRMs engage in abusive and violent behavior and due to that experience, I distrust NRMs led by a living charismatic leader. Andries 23:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why do I dare indeed? One former coworker who was in the Dialog Center back when AM was strong and at it's worst has warned me that I should stay as far away from AM as possible. He is afraid of them and think that I should be too. Another one told that if you meet a clear manifestation of evil and back down out of fear, it makes you weaker. But if you stand firm, it makes you stronger and often the enemy turns out to be a papertiger. I'm betting that Ananda Marga is not as dangerous today as they were in their heyday.

Most controversial cults go through this circle: 1) The founder/guru starts the movement and has a certain degree of succes. 2) Problems/opposition start to arise from without and within. 3) The guru reacts very badly to this. 4) Events spiral out of control and some sort of confrontation is inevitable (varies in intensity). 5) The guru dies. 6) The cult gradually becomes more mainstream and "normal". Whether they survive in the long run depends on whether the guru's successor is able to reinvent the cult succesfully.

The Dialog Center does not take aim at Buddhism or Hinduism - only abusive cults and syncretistic movements who try to take over the Christian church from the inside. But that is offtopic here.

My accusations are not slander - I have books, newspaper clippings and other papers (mostly in Danish and Swedish I'm afraid) to back them up. Do a little research, and you'll find that everything checks out. Actually I don't think you could make this stuff up. It's a good example of reality being weirder than fiction. --BirgerLangkjer 28 June 2005 10:02 (UTC)

Discussion after setting POV tag 2005-10-19

It seems that the battle to control this Wikipedia article rages on. I guess the only lesson to be learned here is that you cannot trust anything Wikipedia says about cults, atleast if that cult has members who know how to use a computer.

Another thing that strikes me is how quickly the world forgets. Yesterday's terrorist is tomorrow's prime minister. Likewise yesterday's crazy cult is tomorrow's respected mainstream religion. How many people today remember about the early Mormons and their "Avenging Angels" or the "Death Angels" of the Nation of Islam who killed over 70 people in the 70'es? Apparently starting your own religion is the best way for a megalomaniacal criminal to become practically untouchable. --BirgerLangkjer 10:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is too positive in that I don't know of many other religious movements on Wiki that lack a segment on criticism or disapproval. (Although I added one it's just Babelization of the German Wiki) Also many segments of it amount to one sentence so should be merged in some way if possible. However the talk segment makes me think it could easily also turn to being too POV negative. I think you people need to look for some kind of ground. Expecting the article to either call them an evil cult or praise them as the best thing since slice bread is inherently POV. Unfortunately I know too little of this group to help.--T. Anthony 11:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The link to the german article is already provided by the standard interwiki mechanism. I've removed your section together with other fluff in a first attempt of cleanup. --Pjacobi 11:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
No problem, sensible idea--T. Anthony 12:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


User BirgerLangkjer is clearly biased and contradicts his own role as a christian, as christianity and all other big religions at present were, in the past, also considered as cults or sects, were prosecuted and its members also target of obscene charges. I (member of Ananda Marga), and as T. Anthony very well suggested, am searching for some neutral ground here and did some edit in the Criticism section of this article. Let's do a constructive work on this and not be extremist like BirgerLangkjer. --Atmanji 22:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Technically all new religions start out as sects and only much later become mainstream religions. However this doesn't mean that we should expect every crackpot cult to eventually grow up and become a pillar of society and and therefore readily allow them to bury their seedy past. When I first saw this very biased article I tried to add some critical information (most of it on the Talk page, since I did not want to deface Wikipedia), I was incensed to see how obvious Ananda Margiies arrogantly deleted everything I had written - even from the Talk page. Clearly these people accept no criticism what so ever. Their answer to everything is: "It's a lie, it's slander etc." followed by ad hominem attacks on my person. Hardly very constructive. --BirgerLangkjer 15:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
You continue to show your disrespect to NRMs. While its sure unprobable that all NRMs (cult or sect has a negative significance and should not be used sistematically to characterize all NRMs) will turn to mainstream religions, your posture of putting all of them in the same bag is not, in my view, an adequate one. It shows lack of respect even for your religion (christianity) that was also, in the beggining, target of speculative criticisms. The more revolutionary a spiritual movement is, the more prone it is to such attacks, that are done by those whose power is threatened. Ananda Marga has improved life conditions of several thousands of indian people, with cooperatives, agriculture, PROUT, etc. and has chalenged lots of the Indian's culture status quo (challenging the cast system, empowerment of the women, economic decentralization, etc). This has led to persecution by Indian government and also other governments in the world and also certain members of widespread religions that fear to loose their influence and power.
What defines Ananda Marga is the ideology which is present on the books of its founder: Prabhat Rainjain Sarkar. I challenge you and any other Wikipedian to find any instigation to violence on his work. Any violent episodes that may have happenned in the past done by persons who declare to be Ananda Margiis, by definition (violent) break one of the most basic principles of Ananda Marga (non violenve) and so don't represent the ideology and nor the organization. They will be either unbalanced persons who didn't read or respect the philosophy or persons (slave to the interests i referred above) that falsely declare them selves as Ananda Margiis to discredit Ananda Marga.
Summarizing, the key issue here is: if there have been acts of violence, they were commited either by unbalanced persons (and certainly not following superior orders) or by persons following third party interests. Besides the two situations that are now in the Criticism section on the article, I challenge BirgerLangkjer to report here in the discussion, other situations reported by credible sources and I'm sure I can demonstrate that again they are based on speculations or disputed facts. --Atmanji 00:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


I have to agree with Birger that criticism should rarely be removed from the Talk:Page. I would be unwilling to remove even blatantly anti-Catholic sentiments from talk pages on articles concerning the faith. Because that is what that person believes and silencing it seems wrong. I would only do it if the individual advocates violence against members of a faith or group. At the same time the article shouldn't be solely negative. There is enough criticism in valid sources that this deserves mention, but there's also valid positive views. Ideally it should just give a balance and not overly weighted either way. This is difficult to do on any religion, I'd concede, and it's part of why religious articles are among the most challenging and challenged articles at Wiki. Lastly I doubt a Wiki article will persuade anyone to join or leave Ananda Marga, or any other group, so both sides seem a bit overheated on how important this is in reality.--T. Anthony 01:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


Pertaining to the removal of criticisms from the talk page, it's highly suspicious the fact that BirgerLangkjer recovered only parts of the previous discussion, after some anonymous user had erased it all. Looking at the history of this talk page, one can see that on 07:59, 12 August 2005, IP 194.152.215.117 completely erased the discussion. Only about 5 hours later, BirgerLangkjer took action and Reinstated discussion leaving only his negative and speculative POVs, saying this in the begining:
I'm a little disappointed that my whole discussion with Andries was deleted by some unknown person. I was hoping that some of it would find its way in to the main article, but right now I don't have the time to clean it up. I would like to repeat my main reasons for why Ananda Marga was a dangerous cult and a terrorist organization - atleast in the past
The phrase "right now I don't have the time to clean it up" clearly shows 2 things: (1) instead of simply putting exactly the same content that existed before the deletion he was considering to "clean it up" that is, to at least change its content, which shows his tendency to distort things (2) to say that he didn't had the time is blantaly false, as it would take much less time to simply copy/paste the discussion as it was before being deleted, than entering new reordered content as he did.
I think this is enough proof that user BirgerLangkjer is not an ethical Wikipedian, because he only recovered the content of his interest. Also there's a high degree of suspicion that he was the supposdely anonymous user that deleted the whole discussion, as he reinstated it only 5 hours after the deletion, while in average, he takes at least a few days to react to new content in this article. Some Wikipedia administrator should check if BirgerLangkjer was on IP 194.152.215.117 when he reinstated the discussion.
I don't know enough about either of you to take sides. That said this doesn't change my opinion. Whoever blanked the talk page was wrong. Birger's being ethical or not is something of a non-sequitir. Unless you are suggesting he blanked the page. Anyway my agreement was on the blanking being wrong not whether any or all behaviors by him are correct.--T. Anthony 00:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I most certainly did not log in as an anonymous user and delete the contents of the Talk page. 1) When I was talking about "cleaning up" I meant the article, not the Talk page. I did decide not to reinstate the whole disussion but only a basic summary of my claims, since the whole discussion had become rather lenghty and confusing. 2) When you have an article on your watchlist, you can quickly see when changes are being made to it, so there is nothing suspicious about the 5 hours between the deletion and my reinstating parts of the disussion. I usually spend the first hours of my working day answering email and whatever and turn to Wikipedia in the afternoon. 3) Besides, if I log in as an anonymous user, my IP is 86.52.53.8 (atleast it was when i tried it right now, but my service provider probably has DHCP or something, so it might wary from session to session). --BirgerLangkjer 14:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Pertaining T. Anthony's phrase: "There is enough criticism in valid sources that this deserves mention". I would like you please to enumerate which valid sources are those? 2 of them are already mentioned in the main article, and if there are more I would like to analyze them. --Atmanji 23:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Because there is valid sources critical of almost any religion or faith system, but especially in the case when the movement is new. Also I found a couple on my own initiative. Don't be defensive I don't enough of your group to have any view either way. Much of what I found sounded positive with a few criticisms.--T. Anthony 00:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ananda Marga Testimonial

I am a US Christian. My sister and her husband have been margis for over 25 years (has it really been that long!?) They have two wonderful grown daughters (my nieces) who are also margis. I've meditated with them and their friends. We've had long talks about our respective faiths and beliefs. ("Tell me again why you can't eat onions?")

Whatever truth there may be in the accusations of violence discussed on this Talk page, I have found none of that in the way my sister, her family or their friends have lived their lives. That's not to say that there aren't violent margis, but I'm more inclined to believe it is because those individuals are violent people, not because Ananda Marga is a violent religion. The margis I've known have had a deep love and respect for their neighbors and have strived to serve them when they can, even at great personal sacrifice to themselves. --Nowa 04:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Critics of this page

I am Spanish journalist (independent not margui/organization conection at all, sundara@saintly.com) and I am practicing marga meditation from more than 23 years ago. Their techniques are incredible wonderful and effective and the most difficult I have ever found. Marga Philosophy is a deep paradigm with no comparison and margui people and yoguis are normally nice and tranquil people, but you can find some fanatics (people who Marga is helping) and NON MARGUIS INSIDERS (CBI (Central Bureau Intelligence) , who are the origin of all antimarga propaganda. Supernatural powers of Anandamurti can be ckecked through deep solitary meditation.

BirgerLangkjer one of the critics of this page is a christian fanatic whose hindu girlfriend have a special hate against social work (castes) of the marga and had past conncection with the sect. Nobody knows him as a theologian as he introduced himself. Normally critics of Marga came from other religious hindu or christian sectarians like this man, who puts pics of dead rats in his web and deep comentaries on his cat Socrates. . ??. “When I'm not working, my life is fairly boring”, said on his horrible designed web. So to fight against his boring dull life, he enjoys critizising yoguic movements worldwide recognized. [posted by 62.42.66.147 on January 27, 2005.]

  • I have deleted most of the posting of 62.42.66.147 as not being relevant to this page. I note that I considered deleting the entire thing, as I am concerned that it will just start a round of not-very-useful personal attacks. But I'm going to err on the side of possibly leaving too much, rather than being accused of censoring someone's opinion. John Broughton 20:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC) ]
  • Hmm, you want to avoid another round of "not-very-useful personal attacks" and yet you decide to let his personal attacks on me stand? How does that prevent more fighting? This deranged individual (I assume it is the same person because of the broken English and the time it was written) has lately been sending me oscene hatemail containing such verbal gems as: "All what you said is imaginable and tautalogic, clown", "dull and inquisitor fanatic, I piss in all Gurus feet and in your web. I only kiss the arshole of my whores and you kiss ours... Ratzinger, youf fanatic guru, forbid yoga,in fact you are afraid of higher intelectual paradigm.You are only a sect, stupid." Yet he claims to be a more spiritual and godly person than I am. Go figure. Incidentially my girlfriend is not a Hindu and has never had anything to do with AM, so apparently he likes to make things up as he goes along. Some journalist. BirgerLangkjer 13:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

June 2006 update to this page

This page didn't give a complete view of Ananda Marga. I have added a few notes on introdution, plus added a more detailed outline of its organizational structure and practice. More should be added to the practices, especially on the social side.

cJ--Cracker jack 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is shaping up. More information on the early and recent history of AM is added, also the latest in the internal fightings of the ananda margiis. I am not 100% sure of the actual conflict, so it would be great if someone cared to respond to that section.

The spiritual practices section of this article has greatly expanded, now covering both the meditational and yogic practices of AM.

It would be great if someone took the time to write more about the social practices of Ananda Marga (I have little knowledge of them and can't help much), because they are just barely covered in a few lines at the bottom of the page. Since the social aspect of AM is so huge, a more complete article should definitely be created.

--Cracker jack 14:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the article is looking good and more or less well rounded. Regarding social practices.. I suggest that these just link to the various Ananda Marga pages/blogs put up by members or monks in the various relief efforts around the world. For example, link to one on their continuous work in Acheh (1 and a half years after the Tsunami hit). Thoughts?

That would be great. If you have any links it would be of much help to this article!

cJ --Cracker jack 18:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page clean up

I would suggest a clean up on this page because it's senseless and a big mess! If anyone don't disagree I want to archive this talk as well and refresh the talk page. There are too many line shifts, there are weird boxes, the posts doesn't reply to one another, and they are full of accusations. I would rather see that this page was being used for a proper discussion on the development of the article rather than personal mudslinging and spam!

cJ--Cracker jack 00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View (NPOV)

Could anyone tell if this page is NPOV?, and if not please help making it so! cJ --Cracker jack 21:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have NPOV'ed some sections now. Still need some external evaluation! cJ--Cracker jack 23:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Many items are one-sided and present the beliefs and asserted history of this religion as undisputed fact. Also, the writing is awkward and in places inscrutible. Needs to be rewritten in a neutral style by a person with knowledge of the subject.PFR 04:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PFR (talk • contribs)

Agreed, it needs rewriting. --Simon D M (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this page has problems in terms of not having a Neutral Point of View, and also I strongly suspect that there is a non-declared Conflict of Interest from some of the editors who remove criticism and change wording like "xx died on <date>" to "xx left this world on <date>". Another example is that AM's recent history stops with the death of the leader in 1990. The article ought to be brought up to date and include developments since 1990. Looking at the evolvement of the article, points of criticism were muted one by one over a number of edits until none of the references to criticism was left. An editor then moved the only reference to controversy and AM's response to that to the history section. Later it disappeared altogether. The result is a one-sided article which does not include the well known public criticism and controversies which is also part of AM's story. Pacificshots (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
the article also explains away (in a seemingly biased way) the arrests of members and doesn't mention even more. just a cursory Google search turned up this Hinduism Today article, which had mention of many other scandals not covered in the current version of this article, including alleged murder attempts by Ananda Marga members in Australia: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1989/05/1989-05-03.shtml

Subscript text

I had added carefully referenced paragraphs relating to alleged terrorism by Ananda Marga in Australia. The references included newspaper articles, and the High Court of Australia judgments in the case. An unnamed IP user deleted these, ostensibly because they were unreferenced, and also because the acts in question were "[related] to a member of ananda marga and not ananda marga as a whole." The deletions were without foundation, and can only have been for the purposes of presenting a biased view of the subject. I intend to reinstate the paragraphs in question, and further reference them.

Wochee (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous! Another unnamed IP user (84.210.23.3) has gutted much of the text relating to the terrorist allegations against Ananda Marga in Australia, ostensibly on the grounds that they were adding a "More balanced overview of Court Ruling". In fact this is not true, and many of the changes are unsubstantiated by the claimed references. This is nothing other than intellectual vandalism.
For example, the 84.210.23.3 has deleted any reference to the fact that Evan Pederick confessed to committing the crime. The text that read -

The following day, another Ananda Marga member, Evan Pederick walked into a Brisbane police station and confessed to planting the Hilton bomb, and implicated Anderson and Ananda Marga in planning it. Pederick was convicted of three counts of murder and one of conspiracy, as was sentenced to 20 years in jail.

was deleted altogether. This is in spite of the fact that Pederick not only confessed to the crime, but maintained his guilt for the entire time he was in prison, and did not seek to appeal his conviction.
The same user also altered the text to say "In 1989 Anderson was charged with involvement in the Hilton bombing but this time he was acquitted in 1991 after the evidence of the main prosecution witness, Evan Pederick, was completely rejected by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal" and referenced the Sydney Morning Herald article by Ben Hills. Unfortunately that is not what the article says. In fact, Hills article said in its chronology "June 1991 NSW Court of Criminal Appeal throws doubt on Pederick's evidence and quashes Anderson's conviction." There is a great difference between casting doubt on the evidence and completely rejecting it. The edit was completely disingenuous and aimed solely at altering the neutral POV. Yet again I will reinstate text which has been altered dishonestly or without foundation, while leaving any additions by the same user which are factually correct.

Wochee (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I marked the section of allegation of terrorism activity in Australia as unimportant and irrelevant since the entire section is solely dedicated to notorious individuals some of them even proven not to be members of Ananda Marga. Perhaps they desire their separate article. But that section has no evidences on any controversy in organizational doctrine and philosophy nor the belief and practice of organization was ever the subject of study, investigation or hearing in Australia. I'd like to remind that this is an article on Ananda Marga so we need to stay on topic. - D&NDum (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations are needed

I will look for wore proper citation sources as to confirm the statements on this site. I do also hope other people would contribute here, because my time, and knowledge is limited. Cracker jack 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Relation to Hinduism

I have removed the following line "Its universal, rational and syncretic outlook and practices in some respects seem to place it in a category of its own." This seems to suggest that these features put it in variance with Hinduism. The whole paragraph probably needs rewriting as it is uncited. Xpanderin 17:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Criticism

I've had to revert the page due to vandalism of user 216.195.144.93 who removed the section on criticism of AM. If you are this author then please note that there was a raging battle over this article around a year ago and eventually a section on criticism of AM was added. You should note that this article wouldn't be complete without a section on criticism because it's a part of Ananda Margas history. Almost any religious or spiritual movement has had to face criticism. This is not due to the organization it self but due to members more or less misguided by their own "good" intentions. So please don't remove this section. After all it's not AM which was the problem here but some of its members. The Hilton bomber has been pardoned so I can't see how that is negative! Self-immolations have happened in AM, and if you don't like it to be written down then try contribute by explaining why it happened instead of denying the fact! The Purulia arms drop is also a fact and has been reported by many serious news providers. Whether the person behind this can be related to AM or not is a good question. I know he used to be a member of AM, but as far as I know he is not in AM any more. So, even if some members have committed wrong-doings it doesn't mean that the organization is bad therefore I believe it is also healthy to have a section on criticism. After all we're all humans and no one is perfect so a perfect organization wouldn't exist. That would be a lie.

Hope this clears things up. --Cracker jack 13:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC) The criticism is misleadingly vague on the issue of the hilton bombing. Preceding the bombing, the military attache at the Indian Embassy Colonel Singh and his wife were attacked in Canberra. Just over a month later an Air India employee in Melbourne was stabbed. In both cases, the perpetrator was a member of the Ananda Marga. While the actions of individuals does not necessarily suggest the organization was responsible, it would be wrong to ignore. cf news.com.au story on cabinet documents released under the 30 year rule (oops, forgot to sign, sorry) DDB (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone with a bit more knowledge about AM might want to write some stuff in from page 18 onwards of the 1977 Australian Cabinet Legal/Security papers which talks about the Commonwealth/State response to AM security threats. ajdlinux | utc 03:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like somebody has been busy wiping out the criticism regardless of sources and notability. --Simon D M (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

this entire ananda marga wikipedia entry is deeply biased and appears to have been authored in its entirety by members of the ananda marga organization. For example, can anyone please document the assertion that "In April 1979 he [sarkar] was banned from entering the USA by the State Department, due to having spoken out against corruption in the government of India". Is that statement REALLY documented in Curtis Daniel MacDougall(1983) "Superstition and the Press"??? I don't happen to have that book on hand but find it highly unlikely that MacDougall says anything of the sort. It's a ludicrously childish assertion to suggest that the US State Department would bar someone from enterring the US on the grounds that "due to having spoken out against corruption in the government of India". Maybe the real reason is because the individual in question was implicated --rightly or wrongly--in terrorist activity.....I have tried to add some references to some critical sources and will check in a few weeks to see how long it takes before these are removed by the ananda marga partisans. In short this demonstrates the weakness of the wiki unedited approach, allowing every fringe group with enough committed fanatics to daily cleanse away any references they don't like... A real cultic toilet......Ptomania (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


why was this deleted?

"Some recent scholars of New Religious Movements have focussed on the relationship between Ananda Marga doctrine and the use of violence as an essential part of the group's practice [17] and [18]

17. ^ http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/nr.2008.12.1.26

18 ^ http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/nr.2008.12.1.3

There are many people here who for some reason want to hide the truth and sweep much of the dirt of many Ananda Marga members and leaders under the carpet. Also there are those who on the other hand want to slender the organization and its propounder. Not much difference between those two groups, hehe. Many immoral things are not at all mentioned here, especially those concerning the disunity of Ananda Marga organization, like the breaking of AM into several fractions after P. R. Sarkar's death who constantly fight amongst each other (on court and phisically), immorality and greed of many (not all, of course!) Ananda Marga monks and nuns, their exploitation of members etc.

Google AM forums and blogs (written by in-side members), ask honest AM members and you will see that this is the (short) part of the truth that is not mentioned so far here about some not so shining things in AM: "Soon after the death of Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, Ananda Marga has split in three major fractions plus the so-called independent dadas and didis (monks and nuns who claim not to follow authority of any group) and there are cases of some monks and (ex)members that completely left Ananda Marga and started their own movements and organizations. The main cause of this organizational disunity arised from battling for money, organizational posting and power among rival groups of monks and nuns inside Ananda Marga. There have been many cases of various exploitations by some Ananda Marga monks and nuns of which mostly are economical in nature. In the most often scenario certain monks and nuns ask for money from members in the name of service, but instead of using money for service and various social projects they use it for their personal motives, not to mention millions of dollars spent on court cases in which monks and nuns among themselves are quarreling for various Ananda Marga properties. Even inside Ananda Marga people are warned to open their eyes for this kind of "social parasites" who camuflage themselves in orange robes and hide behind Ananda Marga philosophy. In many cases these kind of monks and nuns even when exposed are protected by other fellow monks and nuns of Ananda Marga. This kind of behaviour among many monks and nuns of Ananda Marga is totally opposite to Ananda Marga's true ideology and should not be supported." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.20.130 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ananda-pratik.jpg

Image:Ananda-pratik.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Complete revision

I have completely revisioned the page for a NPOV. I inserted new quotations expanding/refining all the sections including new References and Further reading. Hoping that now the page is better I remove the POV template.--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Transliteration methods are inconsistent in the article

The article is inconsistent in its methods for Devanagari transliteration. It would be nice if one standard method could be used throughout the piece. Personally I recommend IAST, which is already used for some words in the article but not others. Buddhipriya (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a preference for either use or avoidance of diacritics in this article? Some articles avoid diacritcs while others show them consistently. One approach for transliteration of Sanskrit is to show a standardized form in the lede or at first use of term, and then switch to simplified Western forms thereafter. For example "Ānanda Mārga" could become simply "Ananada Marga" after the first clarification. The non-standard diacritic Á is intended to show a "long A" which is Ā in IAST. I notice that the same non-standard diacritics are used often in all of the complex of articles on Ananda Marga, suggesting they were all developed by the same person or by various people citing some common source. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't see any previous consensus regarding this in the archives. I guess we are free to choose any method if we implement it consistently across all articles dealing with Ananda Marga. Using IAST transliteration for the first instance and switching to simplified western forms looks good to me. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 23:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that using IAST transliteration for the first instance and switching to simplified western forms seems best for this article. Let's give a couple of days to see if other editors want to express an opinion on this before making many changes. I will adjust the lede to use a format for first use that is similar to that found in some other articles. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I adjusted the brackets and noticed that there are four footnotes on the first two words. The references are OK but disrupt the reading flow in the lede. I recommend that the references be moved down somewhere where they can be used to support an explanation of what the name means. Then the first use of the name can have the diacritics removed if desired, since the Sanskrit version is explicit. Buddhipriya (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I inserted here my proposal of change (of the second part) of the History section of the article. I propose to leave the first part of the section as it is. I'd like to hear your opinions and proposals. I ask you not to modify the draft. Please insert here or in another sandbox your proposals.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks for making this proposal. There's are problems with disjointedness (The first sentence describes an attack on the headquarters: what happened? Anyone hurt? Any investigation?), summarizing sources (I think Crovetto only states the poisoning was alleged) and neutrality (you're working too hard to put AM in the best possible light).
While I don't know that the article needs a timeline, I think it would be helpful in establishing what the major events were (and also establish a taxonomy of events: conflicts, trials, accomplishments, etc). Perhaps start with that first? Garamond Lethet
c 21:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You can't replace sourced content and references with your preferred version, which btw is unsourced or based on self–published sources with an obvious COI like Amurt for most part, without any policy based or source based arguments. Again, arguments based upon I don't like it, personal knowledge etc., like those in the section above, are not acceptable. If you think you can paraphrase a source better or add a new detail based upon a WP:RS you are, of course, welcome to share it here. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 22:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I saw the invitation to take part in this talk. I don't know exactly what to say. This seems an intricated topic. The article is a subject of my interest but I need to read it carefully. As soon as the subject will be more clear to me I will give my opinion.--Soroboro (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ananda_Marga/Archive_1&oldid=1136517354"