Talk:Sahaj Marg/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Hi Sethie, I see you were being bold and went ahead and published this! Probably a good idea.

I've gone through and removed all primary sources except for two -- one linking to the bookstore as a source for the books and one linking to the school as the website to the school. Not sure if these should be deleted too?

Also, we need to come to agreement regarding the French report. The two sources are primary sources. I'm not sure if the sources in response to the French report (i.e., the United Nations investigation or the U.S. Commission investigation) count as primary or secondary. They seem to be primary because they are government reprots, according to the list Duty2love found on what counts as a primary source.

What do people think? Renee (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work removing the items which don't meet wikipedia standards. I concur the French report is an issue.... Sethie (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be very very strict on only admitting secondary sources. Rest assured, I will have my eyes open for any violations on this front. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Primary Sources by different Disciplines

According to [this "no original research" page, here are primary sources by different academic disciplines.[1]

Anthropology field notes, photographs, first published material of researchers

Art architectural model or drawing, building or structure, letter, motion picture, organizational records, painting, personal account, photograph, print, sculpture, sketch book

Biology field notes, research reports of field researchers, published experimental results or published research by those who conducted the experiment or research

Chemistry experimental notes, published experimental results or research reports by those who conducted the experiment or research, theoretical thesis

'Economics company statistics, consumer survey, data series

Engineering map, geological survey, patent, schematic drawing, technical report

Government government report, interview, letter, news report, personal account, press release, public opinion survey, speech, treaty or international agreement

History artifact, diary, government report, interview, letter, map, news report, oral history, organizational records, photograph, speech, work of art

Law code, statute, court opinion, legislative report

Literature contemporary review, interview, letter, manuscript, personal account, published work

Music contemporary review, letter, personal account, score, sound recording

Philosophy seminal works by leading philosophers, e.g. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Bacon, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Peirce, Wittgenstein, Sartre, Derrida, etc.

Physics experimental notes, published experimental results or research reports by those who conducted the experiment or research, theoretical thesis

Psychology case study, clinical case report, experimental replication, follow-up study, longitudinal study, treatment outcome study

Sociology cultural artifact, interview, oral history, organizational records, statistical data, survey Lafayette College Libraries & Academic Information Resources

Renee (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The French Report

Personally I think it qualifies, though to put it in the lead I believe violates WP:LEAD. Thoughts? Sethie (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to it but then I think we have to put in the U.N. and U.S. criticism of it too for balance. Having said that, how do you get around the fact that it's a government report (a primary source) with no secondary source coverage? I think that given the past abuses on this page we need to be real sticklers for Wikipedia policies or we'll open ourselves up to later problems. Renee (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I just saw Marathi's note above so I think we should all go out and see if we can hunt down some secondary sources for the French report. Then, it would be a no brainer to include it. Does this sound like a good decision rule? Renee (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree it does make sense - Will use the weekend to search. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to see

Good the see the contradiction. [2] :) --talk-to-me! (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cult free world/talk-to-me! Because this article is in mainspace it's now important to follow Wikipedia policies. Please feel free to join the discussions about what you think should be in the article and what you think shouldn't. If we all agree to abide by the guidelines strictly, there should be no problems and we should be able to easily gain consensus. Do you have any secondary sources for the French report above? That would justify including it. I'll search too. Renee (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Cult free world/talk to me! Please discuss these issues on the talk page, you are engaging in wholesale reversions that several people are discussing. We can work together if you bend just a little and just try to discuss and get consensus. Renee (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there can be discussion for building process, with Renee,[3], [4] Sethie [5], Marathi_mulga [6], and Duty2love [7]. You all have a clear case of WP:COI as all of them are part of this cult, and unable to see an honest article about this topic on wikipedia, it will be best for this article, if you guy's (who all voted for delete at MfD, and noted as directly involved member's there), do not participate in here. Pendulum motion of stand [8], [9], do not constitute discussion, but disturbance. Understanding of wikipedia policies regarding articles is demonstrated here [10]. --talk-to-me! (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Kindly do not remove this discussion, if you feel, it is inappropiate, kindly take it to the appropiate location such as ANI, but do not remove it yourself, as it makes history very clear to un-involved editors. --talk-to-me! (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Culty - This article is no longer in your sandbox - This is a mainstream wiki article now. Your opinion is immaterial here. Please bring legitimate secondary sources to the table and I would be happy to let them be added. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Process??

Dear All,
What happened to following a process of building consensus so that information posted in WP is most sane, meeting WP standards? I understand the discussions here were lingering too long, but does it mean just because we can not reach consensus in a few weeks, we should publish the page? Anyways, looking at the positive side ... hopefully this will take us out of the stalemate kind of situation we were at CFW's userspace.

CFW: Just a friendly heads up - please do not paste the entire article as it stands in your userspace, as a) it is filled with violations of WP policies, b) it never reached consensus and c) never finished the drv process in your userspace. I have tried to work with you in good faith, so patiently at your userspace so that we cleanse the article of all that which does not meet WP policies as first mentioned here and then here, but after all that time consuming work, it couldn't get your attention, hopefully now it will. Duty2love (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion! The sandbox article was completely sub-standard and needs a *LOT* of work before it will ever be wiki-worthy. Having said that, I'd be happy to help you gather secondary sources, which seems to be the biggest weakness so far. Let me know where you'd like to start. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Court Case

It appears that Chennai gang has lost the case in supreme court of india [11], we need to rebuild this page !--talk-to-me! (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Court cases are primary sources so if there's a secondary source we can reference it. Otherwise, it's not even worth discussing.

By the way, I think that your interpretation of the case is a bit off. It actually concludes under number 6 that, It is not necessary to deal with the true import of Sections 3(A) and 4. It would be appropriate to direct that the pending suit shall be decided within a period of six months. And, under #7, The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Having said that, again, it's not worth it for us to discuss court cases as they are open to interpretation. Renee (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We just have to state that judgment is delivered, and case is not lingering anymore... Order is clear, but in any case we will not use the court verdict in the article, this is FI of all those who are willing to take up on this article,

The nomination was declared him to be the president of society and clearly stated that he shall work for the Mission and he is "President of Sahaj Marga System". On 16.4.1982 nomination was executed in favour of Shri Umesh Chandra Saxena as spiritual representative in the direct line of succession and he was nominated as the successor or President under Rules 3 and 4 of the registered constitution, bye laws of the society. The nomination/declaration clearly stated that the previous nomination if any made by the founder stand superseded and cancelled. Founder - Shri Ram Chandraji Maharaj breathed his last on 19.4.983. On 4.1.1984 a civil suit was filed by three members of the Society in the Court of Civil Judge, Shahjanpur who granted ex-parte injunction restraining P. Rajgopalachari from acting as President.

This closes all the cases as Sahaj Marg is now owned by India based group and P. Rajgopalachari group does not exists as such, hence we need to build the article keeping this in view ! Now there is only one Sahaj Marg, with one Shree Ram Chandra Mission --talk-to-me! (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* Well, the section you extract from is #3, which as noted above the judge said, It is not necessary to deal with the true import of Sections 3(A) and 4. It would be appropriate to direct that the pending suit shall be decided within a period of six months. Again, the selective extraction of quotations is interpretation, which you could call mine too, so without a secondary source this discussion is meaningless. Renee (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed before also that you interpreted court orders, [12] unfortunately you have failed to demonstrate that you can actually interpret them [13]!! hence it will be best if you stay away from interpreting court orders again. --talk-to-me! (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

When both of you agree court cases are primary documents and interpreting them here is not right then why mention here and what the discussion is about? Duty2love (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere and needs to stop. Yes, the court cases are primary sources. We do not have a secondary source so far that can interpret all the legalese into plain English. It's not immediately clear to me that either of your points of view are accurate and I think we should just leave this hot potato alone till a secondary source can peel it for us.

Cult - You need to take it easy with the name calling - Stick to the issues rather than focusing on the people making their point. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines subpage

Hi Folks, I thought it might be useful for us to have relevant Wiki policies up close and central, so I've started a subpage here for our reference. Renee (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Added Source

I added one of the references Cult used in his article here, so I'm assuming it's okay. This reference also describes the practice if we need further citations there.Renee (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Current leadership

There appears to be a dispute over the current leader of Sahaj Marg. I have removed all text pertaining to the leadership of the group until we can resolve this issue.

When I click on www.srcm.org, www.srcmshahjahanpur.org.in, or www.sahajmarg.org, it says the current leader is Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari (i.e., [14]). Also, this newspaper article and this mainstream magazine article, two secondary sources from Cult's article, state that Rajagopalachari is the leader or guru of Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra Mission.

Having said all of this, maybe it is just better to leave it all out as this article is on the practice of Sahaj Marg, not on the organization. Renee (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This Article

Dear All,
Given the history of this topic on Wikipedia and over anxiousness of certain users to publish information not meeting WP policies, misusing WP platform to spread their POV, I will be interested in this article only if it remains in a short stub like form, including ONLY that information which is absolutely undisputed, not lingering in court cases and is backed by vetted secondary sources. Our past experience has shown that this organization has very little of such information because a) its primary mode of spreading its teachings is "word of mouth" and "individual behavior" and not conventional media (hence lack of enough secondary sources), b) its ownership history has been marred by court cases, the validity and truth of which is way beyond me and IMHO WP as well. Personally I don't like to go through the same thing over and over again, however respecting the WP process, I support the action User:Sethie has taken. One thing I am very clear though, if this article starts to get content which is disputed or does not meet WP policies, I will be up for its deletion, to save us the frustration and wastage of time we has last sept. Duty2love (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Motion seconded. There's some serious NPOV violations that we risk if we don't stick to this plan (given the history of this page to become a flaming battlefield), not to mention the complete lack of objectivity I've seen in the past on this topic. If we're on to something by way of absolutely irrefutable facts, I'd be happy to help any of the other editors chase it down and polish it so that everyone here can live with the end product. But to be able to do that, everything *MUST* have secondary sources. Any material with no secondary source is not even up for discussion, in my opinion. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of "Minor Edits" Classification

Team, We need to ensure that we don't try to pass off some pretty massive edits as "minor edits", because editors may miss them on their first pass.

Cult - Kindly explain how can this be a "minor edit"??? You've practically re-written the whole page here. Please be careful in what you classify as minor edits - This kind of thing could set back bigger-picture goals that you're trying to accomplish. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversies and Criticism Section

Hi all...

Looks good...

I suggest that a statement refering to the TWO (2) "French Gov't" reports on "sectes" and the clarification statement by the UN report be added here...

Any other criticisms could also be brought in here... an external link to the Supreme Court of INDIA judgement would be appropriate as "information"... without need for "interpretation".

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=31363

Let us keep the article short as the "court case" could render all our debates "academic" ;-)) and undo all our work yet again...

Not every items needs a "secondary sources"! Primary sources are sometimes acceptable and adequate as per WIKI.

Please use INTELLECT and "common sense" on SECULAR WIKI! WP:COI Not the extreme positions of the dogmas of Religion, or pseudo-SPIRITUALITY!  ;-))

4d-Don--don (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Don, I think we need to stick with a standard of no primary sources unless supported or interpreted by secondary sources, otherwise we'll just open the door to lots of original research. Putting in even one court case is asking for trouble and as seen in the brief exchange above between Cult and myself, open to interpretation, the consensus above was definitely no court cases and is supported by the no original research noticeboard, where they're repeatedly stated no court opinions/rulings unless supported by a secondary source.

Regarding the French report, again, I think we need to be strict on no primary sources and the French report and the U.N. report are both primary sources. You're right about primary sources being okay in some rare events, but that's only for non-controversial and agreed-upon facts like name of group, year of origin, etc. (According to WP:V, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Also, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources," and there are just no mainstream English groups that believe this group is a sect. From WP:RS, " Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.") I'll search for a secondary reference to the French report.

Regarding the domain/trademark disputes, I did an extensive search with the key words "’Sahaj Marg’ trademark,” "’Sahaj Marg’ domain,” "’Shri Ram Chandra’ trademark,” and "’Shri Ram Chandra’ domain” on the major search engines, on Google news, on my university's LexisNexis (searching "Major US and World Publications," "News Wire Services," and "TV and Radio Broadcast Transcripts") and one article came up titled, "Forestry Companies Take A Cut At Cybersquatters." In this article, there is a one-line mention of Sahaj Marg (seems it was used for precedent in this forestry case), as follows:

"Despite the latitude provided by the "in rem" provision, recent cases from that court have made it clear that trademark holders must still attempt to alert domain-name registrants to a pending lawsuit, using e-mail, postal mail and publications. In April of this year in Alexandria, Judge Claude Hilton refused to proceed with an action against Sahajmarg.org unless the Shri Ram Chandra Mission, which sought the domain, published notices of the lawsuit in U.S. and Indian newspapers."

So, my question, do you think this is enough of a source to justify inclusion of the statement in the controversies section on domain? (given it's a peripheral mention?)

I think that we should remove all sections without secondary sources and then add in statements once we find sources. This would mean cutting the last three sections until we have secondary sources. What do others think? Renee (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Don - With any other article on wikipedia, or in the real physical world, I'd probably agree with you that common sense rather than rules should determine the content of this article - You know that, since you and I have been able to work well together even when we didn't necessarily agree in the past. However, considering the, as you call them, "extreme positions" that this page evokes, I strongly vote that we *STRICTLY* abide by a rule of secondary sources only. Not doing so would only mean opening this page up to the pitched battles that will inevitably happen here - Something I'm sure we'd all prefer to avoid. Unfortunately, not all editors here are as rational and reasonable as you, necessitating these measures. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For me the last three paragraphs seem pretty neutral, reporting of facts... primary sources are fine for such things, names, addresses, basic facts. The mentioning of the name dispute, etc is another issue.... but for me I don't have a problem with it in there. The Court cases did happen.... as long as we don't go into interpretting them. (I hope Shashwat doesn't have a heart attack over this- a brain-washed Zombie wants the name dispute mentioned! I must be having a moment of non-Zombieness)Sethie (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm okay with the last two sections, but the "books" section seems a little promotional to me. Do we really want it in?

Regarding court cases, it violates the Wikipedia core policy of no original research to include a legal document without a secondary source. I've been following the dicussions on the "no original research" noticeboard and the consistent answer there is "no legal documents/opinions/rulings unless supported by a secondary source," and then if the independent source says X, then you can back that up with the court ruling saying X (but must have both). (And, if the case is notable, there will be a secondary source.)

• This one decision of sticking with no primary sources will save the Sahaj Marg page from numerous edit wars in the future. So I think it is critical to the page's success that we stick with this guidelines.

Regarding the domain name dispute, we do have one kind of weak secondary reference we can use -- the forestry one mentioned above. Having this secondary source justifies keeping the statement Don wrote in the controversies section and I like how he wrote it. Renee (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of a wiki guideline which says you can't use primary sources for anything, though I can find many guidelines which say you can't use them for anything controversial. So maybe we should leave out the court cases. As far as the UN thing, if there is a guideleine against it, I vote we ignore that rule!

The book section seems uneeded to me as well. Gone. Sethie (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing for first several sections

Hi Folks, I went through and re-wrote all statements to reflect the source and/or for statements that already matched the source, gave the proper citation (up until the last 3 sections where we still need secondary references). We're awfully thin on secondary sources (two mainstream newspaper articles, one magazine article), and the newspaper article by Suntharamoorthy and the magazine article by Denley are especially thin as secondary sources because they are written by members of the group, though at least they're in mainstream sources with fact-checking and vetting procedures. It would be better to get scholarly sources. (And, if we delete them then the only place to go is straight to an AFD because then there's really nothing for an article!)

I did re-writes of sentences based on what the articles said and would appreciate having others review and make necessary corrections. Renee (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi all...

The above list of Primary Sources by different Disciplines should have a signature by an editor so as not to sound like an ANNOUNCEMENT of "WIKI OFFICIAL POLICY" ... We are only guided by WIKI POLICY, not "independent" opinions and that is all that should be presented "without signature" on the DISCUSSION PAGE.

I made a few corrections...nothing major except...

The External LINK sections should be eliminated as it is a POV of the Editor and in light of the Supreme Court Judgement, that is an interpretation... If anything in that section (EXTERNAL LINKS) there should only be the COURT CASE even though it is PRIMARY, it is at least more NPOV than just showing the SRCM (Chennai), registered in 1997, and the SMSF who have "patented" their material in the names of "PRIVATE" individuals and "trusts"... (see page 1502... under SMSF) http://www.patentoffice.nic.in/tmr_new/tm_journal/journal_1350/class9.pdf

In the "Achievements" section... in light of the COURT RULING...ie if the PRESIDENT can be "appointed" and not elected, that places SRCM in contravention of the "transparency" section of the UN rules for "non-profit" NGO's http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/criteria.asp... The UN is specific on that... SRCM will have to become "transparent" or "democratic", like all other UN NGO's that are in the DPI Program, or that "achievement", is also in jeopardy by the Supreme Court judgement. That is only my POV...

Should we just not add it in, so as not to have to re-edit it later. Unless some editors think that the SRCM will become "democratic"? It is not much of an achievement, as even the JEHOVA's WITNESSES were in the UN DPI Program and willingly withdrew their membership rather than adhere to the UN regulations. http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/pdfs/watchtower.pdf

To describe the Practice that way is a bit of a PR job... could be simplified so as to sound more like "INFORMATION" rather than PR... I will do so later if we come to an agreement on the rest of the article...

We are getting closer...

4d-don--don (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with don that there should be only "INFORMATION" and no PR in the Wiki. Let us go back to the roots. Wikipedia is the "web" form of Encyclopedia. There is no need for any propaganda or personal agenda here. I suggest the following two changes and if I do not get any criticism from other interested editors, I am going to make these changes in a day or two.

1. Remove the Achievements section: SRCM being a part of UN cannot be considered as an achievement. There is really no need for this section in the wiki.

2. Remove the Controversies and criticism section: This section has been the basis of all controversies to this article. Let us remove it.

Embhee (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again all you WIKIPEDIANS

Thanks Embhee for your input...

Any statement refering to "divine light", "samskaras" or other such "faith-based" (un-scientific, un-proven, un-verifiable, etc...) vernacular should be stated as "claimed by the GROUP", (or other such words) and not presented as "fact"...WIKI as an encyclopedia is SECULAR, and is an "intellectual" excercise, not a promoter of RELIGIOUS beliefs or dogmas based on faith.

The input by Sethie from Achievements Section into History Section is acceptable...

I think the section Controversies and Criticisms" should stay...I will use it after we come to a concensus on the material now presented as a "STARTING POSITION"...

4d-don--don (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To All,
Glad to see all working together on this article, hope this continues. I strongly agree absolutely no court cases without a secondary source, because that is the only way to make this article last in peace on WP.
Don & Renee: Let me think more about the French and UN report. Renee, you said you would find a secondary source on it? Also, I think the forestry citation is OK.
Don: I've never heard this, a guru of the Sufi Naqshbandiyya order? Do you have a source for it? For now I have removed it.
Don: Just noticed your comment above, it sounds rather out of place to have an article on a spiritual practice and stick to modern scientific knowledge which can not go beyond matter. Anyways you will call this as my POV, may be it is, since this is a talk page, I am putting it. As far as I know no spiritual practice can be confined/described completely by a limited body of knowledge which is the (so called) modern scientific knowledge. Might as well not have this article if we want to stay away from divine light, samaskaras and above all faith.
Duty2love (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Duty2love...

This is the Family of Lalaji's site: Notice the list of Masters to Muhammed in their lineage and no Ram Chandra there... http://naqshmumraif.googlepages.com/chiraggohil

HOME: http://laalaajinilayam.googlepages.com/home

Here is Chari with the Family of Lalaji on their personal blog... http://laalaajinilayam.blogspot.com/

Here is Dr Gupta's site on Sufism...http://www.geocities.com/sufisaints/ (click on Sufism in India and scroll down to Lalaji's photograph...You will notice that Lalaji was the first HINDU Master of that LINEAGE and Lalaji's followers, the RAMASHRAM http://www.ramashram.com/ group was attended once or twice by Babuji before he formed his SRCM in 1945, 13 years after the death of Lalaji. Babuji met Lalaji a few times only when he was 18yrs old...

If that is not enough...Dr. Gupta wrote many PUBLISHED books on Sufism, which I can find, that I can send you the names of, but you will have to buy them and read them...and his site is an abridged version of his books. This should get you started as to "believing the statement" or not...I thought it was COMMON KNOWLEDGE To all...I guess to all except the SRCM followers... ;-)) Lalaji's "NaqshMumRa Nexus" http://laalaajinilayam.googlepages.com/home site is a "secondary" source as per WIKI and Dr. Gupta's Published Books are also. On-line material is easier to check than books, as long as we agree that is is credible... check out the "lineage" secion in the RAMASHRAM site http://www.ramashram.com/heritage/lineage.php ...That is a .com site and is also WIKI acceptable...

I will wait a while before putting it back in...

As to the use of the words "CLAIMED"...That is WIKI policy. You can use the words "divine light" but the words "claimed" or "alleged" or some other word that attaches the claim to the SRCM GROUP, and not present it as a FACT that there REALLY is a DIVINE (un-verifiable) LIGHT in the HEART...That is just not TRUE... PROVE IT or attach it to someone as "alleged"...It is a statement of BELIEF, un-proven and "un-verifiable"...It is POV not NPOV and not WIKI...

4d-don--don (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Folks, Lots of discussion -- hard to keep track of! here goes:

Don -- I added an attribution to the primary source stuff above (sorry, I published it the same time as the first paragraph and pasted it after that). I have heard of the sufi lineage stuff and will check out the sources above. I think if we can find a proper source for the clause it would be fine to include it. (Also, as an aside, the word "claim" is a wiki word to avoid. We can attribute statements to their source neutrally like, "says," "states," etc.

Sethie -- I found a real source for the school and don't think the two former achievement lines fit in the history section, so I've moved them back. I hope this is okay with you. Also, the section balances out the controversies section.

Embhee -- I think the achievement and controversies sections are okay -- I've just found a secondary source for each section so it meets wiki standards at the bare minimum.

Duty2love -- I'll insert the forestry cite then in the controversies section. Re the French report, I've found news articles on how the UN criticized the French for inappropriate violations of religious freedoms in the 90s, but nothing with Sahaj Marg it yet. I'll keep looking.

To All -- Yes, I agree no court cases unless a secondary source is there. Per Sethie's note, I think you're right that primary sources are okay for basic facts all editors agree upon (i.e., dates of birth, start of organization), here is what it says about other things including selective extraction of quotations from primary documents (like what Cult and myself were doing above in the court case): Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Also, Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research. So, I guess our decision rule is that as long as editors don't contest facts or statements, the primary source is okay, but if the fact or quotation is contested by an editor, then a secondary source is needed to back up one's interpretation of that source (because even the selection of certain quotations out of a large body of literature often reflects a POV). Sound reasonable?Renee (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Don,
Thanks for waiting on Lalaji's description. While you have read these links and books, I know Lalaji's great grand daughter directly (she is married to my friend) and his grand son indirectly, but I hadn't heard this as a fact. Please let me look at the link you have provided and we will see if we should put it or not. --Duty2love (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys - Beg to differ with a few of your comments....

Don - About the unverifiable stuff.... By that token, I take it you pretty much plan to show up at this page and nuke it wall-to-wall? Or here? By your definition, both of these are "PR". Come on - We're talking spirituality here, and I can't even offer you "verifiable" proof that there is such a thing.

On the URLs you list above, I fail to see how they're secondary sources. It's a Google page - I could create a Google page saying I'm the king of Egypt, and it won't mean squat. So I'd like to reiterate my "secondary sources only" stand to avoid turning this into a sci-fi fantasy-filled article.

I'd also like to say that if the terms currently in use sound vernacular or lousy translations to you, by all means do proceed to correct them to mean what you think they should mean. But inability to translate is no reason to not include key concepts here. You take out the stuff you propose we take out, we might as well delete this page (which I'm all for BTW).

Embhee - Agree with you. The controversies section will be where world war III will begin, so I'm all for leaving it out, and not taking 10 years off the life of every active editor here.

Renee - I'm going to disagree with you on the above point and vote we nuke this section.

Peace out ......... Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Marathi on this. I do not think we should consider blog pages (googlepages, geocities & blogspot) as reliable sources. 04:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Mayawi (talk)

Forestry citation

There is no live link to the forestry citation beyond LexisNexis, for which you have to have a university account, so in the spirit of transparency so that all editors can review the article, I have created a temporary page containing the article here. Please review as soon as possible and if you disagree with its use as a source I'll remove it. (I'll put this page up for speedy deletion in a week or so.) Thanks, Renee (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Renee, to me it looks to be a neutral source however the context in which reference is made to the domain dispute, is not quite clear. I am not sure what the controversy is about from this source except that its related to a domain dispute. To me, this source does not appear to be relevant to the discussion and can be removed 04:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Mayawi (talk)

A thought on the French report

The French report pertains to the SRCM Shahjahanpur group since it was published in 1995. According to you, Don, the SRCM Chennai group didn't register until 1997. So I propose waiting until the name dispute is resolved (since it could go in the Shahjahanpur groups space, right?)

Thoughts? Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent point. Even if/when the name issue is resolved, again, I'm having problems finding a secondary citation linking Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra to it. I'll keep searching. Has anyone else had any luck? I did find a U.N. press release announcing SRCM as one of its affiliates but I don't think it's any better a source than the direct UN site.

Sethie -- excellent move on the word change, much better -- Perfectamundo! Renee (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

TO ALL...

French Report... as long as we don't distinguish between the Chennai and the Shahjahanpur group and we are only calling the GROUP as "SRCM" then the French Report belongs there #REDIRECT [[with the UN "counter"...Once the Court case is settled, the Chennai group will be distanced from that French Government "secte" Brand by the "NEW" 1997 registration of SRCM (Chennai) in California. I wanted to distinguish bwtween these two groups right away, but I will agree with "not getting into a "disamgiguation" situation and making two seperated articles because then, we have to "interpret" the court case document.

Renee...This Group has it on-line in french and english: (as a .com it can be used as a "secondary" source) as per WIKI: http://cftf.com/french/Les_Sectes_en_France/cults.html#page66 http://www.cftf.com/

Renee... I agree with not using the word "claim".

Marathi... No! I looked at those articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam and they are worded properly as far as I can see. This one is not IMHO! Even in "SPIRITUALITY and SPIRITUALISM, the WIKI policies apply...The Laws of MAN (and WIKI) over-ride the LAWS made up in the name of "THE BIG MALE GUY" ;-)) If one (or you...) can't show "verifiability" then one has to have "SOURCES" to quote as a "JOURNALIST" does daily.

On "Lalaji being a "SUFI MASTER of the Naqshbandiyya Order (ISLAM)", I added the personal blog of the Lalaji Family for information only, to show that CHARI and the SRCM management team know all this as it is on their own SITES and CHARI is in the photo with them...The RAMASHRAM site is a .com and that is LALAJI's true lineage, not SRCM or SRCM(tm). Dr. Gupta has many "PUBLISHED" books that are also WIKI acceptable. The material in his books are on his site for your perusal. http://www.geocities.com/sufisaints/ (click on Sufism in India and scroll to LALAJI's PHOTO)...

I will correct the wording after we all agree...to be "nice"! Unless someone else is "NICER" or more "WIKI WISE" and does it first!  ;-))

Duty2love...As a WIKI editor, you are a JOURNALIST and as such, you can quote sources as if the "controversial statement" was said by that SOURCE and not get into making POV or biased statements that lead the reader to think that the statements are "FACTS" or "accepted by all' or "provable"...WIKI just needs that the quote and the SOURCE be "verifiable", not the statement, if worded properly...A good journalist writes as if the statements belong to the person quoted, his/her POV, and not the JOURNALIST or the NEWSPAPER, in this case, WIKI who must remain NPOV!

That all folks...

4d-don--don (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

FOR YOUR INFORMATION...

This is from Babuji's (Founder's) Published Autobiography (The bold's are mine)

"The Autobiography of Ram Chandra -- Part II, Vol. 3" (SRCM Shahjahanpur, 1st ed., 1989. 2000 copies).

p 21 (20.05.1945) Intercommunication by S. Vivekananda (dream?)

"As you are to have a registered body 'Shri Ram Chandra Mission', call a meeting of the persons who are to be the members of this body to start with. (...) The body will be called 'Shri Ram Chandra Mission, Shahjahanpur (U.P. - India)'". (no mention of "in honour of Lalaji"...That came much later...

p 35 (13.06.1945) Intercommunication by Lalaji (dream?)

"The real way is the 'easy way' (Sahaj Marga). The nomenclature somehow does not appear quite good to pronouce."

The "natural path" came much later (Chari) and is from SRCM (Chennai)...In the 1950-60's, "NATURAL" was the equivalent of "GREEN" today! Those "commercial" words were opposed by the "non-commercialists" in the early MISSION led by Dr. Varadachari (Prof. of Philosophy and Guru in waiting), and then, SRCM (Shahjahanpur), Presided by Umesh (Babuji's son) and now led by Navneet, his grandson, want Babuji's legacy to be his "real" verbatim legacy... as dictated to him "INSIDE".

Personally, I don't care either way, but we might soon get some input from The "OTHER" group and we might as well be ready to deal with it... Chosing to give a "translation" of Sahaj Marg as "NATURAL" as opposed to "EASY" could be seen as a POV leaning to support the Chennai Group of Chari... I will not oppose it but .... that is the mire that led to "disambiguation" while waiting for the COURT CASE judgement.

p 40 (25.06.1945) Intercommunication by S. Vivekananda (dream?)

"You really brought forth a new religion. It is the starting point which nobody can imagine yet."

Not a "meditation technique" but a NEW RELIGION...as per Vivekananda's message to Babuji in a "dream"!

Just Information...not to debate...This is from the FOUNDER of SRCM's JOURNAL!

4d-don--don (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lalaji discussion

Don and Duty2love: I noticed the discussion between you two on Lalaji being a Sufi Master. Here is my take on this matter. I went through some of Don's links and there is sufficient evidence relating to this claim. But, what has Lalaji to do with Sahaj Marg? From all the links I went through, I could realize that Lalaji was a spiritually elevated personality (PS: It felt very nice to read about his life and his works) but I did not see any reference to Lalaji associated with Sahaj Marg. So my question is, why mention Lalaji's name in this wiki article? From what I understand, Sahaj Marg and SRCM are founded by Babuji. Lalaji did not preach or practice Sahaj Marg (or SRCM) even though Lalaji was Babuji's Guru. So, technically speaking, we can take out any and all references to Lalaji from this article. If you both agree, please do so. Embhee (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Embhee: I also went through the link provided by Don, other than link at ramashram.com, all others (googlepages, blogspot, geocities) are blog or blog like pages, not good enough to be source here. I agree with you that since this article is about Sahaj Marg and Lalaji did not really start it, it is best to not include any details about him. It goes in line with my original intention/liking about this article, i.e., to keep it as trimmed and short as possible. Duty2love (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Duty2love and Embhee

I agree with both of you and I would like to remove Lalaji from the SRCM article for his "honour", but, see here at an OFFICIAL SRCM site: http://www.sahajmarg.org/welcome/masters/masters-index.html

Would you say that "someone" thinks that Lalaji is "their master"? They even called the Private Boarding School they built the LALAJI MEMORIAL OMEGA School (why OMEGA? Is it the END?)... If Lalaji is the first MASTER of SRCM, and is the one (see above) who gave the name "SAHAJ MARG" to Babuji, the FOUNDER, do we just avoid it? SRCM has been trying to avoid the link with SUFISM from being exposed, but want the credibility that goes with Lalaji as he was TESTED publicly by a PANEL from different religions and denominations. He is also the first Indian Sufi Master. Mahatma Ram Chandraji succeeded Hujur Maharaj, a Muslim, in the Naqshbandiyya Order of Sufis.

I would say that when a group officially claims on their .org site, that a person is their FIRST MASTER, and then claims that the GROUP was formed in "honour" of that same person and that the FOUNDER of a system called Sahaj Marg, that was inspired in a dream by that same person, and then was allegedly CHOSEN to succeed that person...all so as to set up a "credible" lineage, we, the editors of an ENCYCLOPEDIA, have to show it and let the readers see.

SRCM (Chennai) also claims Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur (Babuji) as their second MASTER but in light of the court judgement, the family of Babuji could have different plans. Apparently, Chari, the current Master, is their third MASTER and has been chosen by Babuji to succeed him. That is what the court case by the family of Babuji was about. Read the Judgement and you can make up your own mind if that is so... http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=31363

Encyclopedias are "intellectual" excercises, and demand a bit of reading and understanding, as opposed to "faith" which does not...

4d-don--don (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Don,
Sorry for not being specific in my last post. I am all for mentioning Lalaji's name in this article, thats why I didn't take it out completely when last edited. I fully agree with the justification you have given. What I am saying is perhaps there is no need of giving any more details than what is already there now in the history section. After reading my post again I realized that I never said that I disagree with Embhee that we should take out any or all reference to Lalaji from this article. This way we stay away from issues causing POV allegations, e.g., as you have mentioned above "SRCM has been trying to avoid the link with SUFISM from being exposed", that is a clear POV for me because I have also read about this link in many publications by SRCM, but whether he was a guru of that order (the word that you mentioned), I don't know.

Also a question, so how do we show that the inspiration indeed came to the founder in dream ... just curious? Duty2love (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks, I think we just need to stick with our secondary sources. Of the sources we've accepted that are in the article, this source says Lalaji was a master who used transmission. That source also says that Lalaji nominated Babuji as the successor and that Babuji nominated Chariji. We really can't say much less or more than that unless we find another secondary source. If we personally believe the source to be wrong that is our personal opinion, and the best route then would be to find another secondary source for comparison.

Also, ".com" sources are not by definition secondary sources. Self-published sources are not considered verifiable or reliable. From WP:V, Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. Thus, above, Duty2love cites the self-published website of SRCM-Chennai, but Don challenges the reliability of the source, so we need a secondary source that says the same thing, which the Suntharamoorthy article in the article does. I've searched through the Sufi sites Don gave above and cannot find a single secondary source. Their books appear to be self-published like SRCMs books and they're not even on amazon.com (even SRCM books are on amazon). I haven't tried on the university system so I'll do that later this week. Maybe the info will show up in some encyclopedia or such.

Finally, I thought the literal translation of "Sahaj Marg" was the "natural path." I was surprised to see Don call that POV -- for those who speak Hindi, what is the exact literal translation for "Sahaj Marg"? Renee (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Don, the fact both of them were called Ram Chandra makes it confusing to understand to origin of the name of the Mission. I agree with Renee, self-published sources should not be considered reliable. Also, do you have any source to show that SRCM is "trying to avoid the link with SUFISM from being exposed"? I am not sure how this is relevant to this discussion. 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Mayawi (talk)

Reneeholle...

You can't be serious when you say that the FEATURE article in the Daily News in Ceylon, written by C. Suntharamoorthy, Preceptor, Shri Ram Chandra Mission, ABOUT THE MISSION, is an acceptable "secondary" source. That is called "conflict of Interest" and can't be accepted. He is just "OBEYING" and repeating what is the "official" party line probably taken right off the same SITE we are talking about or in another "self published" Source... To be "secondary SOURCE" an newspaper article should be by a "staff writer" or at least by an "at arm's lenght" writer, and one who is not in a "conflict of interest" as most serious journalists would abstain from such un-researched, and bad PR job in the name of "JOURNALISM".

The translation of Sahaj Marg to "easy path", comes from Babuji's Diaries and was allegedly given by Lalaji in a "dream?" and is PUBLISHED by SRCM. As I said above...not for debate but for INFORMATION...

DO you not accept the RAMASHRAM.com site as an acceptable secondary source? They don't hide the fact that Lalaji has a SUFI Master...and who is the "successor" of Lalaji. Babuji apparently attended Dr. Chatterbuy's santsang a few times...then he formed his own GROUP in 1945, 13 yrears after Lalaji's death. Any Succession from Lalaji was received in "dream".

Duty2love and Embhee may be right and we may have to take LALAJI out of the article ... that is GOOD I guess...he does not belong in there anyway... Lalaji's (and his brother's) lineage is RAMASHRAM and other SUFI lineages...not SRCM!

4d-don--don (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Duty2love...

I don't think we can put that in except as a "he claims" (which is not WIKI acceptable), although I would probably accept it for "HUMOUR's" sake, even though the receiver of the "GIFT" is the only one who can testify to it, and he is in a "conflict"...I think everyone would "GET IT". In the case of Lalaji, he was apparently tested in a meditation with members of various "other" religions and practices, and the concensus was the he was an "exact copy" of his Master, Huzur...Not that he was "elevated", or "saintly" or "divine" but that he was a "copy"... I think (POV and humour), that there should be a "panel" of "betazoids" or "sensitives" (as in Star Trek) that certifies "GURUSHIP"...lol

Do you want to form one?? Maybe like an "academy awards" for RELIGIOUS LEADERS!

4d-don--don (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't the one who put the Suntharamoorthy article in; Cult was (hmmmm...no complaints then :-). If you read above here I said, the newspaper article by Suntharamoorthy and the magazine article by Denley are especially thin as secondary sources because they are written by members of the group but no one protested so I left it in.

If we take it out with the sentences it sources, then we really don't have much of an article. This was the problem we faced the first time -- a lack of secondary sources. At that point I guess we'd have to seriously consider another AFD.

No, the RAMASHRAM.com site is definitely not a secondary source. It's self-published and the books are unavailable anywhere. There's no oversight (at least with the Suntharamoorthy it's in a neutral newspaper with some oversight, weak as it is).

I'm okay with taking Lalaji out -- my only point was that if we come to consensus on secondary sources then we should stick with what those sources say, and, Suntharamoorthy's article gives the lineage as specified above, consistent with the SRCM-Chennai primary source Duty2love posted.

Regarding the translation, according to this site, Sahaj means "natural" too (among other things). Do you know which book Babuji gave his translation? I can look it up. Renee (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I find on the internet,meaning1 meaning2 the word Sahaj translates to 'natural' and 'original' 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Mayawi (talk)

Don and Duty2love: As there seems to be some agreement amongst all of us, I removed the references to Lalaji by editing the "History and "Activities" sections. Hope this helps! With respect to the "Easy" versus "Natural" discussion, why can't we have both? That could be a good middle-ground. We could have the very first line in the article like this. Sahaj Marg (translated, the natural path or the easy way)... Is this confusing? Please decide. I am just a rookie in Wiki, I don't know why I am getting pulled into this edition, but doing this research is interesting and I would like to contribute further as need arises. Embhee (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Embhee - I'm fine with easy and natural, both co-existing. Comfortable middle-ground, I think. Keep up the editing - It can be fun. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Embhee and Renee

Renee... the book (part of a series) in question is mentionned above. where the SRCM (Chennai) selected 20% of Babuji's JOURNAL for their publication, SR Srivastava has 80% of Babuji's original JOURNALS in this "Autobiography". You can see that it is a "limited edition" and probably not for sale in stores. It is called:

"The Autobiography of Ram Chandra -- Part II, Vol. 3" (SRCM Shahjahanpur, 1st ed., 1989. 2000 copies).

Part 2 has 3 volumes:

Part 2: Instructions et Spiritual Teachings Reçeived from Master - vol 1 : 1944 May/Sep (1st Ed 1987 3000 copies) - Preparation - vol 2 : 1944 Oct - 1945 Mar (1st Ed 1988 3000 copies) - Declaration - vol 3 : 1945 Apr - 1955 Jun (1st Ed 1989 2000 copies) - Contribution

The author is Ram Chandra and is published by SRCM (Shajahanpur) It is compiled by SP Srivastava,who was interim President of SRCM after Babuji passed away in 1983. He handed over his position to Umesh, Babuji's son after Umesh was nominated and elected by the Management Committee....

The quote is allegedly from Lalaji, (I added the bracketed (dream?)) as Lalaji was deceased since 1931...so intercommunication means "inside communication", vision or some vivid dreams)

p 35 (13.06.1945) Intercommunication by Lalaji (dream?)

"The real way is the 'easy way' (Sahaj Marga). The nomenclature somehow does not appear quite good to pronouce."

Embhee... That is a good solution...I agree...Make it so!!

4d-Don--don (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys: In my knowledge of Hindi, which is my mother lounge / first language, Sahaj means spontaneous, something which is so simple that it is straightforward. "Easy" would fit, but IMO it doesn't reflect the full meaning, there is a word Saral which would translate directly into "Easy", but Sahaj has that tone of spontaneousness or naturalness in it. Duty2love (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak Hindi, however I have studied enough Hinduism to know that in a spiritual context Sahaj means natural and effortless.

Regardless, we should just cite the definition that the sources use. Sethie (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Article

This article was published pre-maturely!! when discussion was still underway, with latest bunch of developments, such as supreme court order and issuance of arrest warrant against the leader of this cult, P. Chari et-al, (three days back..), we need to pause for sometime, and lets wait for them to get arrested, thereafter Sahaj Marg and its guru system can be described effectively.

Side note:- as of now I do not wish to take the issue of unstable thought pattern [15] of few members to ANI etc… --talk-to-me! (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Par for the course, this post makes no sense. Unstable thought patterns? How about the mfd didn't work correctly since it has already been nominated once? How about since it didn't work, I thought I would give you a couple more days to clean it up? Maybe that kindness was unstable on my part?

What do you mean by "members?"Sethie (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Culty - Welcome back from your 2 day sentence in wikipedia jail. Speaking of which..... "Arrested"??? OK - This isn't www.I'llTellYouTheFuture.com, and you're ready to be docked again for a WP:BLP violation here. So put up "verifiable" evidence or, as you say, "pause for sometime". :) Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you happy that i returned back or otherwise ?? --talk-to-me! (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

CultFreeWorld: You had made significant changes to the article. Please work with all of us, we are going through it section at a time and editing by coming to a consensus. I reverted back your changes, sorry about that. Let us use this talk page to come to a consensus and then pull the change in. I feel that is the proper way of Wiki editing. Embhee (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Embhee, I was just going to do the same. Dear Cult, we have seven editors working in good faith on this article. You are welcome to join the discussion and I hope you do in good faith. Renee (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Being a Neutral Article

We had a discussion that the article should not be a PR for the organization under study but a neutral analysis of facts. This is true with both positive and negative PR. If you look at the changes made by CultFreeWorld [16], a Wiki user, who let us say was curious about meditation, would run far far away from any and all meditation techniques!!! Wiki should not propagate that, I feel. Our job is to simply place the facts in as neutral ways as possible. Embhee (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Easy path

I added in "easy" to the translation. Nice job on the history section Embhee. The first sentence is a little akward now though I agree with Don that we should make the attributions clear. Clean-up anyone?Renee (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see my note above for translation, however I am fine with saying " easy or natural path" for sake of consensus. Duty2love (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

<moved this discussion down here; also above in Lalaji section>

Guys: In my knowledge of Hindi, which is my mother lounge / first language, Sahaj means spontaneous, something which is so simple that it is straightforward. "Easy" would fit, but IMO it doesn't reflect the full meaning, there is a word Saral which would translate directly into "Easy", but Sahaj has that tone of spontaneousness or naturalness in it. Duty2love (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak Hindi, however I have studied enough Hinduism to know that in a spiritual context Sahaj means natural and effortless.

Regardless, we should just cite the definition that the sources use. Sethie (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. This source and this source don't define it, both just say it is raja yoga (i.e., "...in the Sahaj Marg system of raja yoga..." and "Sahaj Marg Meditation, a system of Raja Yoga," respectively). This source doesn't define it either. This source defines it as the "natural path," i.e., "the meditation practice called Sahaj Marg (the natural path), a Raj yoga (yoga of the mind) heart-centered meditation." (Fortunately, this last source is one of our better sources, written by a third-party and published in a secondary source.) So we have three sources saying it is Raj or raja yoga and one defining it as the "natural" path. Based on the source I suggest adding it is a "raja yoga, yoga of the mind," or something like that. Feel free to take out "easy" as I guess that counts as OR since it's not in any source.Renee (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

First Paragraph Should be Removed

Don - I'm going to go ahead and agree with you that part of the first paragraph and the entire history paragraph with it's only citation from a SRCM preceptor doesn't meet neutrality standards. Unless someone can come up with *SECONDARY* sources and citations for every point listed there, I think we should take it out altogether. Opinions? Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Raja Yoga Discussion

Renee and ALL...

I suggest we stay away from the "Raja Yoga", "modified raja yoga", debate as that will get really involved... I found (a while back) some references to Raja Yoga in the light of Sahaj Marg that shocked me.

Such as:

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Sahaj_Marg/id/51257

The sincere practice of Raja Yoga very quickly dissolves into the other three, since only a fool would attempt this practice without a qualified guide, and soon the techniques of Raja Yoga are lost in the greater truth that is the love for the Master,

Are Sahaj Marg preceptors trained in Raja Yoga? or any other YOGA...NO! Then the author goes on...

A classic image of the practice of Raja Yoga is that of climbing the rungs of a ladder: First one works on Yama and Niyama (the moral and ethical limbs), then Asana (posture), then Pranayama (movement of energy through breath), then Pratyahara (withdrawal from senses), and then Dharana (concentration) and Dhyana (meditation) to culminate finally in Samadhi (absorption). An image more apt for the practice of Raja Yoga under Sahaj Marg might be that of a sphere expanding from its center, for Sahaj Marg begins at Patanjali's Seventh Limb, Dhyana or meditation, and allows the rest of the practice to grow naturally from this seed.

If one calls Sahaj Marg a "raja yoga" and some in SRCM feel as the above-mentionned and/or other "untrained" and "foolish" preceptors cavalierly start at step #7, rationalizin and calling it a "modified" raja yoga, then we as "JOURNALISTS" have a duty to report accurately on the use of the name of Patanjali's "noble and EIGHTFOLD" system.

Starting a system at step #7, is not a "modification" but a "butchery" of a system. That would leave out the Yamas, tapas, etc...which make Raja Yoga the King of Yoga, and a SPIRITUAL EIGHTFOLD Path, which would safeguard it from material and ego abuse. That synthesis was attempted by Lalaji and his Master Huzur and is not the SRCM but the RAMASHRAM tradition on Lalaji's side and the "Golden Sufi Center" [17] on Radha Mohan Lal (Bhai Sahib) [18] side ...

It is not encyclopedically accurate, and counter to "common sense", to accept the calling of Sahaj Marg a "Modified Raja Yoga" in light of the above quote, but Sahaj Marg could be called a "butchered Raja Yoga"... One will notice that the first "RUNGS" of Yama and Niyama are: MORAL AND ETHICS and are LEFT OUT to grow "NATURALLY"!! Then, Pratyahara (withdrawal from senses)...LEFT OUT hence the perceived notion by some "outside" of the narcissism of "navel gazing" and "Reaching the GOAL" in SRCM which would not exist in the RAJA YOGA of PATANJALI or of Vivekananda, by the way IMHO...likewise the acceptance of donations, amassing of MATERIAL (SRCM amasses commercial properties, real estate, castles, ashrams, centers, retreats, ranches, money, etc... Did the "moral and ethics grow naturally" from "LIMB SEVEN"? The Courts of MAN's laws will soon decide that. The family of the FOUNDER are now charging SRCM (Chari et al) with "criminal offenses", including the "immorality" of violence. "Talk-to-me" might be right...Maybe we should slow down and wait for the outcome of the criminal TRIALS...

Do we accept this article as a "SOURCE" as it is by a preceptor or "ex-preceptor" of the system. I hear that Chari is still using this person to write his material.

PS. Tell a big lie and write it down and repeat it often and soon, all will believe it...that is the philosophy of the "Hitlerian BIG LIE", a syndrome that infects many autocratic religions and nationalist political movements.

4d-dondon (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Marathi...

I did not agree to that and I still don't...Even though some Sources are "un-acceptable" for some reasons, in WIKI, we can accept the same SOURCE to confirm some other "common sense" points and reject them in some other "counter common sense" situations... In other words, not be "content driven", that is the flexibility of WIKI GUIDELINES, and the intellect in general. We have to think and not be driven by the "straight and narrow" rigidity of "faith" in the past meanings alone. Humanities are an art, not a science.

The way the article looks now, is OK by me (as a start)...I changed a few words in the Intro to make it more NPOV and the History sounds accurate so far...we still have much more material to discuss...WIKI policies are "GUIDELINES", not RULES...the GREAT WIKI expects us to be "true WIKIPEDIANS and use our "common sense". We should not be "fundamentalists" and take everything "literally" and applying one rule extremely to all situations. We can reach "concensus" on what is meant.

All should scan the WIKI GUIDELINES again so we don't become corrupt "WIKI" religious (dogmatists) and remain WIKI spiritual and MERGE and reach concensus... Others have found a way to get along and write many controversial articles...We should be able to also...

MAKE IT SO...

4d-dondon (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

To all about the use of Imagined DIVINE LIGHT in one's heart...

Babuji describes it as the "glow of dawn" in his book "Reality at Dawn"...he used to say that a little intellectual trick to get the feeling is to imagine the "light" as opposed to "heavy"....He did not like the use of "light" as "shining" or Brilliant or "BRIGHTER" but as glowing or emanating! This was so as to avoid the ego's drifting into "GLORY" as used in many religions (GLORY TO GOD, Christ will come back in GLORY, or even the scientific "Big Bang" theory (fiery) as opposed to the "STIR", etc...)

Just a little anecdote...;-))

4d-dondon (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Don

I am a qualified Yoga Instructor trained in the Patanjali's Astanga Yoga system. I totally agree with your 'ladder' description of Patanjali's Yoga. The interesting thing is that first two rungs were taught to me only by teaching the yoga sutras related to Yama and Niyama. Practically, it is hard to relate to them in this modern world. Asana, Pranayama, Pratyahara and Dharana are relatively easy to teach in terms of a procedure. However, Dhyana & Samadhi are supposed to be advanced concepts that the student is supposed to master by studying the sutras. The Yoga as known today is infact only the 'asanas' or 'postures' and used for mostly physical well-being that induces a sense of mental peace. Most Yoga systems who claim to follow Patanjali are 'butchering' it by starting at Step 3 (i.e. Asanas)

I completely support your stance against making any references to 'modified' Raja Yoga unless we can cite neutral secondary sources.

However, as a 'journalist', I fail to understand your allegations about SRCM trying to gain 'credibility' and hide its supposedly 'Sufi' roots. To me it simply sounds POV.

00:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Mayawi (talk)

Mayawi...

Guilty as charged...Sorry,

I often give my POV in the discussion pages as others also often do, but I will keep it out of the ARTICLE as per WIKI... Even Journalists have a POV but the important thing is to keep it out of our Articles...

I've been at this so long and have repeated this same debate so often, I sometimes I get frustrated... I could give you a long explanation about why I feel that way, but that would show my POV even more and is in my blogs... so I humbly apologize for showing my bias on WIKI but you will probably see it again in the discussion pages.

Thanks for you input and expertise...

I will attempt to be more WIKI in the future... If I make the same mistake again, just remind me again and I will be grateful and thankful to you...;-))

PS...I will take it out...

4d-don--don (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Court Cases

Why links to court cases were removed ? and why sexual abuse in the Sahaj Marg were removed ? which policy of WP do they violate ?--talk-to-me! (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

CultFreeWorld: Let us go through this, one step at a time. Please do not make such large changes to the article especially on topics which are still being discussed in the talk page. Embhee (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear CFW,
Welcome back!! Short answer to your question -> Court docs are not acceptable secondary sources, if this is not enough then please read the details I had pointed out in your userspace, which you ignored saying TLDR. Duty2love (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read everyone's comments, particularly at the end, here. Also, please read the second header above which lists court opinions as being primary sources, needing secondary sources for any interpretations. This is to prevent one from pulling out unproven testimony or defamatory accusations, as you make above. If it's notable and real, a good secondary source will report it.Renee (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

intro

Hi folks, Don and I had a really interesting exchange on our talk pages, where we discussed how the suggestion Babuji made was not to "imagine" divine light in one's heart, but to just make a gentle suggestion or supposition that it was there. Somehow it'd be nice if the intro reflected that. Maybe breaking it down into shorter sentences?

Also, Don, would you be opposed to saying that Sahaj Marg is a "form of Raja Yoga" or better, "said to be a form of Raja Yoga" based on the references? I understand you disagree about saying "it is Raja Yoga." The problem is that's how the references refer to it (they don't say "a form of," "modified," or anything like that). Here's what they say:

1. "Sahaj Marg Meditation, a system of Raja Yoga..."
2. "the meditation practice called Sahaj Marg (the natural path), a Raj yoga (yoga of the mind) heart-centered meditation."
3. "...in the Sahaj Marg system of raja yoga..."

The first two sources are independent third-party sources; the last is published in a mainstream magazine in Australia, but by a member.

I'm okay with not mentioning it at all too. I just don't want to be guilty of doing original research where because we think something is or isn't true, we're ignoring what the references say. Also, I'm trying to think of something we can add to the intro to make it flow better. Renee (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is so much better than when I read it months ago. Thanks for all the work that has gone into it. I do think that "supposition of divine light in the Heart" is a better presentation of what Babuji said. I think that someone who has spent more time editing here should be the one to make the changeWendell Smith (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK - I agree with Wendell. So I went in and said "meditating on the supposition of divine light in one's heart" - Feel free to revert it back to "imagining" if you think this is still inaccurate. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Renee and Marathi, Wendell, et al

I think that the phrase: "said to be a form of Raja Yoga" is very professional journalism. If I read that, I would think: "Who said that?" and research further to "confirm" wether it is a Raja Yoga or not.

If one wants to get "controversial", investigative, or more "in-depth" one can mention the above-mentionned article by adding: "According to one source, it is said to be a modified form of raja yoga starting at rung #7", which is accurate according to that article's author who is commissioned (for free I presume) by Chari to write articles (and a book) called "Sahaj Marg Companion" (still on sale??). This would then have to be referenced of course, if that source is (still) acceptable as a credible "secondary" source.

I think the "meditating on the supposition of divine light" is accurate. Again one can be very "Babuji-ist" and say "a gentle supposition" so as to not encourage from the un-aware, neophyte seeker, the "imposition" of a suggestion by ego or MIND (brainwash or auto-hypnosis)...In this case, "gentle" refers to strength as well as to length of TIME) I don't know if we could find that quote in a book but I feel quite certain it was the oral widespread "TEACHING" by Babuji and by the early preceptors. That would also please the "SRCM Shahjahanpur" group who feel that Babuji is the ETERNAL Master and that his TEACHING need to be "taught" literally.

Do we encourage such "literalism" or "fundamentalism" to grow? As a WIKI JOURNALIST, I don't care...My job is just to report it in a "concensual" manner. An article by "committee"... GAWDDD!  ;-))

Oh well! We've only go TIME to play with! So let's have fun or "JOY"! Or at least, let's be REAL while describing yet another alleged approach to REAL-ITY!  ;-)) IT is after all our REAL ESTATE!

4d-Don--don (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, Don & team! :)

OK, so if a Babuji quote is what we're looking for as agreeable middle ground, [here's] one (11th quote in this section): "We proceed with meditation on the heart thinking of the Divine light within, and by so doing we gradually begin to rise or, to express it better, to dive deep into the inner consciousness, with the result that an abhyasi begins to feel expansion, this being the first phase."

[Here's] another (Third paragraph): "In our system the abhyasi is advised to meditate on the heart thinking of the divine light there. But he is directed not to view light in any form or shape like that of an electric bulb or a candle, etc. In that case the light appearing therein will not be real, but one projected by his own creative speculation. An abhyasi is advised to proceed with a mere supposition of light with the thought of Divinity at the bottom. What happens then is that we meditate upon the subtlest which is to be attained." - Sahaj Marg Philosophy. Chapter - Meditation.

"A mere supposition" are the words used here and what we should probably use too.

Renee - Not sure if quoting them "as-is" constitutes a primary source or not, but atleast we all now have Babuji's exact words to discuss here, instead of depending on your memory, Don, of what a preceptor may have told you - which was probably HIS understanding of Babuji's words - and that too, I assume this was a very long time ago (from your own commentary, Don, about being an abhyasi a long time back).

Peace out! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Marathi...

You are correct, It was a long time ago, and it was the "oral tradition" so...

"Supposition" is accpetable..."mere supposition" is acceptable also and more accurate IMHO, one meaning of "mere" according to [Websters] is: "without additions or modifications"; another meaning is:"only the bare facts" In other words: there is no REAL "light" in the heart, just a "mere supposition" of one... another word used in that quote above by Babuji is "subtle"...

Sounds good... in French (cuisine), one would say: un "soupçon" or a "hint"...

Make it so...

It does not go un-noticed that Marathi got that quote from Babuji's book: Sahaj Marg Philosophy...According to Chari, in one of his speeches: [here] "In fact, Sahaj Marg has no philosophy. It does not rest on any philosophy".

SRCM (Shahjahanpur) will be pleased that we are quoting Babuji, the Founder and we will avoid a future "debate", on the minutia (details) of the content of the article with their "supporters".

4d-don--don (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I keep going back to the policies because I really believe if we use them as our guiding principles, it will save us much grief, disagreements, and edit wars in the future. According to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc., primary sources can be used for non-controversial, basic facts (like dates, location of headquarters, etc.). However, material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a secondary source, often because primary material can be pulled out of context and put together in such a way as to constitute original research to promote a POV.

Having said that, the second quotation Marathi used above (where it says "mere supposition") is supported by the secondary sources already appearing in the article (and others), so I think it's perfectly fine to use (and no one seems to be challenging it either).

The intro reads very akwardly to me now. I propose replacing it with the following:

• Sahaj Marg (translated, the easy or natural path) is a heart-based meditation system, said to be a form of Raja Yoga. According to practicants, the essential features of the system are "cleaning" of impressions (called samskaras) and then meditating on the "mere supposition of divine light" in one's heart. The organizational body, Shri Ram Chandra Mission (SRCM), was formally registered in 1945 by Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur, its founder, commonly known as "Babuji."

Don -- I'm sympathetic to the criticism that even though Australian Yoga Life is a secondary source, it is written by a member of the group, so I added the attribution, "According to practicants..." I hope this addresses your concern.

What do people think of this as the first paragraph? Renee (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

To ALL EDITORS...

To make things move faster, please make only small alterations in only one section at a time so we can discuss them One at a Time, and reach some sort of "concensus" on one item before moving to a new one...

I would say, if all agree, that we are ready to move into some more "controversial" aspects of the article. We (I) don't want to scatter our thoughts and waste our time on "multi-faceted" debates of all the sections of the article at the same time, such as debates on "omnibus bills" (bills with many and varied points)... We've got the TIME, TIME is a illusion but we have TIME, so let us use it Wisely and in a "spiritual" or MERGING attitude.

4d-don--don (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds like a good approach. Renee (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. Let us start with the introduction. I saw renee has made a start on this section. I will add my comments into that section in this talk page. Embhee (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The French Government Commission Report on "Les SECTES"

"Secte" is translated to "sect" by some and to "cult" by some. [here]...and [here] Some, like the Belge Government site are more clear, and define "cults" as "SECTES NUISIBLES" (or harmful sects).

If we include any aspect of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission in the article, I think, to be "informative" and accurate, and since most "seekers" or "researchers", who do any research at all, will know about "the REPORT" from the "blogs" and other sites that carry it, anyway, (I think) that:

• We should include a short statement regarding it, in the 'controversies and Criticisms"...

• We should include the "UN committee" statement also, if it is appropriate and adds another credible PERSPECTIVE.

Beside being on the French Government site [here], it is also in their "archives", so it is on their current list of "Commissions and their Reports", (towards the end of the list (linked above). There is also a "Sectes nuisibles" and money" perspectives report by the French Governemt [here]

It is already on this "Comments from The Friends" site, which is at "arm's length" from SRCM and is not "focussing" on, or on a Mission against Sahaj Marg or the SRCM. [here], or [here] and is also on WIKI [here, and [here]. The last Wiki link has "comments" by "third party" comments but without "citations".

The other option is not to mention the Shri Ram Chandra Mission at all in the article and have the article remain about "Sahaj Marg" only, without the name of the "MISSION" that promotes it. That would not be very "informative" and not even up to WIKI standards, "encyclopedia" standards, or Journalism standards.

4d-don--don (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've talked about this before and (a) it's a primary source, meaning we need a secondary source to meet standards of verifiability, (b) it is a widely discredited govt report (e.g., even in the 2nd-to-last link you provide above, it says, Caution: This report is now considered as having no judicial authenticity in France), (c) other international and national govt bodies have criticized the report, saying it has no basis in truth, and (d) it apparently refers to the SRCM-Shahjahanpur group. To be accurate as you note above and honest, I don't know why we would include a discredited government report that was criticized by two international bodies (the U.N. and the E.U.) as well as by a U.S. commission.

If you believe this is enough to remove mention of SRCM then fine, but I see it as a case of sticking with good reliable and verifiable sources and this doesn't meet that standard on many levels.

By the way, is the new intro proposed above okay with you Don? Renee (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow Renee, way to really look at t a source! It appears there is no reason to include this report. The source fails WP:RS shamefully. Sethie (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Renee - This is a primary source. I also want to point out that it is not an unbiased or fair source that has done the necessary due diligence either. What's more, if the French govt had wanted to change the contents of the report since then, it would require an act of God....So to speak. :)

While searching for secondary sources on this report (which I found none of), I came across this very interesting article on Alain Gest (the listed author of the report) and his methods of "research". Also see [here]: "The report was prepared without the benefit of full and complete hearings regarding the groups identified on the list. Groups were not told why they were placed on the list, and, because the document exists as a commission report to the National Assembly, there is no mechanism for changing or amending the list short of a new National Assembly commission inquiry and report.".

All this sounds positively Hiltlerian to someone like me, living in a genuinely free country. So here's my counter-proposal - Instead of putting this report in the SRCM article, we should probably writing a whole new article on "religious intolerance in France" maybe? :)

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you have some good sources for it! :) Sethie (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys -- the new intro??? Okay or no go? Renee (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be better, it appears the focus on cleaning is more than meditation, which is not the case they both are equally important. Also I don't like the use of "said to be" here and there, appears as if someone not sure of anything is writing. If we are choosing this phrase to achieve middle ground then I don't think that's right. We should find proper source for those who says "it is" or for those who say "it is not", rather than choosing "it is said to be ..", it just makes the article less effective. I know, rather than only complaining, I should suggest something, I will try to come up with that. Duty2love (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Renee, Marathi, Sethie...

If we get into discussion the "credibility" of Government (French, American, UN, etc.) reports, we could be here for years. In a "sourced" article in newspapers, and on WIKI, a reporter does not decide on the "content" as that would be POV, but just sources the statements to "source". No one here is qualified to decide the "credibility" of the French Commission nor the US State Department, nor the UN Committe, and is not expected to so as to be able to write an article. We are not saying anything about the TRUTH of the statements, but that the statements were made and giving the SOURCE.

If one wants to take the US State Department report as "more credible" then one has to mention who, (which religious group) is represented on that Report as Marathi does with the French Report and then decide if any member of that Report is in a "conflict of Interest" as a member of a GROUP in Question. Members of Scientology, who are spearheading the "Freedom of Religion" campaign in the US, are "allegedly" well represented on the US State Dept. Commision on Relgious Freedom. Is that then any more "CREDIBLE"?

Sethie... your comments are POV and does not add anything to the discussion except to show your POV. Why are you not targeting Sahaja Yoga article? or other articles that show the French Report?

To be JOURNALISTIC and WIKI, the accuracy of the statement is what is to be "VERIFIED", not as TRUE but as ACCURATE, and we are not asked to DECIDE whether the source, the French Governemnt, the court, the newspaper, the US State Dept., the UN, are TOTALITARIAN or Orwellian or other such POV. Other articles on WIKI are left to exist without such POV as is expressed here. Examples are Sahaja Yoga, and the WIKI articles on this French Report, mentionned above in my last comments.

Shri Ram Chandra Mission is mentionned in the French 1995 report, the Mivillude report, and the Belge Government lists it on it's site...THOSE ARE FACTS from Credible sources and should be in the article...If you want to add some counter opinions from other Credible "committes" without names, then that is OK with me as long as they are sourced as per WIKI... We don't have to and can't decide without showing a "shameless" POV, wether a Commission, a Department of Government (US State dept) is Biased against a specific GROUP as that is also a POV...we can't get into the battles of "which Commision is CREDIBLE and which is not", as we all have a BIAS and WIKI knows that... to target a member of a commission as "biased", as Marathi does, is very "ORWELLIAN" and anti FREEDOM also. Is anyone who opposes Sahaj Marg, not able to be a member of a COMMISION now? What a WEB we weave when we set out to deceive, or to "hide" the FACTS...SRCM IS MENTIONNED and is NOTED BY GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONS IN FRANCE, and BELGIUM. WE HAVE THE SOURCE. Those are FACTS.

As it is now, with this group of editors, no matter who writes about SRCM or Sahaj Marg, they are not deemed Credible unless they PRAISE the GROUP. It appears that this group of editors is also not CREDIBLE and is displaying a bias or POV, as members of the said group and are in Conflict of Interest, as much as the commissions, and sources that are discussed herein. That includes courts, Governments commissions, newspapers, etc... That is very un-WIKI and while protecting Freedom of RELIGION we sacrifice FREEDOM OF SPEECH of those Commission members, who may or may not be "anti-religion" it is not for us to decide. Were all members of the French Commission "anti-religion" ? Can a person not be ACCURATE and FACTUAL and be an Atheist or a "non-believer"? What percentage of the French Commision was "anti-religion"? Did it influence the content of the Report?

4d-don--don (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Duty2love...

One can use: "according to" or other such words but one can't make Statments of BELIEF as if they are FACTS... Claims of "impressions" on the heart or "samskaras" are not broadly accepted FACTS...Christians call them SINS and Virtues. Those are statements of BELIEF also and as such are POV, and OPINION only and not NPOV.

4d-don--don (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Don

Couple requests for you - Mine to make, yours to ignore :)

1. Quit the finger-pointing *NOW*! That's way more un-Wiki than anything you allege "these editors" (and by that, I assume you mean anyone disagreeing with you) are doing. You don't know me or my POVs, so please - A little civility will go a long way.

2. Can I request you to please be brief in your posts? I'm lost most times trying to figure out what's your point in the mass of words. Alternately, a 1-2 line summary before or after your post would help intellectually challenged people like me to understand and address your questions better. :)

Kindest regards,

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Don

I thought that the 'Sahaj Marg' page is about discussion of a Yoga practice. I am not sure why so much (apparent POV) emphasis is being placed on the organization on this page of Yoga Practice.

As for the report, everyone agrees that its a primary source. Can we have a neutral secondary source for it?

Since you have asked me to remind you - your above discussion seeks to substantiate itself based on POV arguments.

Also a sincere request, please avoid making false accusations against the entire set of current editors who are trying to work with you on this.

Mayawi (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Mayawi

How can a Government Commission report that is on the Government web site have a "secondary" source? To "confirm" what? It's existence or a "confirmation" of the contents? That report is on other sites but it is a "copy" of the Report. The report is used in articles on many other group mentionned in the said report, (some on WIKI) but to find another report by another Commission or a newspaper that would "confirm" the Report, will not happen and is a "red herring" or a "canard" (decoy)...

There would be no articles, reports, commissions, etc.. written if that was the criteria for "acceptable" sources.

Journalists are simply asked to attach their statements to a credible source and Government Commissions, even if interpreted by some as "PRIMARY", and even though, according to WIKI, at times, primary sources are acceptable by themselves without secondary sources, the article is still acceptable as "NPOV" up to journalistic standards. Can we not report FACTS on WIKI? YES we can, just not on the SRCM article. There are other articles that mention these REPORTS on WIKI.

There are at least two (2) French reports that mention SRCM and one Belge site that has SRCM listed in their "harmful sects" on-line site. That SRCM is listed in more than one report is a FACT...and in an encyclopedia, if Government Commission reports are not acceptable as "credible" then what is? US State Dept Commissions ? UN Commision? Newspaper articles? Court Judgements? NO according to SRCM members here as editors.

You can see that some here are in a "confict" as members of the group in question, so they do not agree with any inclusion of anything that would reveal that this group has been "noted" and that they have been named in more than one report by a Government "COMMISSION" in some country.

I think we should add as it is CREDIBLE, not necessarily the TRUTH. That is not our job. If another report makes a different claim, such as the UN Committee, according to Renee, I accept that one also as CREDIBLE, not necessarily the TRUTH, even though it is just another "group of people" on a committee...

4d-don--don (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Don -- Sorry, we're not the Wiki (or academic!) rule makers. The publication standard on Wikipedia is that government reports are primary sources (see this too). No matter how hard we wish or argue it doesn't change that fact (other articles using primary sources without a secondary source should be looked at too). Yes, journalists use govt sources to write articles, and those articles are secondary sources. On Wikipedia, we are not journalists, we are the people gathering journalists' work and scholars' work to create an encyclopedia. Anything else is original research.

Again, if it's notable and true, then a secondary source will have covered it. The only secondary sources I've been able to find have criticized the French report; none have treated it as valid. And, more importantly for this article, none have linked it to SRCM. So, this report fails on two accounts: (1) primary research with no secondary sources linking it to the group, and (2) a widely discredited report is not reliable nor verifiable.

p.s. several of the editors on this page are not members as you allege and are good faith editors focusing on a wide variety of Wiki articles, so please be careful making unfounded accusations. It may come off as a personal attack. Let's keep the focus on content?Renee (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Don, I am sad to see you starting to behave like Shashwat (accusing people who disagree with you of being cult members, and repeatidly pushing for bad sources). Please stop. Sethie (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro (again!)

(Moving this discussion down here; gets lost in the fray above)

Hey guys -- the new intro??? Okay or no go? Renee (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be better, it appears the focus on cleaning is more than meditation, which is not the case they both are equally important. Also I don't like the use of "said to be" here and there, appears as if someone not sure of anything is writing. If we are choosing this phrase to achieve middle ground then I don't think that's right. We should find proper source for those who says "it is" or for those who say "it is not", rather than choosing "it is said to be ..", it just makes the article less effective. I know, rather than only complaining, I should suggest something, I will try to come up with that. Duty2love (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you Duty2love, I was trying to appease Don who wants attribution. Actually, the articles do present Sahaj Marg as Raja Yoga. Here's what they say exactly:

1. "Sahaj Marg Meditation, a system of Raja Yoga..."
2. "the meditation practice called Sahaj Marg (the natural path), a Raj yoga (yoga of the mind) heart-centered meditation."
3. "...in the Sahaj Marg system of raja yoga..."

The first two sources are independent third-party sources; the last is published in a mainstream magazine in Australia, but by a member. Yes, please propose your own lead. Thanks!Renee (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Propose to integrate History into Intro section

I feel it will look more clear if we do this and get rid of History section. If we do it, it would probably look like this in the Intro section and the History section would be gone. What does everyone think?

• Sahaj Marg (translated, the easy or natural path) is a heart-based meditation system, said to be a form of Raja Yoga. According to practicants, the essential features of the system are "cleaning" of impressions (called samskaras) and then meditating on the "mere supposition of divine light" in one's heart. The organizational body, Shri Ram Chandra Mission (SRCM), was formally registered in 1945 by Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur, its founder, commonly known as "Babuji." As part of the Sahaj Marg spiritual practice, Babuji adopted a technique called Pranahuti or yogic transmission, whereby the "divine essence" was said to be transmitted directly into the practicants' hearts by the Master to speed their spiritual evolution. Embhee (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That would work too. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Embhee, Excellent job! I think it reads much better. Renee (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All Editors: I have made the change to integrate the history section into the intro section. Please go through it, if everyone is comfortable, we can move on to the next section, "The Practice". Embhee (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good grief!!!!

good grief!!! (re: all the above)81.103.112.205 (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 81.103.112.205 (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

practice section

Dear Embhee, I like your intro paragraph -- reads much more clearly. Also, since it just focuses on Babuji hopefully it satisfies all groups that utilize the meditation practices of Sahaj Marg. Regarding the practices, I think it's pretty complete. I like the simplicity. Is there something you or others don't care for?

Oh, by the way, I found a dissertation on Sahaj Marg but I can only get the abstract electronically. It's from the University of South Africa. If anyone else is able to get a copy and share it I'd love to read it. The last name on it is Naidoo. Renee (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Australian Yoga Life Article

Hey Don, I noticed you just removed the Denley citation from Australian Yoga Life. I'm wondering why? Cult used a Denley article from the same source so he must have thought it was okay. It's in a secondary source in a mainstream Australian magazine and you had no problem with the other source from that periodical.

As has been noted elsewhere, Catholic writers in secondary sources appear in Catholic articles; democratic writers in secondary sources appear in articles on democrats; not quite sure what you're trying to do here?Renee (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a valid secondary source and a balanced article at that. Also, I thought we'd set up a protocol to discuss all changes here before making them, so I'm wondering why there's no explanation from Don or discussion around this deletion before it was made. I also noted that by calling this magazine "a rag", Don's taken a 180 degree on his stand on not judging the body that writes something... "We're neutral journalists" that just report, etc. etc. etc.? I think we should revert Don's change. His call to delete this source appears POV-based. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

TO all editors...

The reference to RAJA YOGA is not acceptable... Written by a MEMBER, in a RAG promoting YOGA...that is not "at arm's length" and not PEER reviewed or does not have any journalistic standards, just PROMOTION OF YOGA...

Renee you are a Member of the SRCM...the Rest is all just your "OPINION"...Other editors on this site are also members of this "group", so-called secte by TWO NPOV Committees of the French Government. That they are "not credible" is beyond the competence of other committees in other countries or at the UN or members of the said GROUP on this site. Beside, as members, they are in a Conflict. Rather that just showing the FACTS, we are now debating the 'credibility" of the REPORT and attaching "CREDIBILITY" to another "COMMITTEE"...that is not WIKI... WE will ask for MEDIATION...

Sehie... You mentionned that THE FRENCH REPORT qualified above... Are you now saying it does not...IF so, I will take it to "mediation" after an attempt to reach concensus...

If we are to decide the 'credibility" of a COMMISSION in a SOVEREIGN country (France), by the report of another "committee" of the "state department" of another country and attempt to "slander" the members of the French report by a "biased" Freedom of Religion committee of the US state department then it's time for a REALITY CHECK... Most meditators want to SEE REALITY... We will see...

SOURCES...

For CONTROVERSIAL material... When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious. [here]

On the Raja Yoga issue, The person quoted as a source, has not shown any "credentials" in Raja Yoga. According to another article [here], Sahaj Marg's Raja yoga-ness starts at rung #7 or on "MEDITATION" (and not the SAHAJ MARG meditation, but REAL meditation) of an "EIGHTFOLD" path...That is NOT a high enough "standard" for calling Sahaj Marg a RAJA YOGA...

Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. These specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. [here]

4d-don--don (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said it qualified. I said I thought it qualified.

Renee made an excellent argument, and I changed my mind.

Try to reach consensus? There is consensus. It is not a credible source per WP:RS and WP:PSTS. That is the majority opinion on this page right now.

It is a joke to try and bring this mediation as the first step in dispute resolution. I propose you post on the WP:RS talk page and ask for feedback? Or better yet an RFC? Mediation is the third or fourth step. Sethie (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus regarding this source. Please review WP:CON -- consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement or voting. The source is unreliable; you argue that all govt sources are credible and therefore should be included, which completely bypasses the points of reliability and verifiability. This source does not meet WP:V because (a) it's a primary source, (b) there's no secondary source to back it up, and (c) it's a discredited govt report by major international, multi-national bodies (i.e., UN and EU). Regarding membership, your facts are incorrect. Please avoid conjecturing and/or making up who's a member or who's not -- it's really irrelevant anyways as long as we all follow the policies. Renee (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference List

To All,
While I am not trying to change the topic here my view on the French report is same as most other editors that it does not meet WP standards, I just want to bring your attention to a broader problem here regarding our existing reference list. Following are some of my observations:

1. Source #1,5 & 7 are same why are they repeated 3 times? To me this is the only sound reference we have. However, an argument can be made to weaken its relevance (as has done by Don before) that it like a drug addict is talking about the benefits of the drug it uses. Although this can be rebutted by the fact that Australia Yoga Life Journal is a vetted third party source providing as best an oversight and cross checking as they can, on what they publish.
2. Source 2 is a primary source hence not very relevant
3. Source 3,4,6 & 8 are same, why are they repeated 4 times? Same argument (as for Source 1) to weaken this can be made
4. Source 9, 10, 11 & 12 while good as a source, are low on the relevancy for this article

With all this, what do we really have? I have mentioned umpteen times that this topic does not have enough of secondary source [19], [20] and that was the primary reason it was deleted from WP last sept, but I would like to know your view on this.

And my question to Sethie, who published this article (none of the other editors here really asked for it, they mostly joined at CFW's page or joined here later) is: Do you think it is going in the right direction, serving the purpose which you intended it to serve? Duty2love (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we were trying to accommodate and use as much of Cult/Shashwat's article that had sound sources. The reason the sources are repeated is that they say multiple things. I don't know how to set up the article so it reads Ibid, etc. Regarding the primary source, we talked about that above, that if it wasn't contested or challenged it could be removed (and that primary sources need a secondary source before they are allowed in; there is the secondary source listed first). Having said that, if you're challenging it, please go ahead and remove. In fact, I'll do it and then we can discuss it further. I think Sethie did a good thing here -- it's better in mainspace where neutral editors can work on it as opposed to userfied space where it simply becomes a blog-log.Renee (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Renee

These three sources are to go to a "Higher court" to be ruled on by other and a broader WIKI body...

Persian Gal...

Could you get a ruling from a "higher" body or process, so as to get a WIKI concensus on using these three (3) SOURCES of INFORMATION as references or Sources in our article on Sahaj Marg [here]. This would bring a "conclusion" to our debates that have deteriorated to many editors, including the admin, using POV although you just target my posts. Others are also using such "personal attacks", "slander", but you and Sethie just target those on one side of the debate, for "deletion" or for "erasing of the comments" even those I post in the form of "QUESTIONS" so that we may include all the FACTS in the article and not simply do a PR job and PROMOTE this "controversial" GROUP with "Sources written by members of this GROUP in "commercial RAGS" they call "credible". Reports like the ones below are call: not credible, by some editors who are also "members" of the group.

These sources are being used in Europe on the French WIKI [here]

And on this article on [Sahaja Yoga]

4d-don--don (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don: I would like to understand how you want to modify the existing article. Do you feel the article as it is existing now is PR for that group? If so, what should be modified / deleted in the existing article? Do you want to add some thoughts here in the talk section as to how you would like this article to look? If we do that way, we can come to some consensus and be agreeable for all the editors. I very much agree that Wiki should not be used for PR purposes but at the same time, it should also not become a blog-like activity. Embhee (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(removed my comments, no longer relevantRenee (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Soapboxing

Don,
May I ask the reason for repeatedly posting such content here, when we have mentioned several times that newspaper reports are considered primary sources? I am asking this because this is not the first time you are doing this, last time User:Persian Gal had removed some of your comments made here, calling it soapboxing [21] and more recently, Sethie did the same here. What's going on? Duty2love (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_headline.png Level 2 headline

For Duty2Love

"And my question to Sethie, who published this article (none of the other editors here really asked for it, they mostly joined at CFW's page or joined here later) is: Do you think it is going in the right direction, serving the purpose which you intended it to serve? Duty2love (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)"

I think this article has made a lot of progress.

"My purpose for the article?" hmmmm my only wish was to have a fair, balanced, wiki-compliant article, and it looks that way to me right now. Sethie (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fair. I guess when I asked you this, I was perhaps concerned with repeating the same experience as we went through last sept and on CFW's page recently. Though, I still maintain that finding enough of good secondary sources (agreeable to all editors) is going to be tough on this topic, at least in the near future. Duty2love (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Shashwat is gone, and 99% will be permanently banned or topic-banned (meaning he won't be able to edit this article and others). With his disruptive activities gone, things are/will be alot easier. Sethie (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

PRIMARY and SECONDARY Sources...

Duty2love... (if you don't read this right away, Sethie will try and ERASE it so look in the HISTORY and click on it to see it)

I should seem obvious from the above "accusation" that Shashwat was not the PROBLEM as anyone with a sense of fairness would see that the interpretation of PRIMARY and SECONDARY SOURCES is only "made up" by Renee and agreed to by SETHIE...IT IS NOT WIKI and I WILL TAKE IT TO A HIGHER COURT than this if I have to...WITH THIS "made up" criteria, no articles would ever be written in any encyclopedia... The problem was not SHASHWAT but that there are MEMBERS who don't want anything NEGATIVE to come out on this GROUP...(the will attempt to erase this also as it exposes them)...How can we give in to that bullying and remain silent in the face of "muzzling" the messenger so as to avoid facing the REALITY... I don't agree with Sehtie and Renee on their "biased" interpretation of the WIKI guidelines (not rules as WIKI mentions below)... And I don't accept such BULLYING on a SPIRITUAL Article... Look at the [Sahaja Yoga] that is left to exist on WIKI and is WIKI acceptable...and many other articles on WIKI where BOTH sides of the issue are discussed on the discussion page and the article is "BALANCED"...On this one, Shashwat, Talk-to-me, Cultfreeworld and now 4d-don are all treated the same, erased, blocked and bullied by these .....ists... I have been here for many years and this has happened many times on this site since Marathi, Renee, and others from this GROUP came to edit and try and use WIKI (by falsely re-interpreting the guidelines in their favour not as WIKI guidelines but autocratic RULES) as a PR site for SRCM...(read my bio...I have sat on many committees)

I will continue to try and work towards a concensus and they Renee and Sethie will probably try and have me blocked as they did the others...and pretend they know the rules (guidelines??)...but their interpretation is "DOGMATIC" and not "common sense". Read them yourself and see how the other articles on WIKI are more "encyclopedic" and BALANCED than this one. THIS DIVISIVENESS will not be GOOD for SAHAJ MARG and reflects back to them, the EASY PATH...not NATURAL at all but avoiding REALITY! (SOME Government COMMISSIONS have named SRCM) and rightly so IMHO... Babuji would not do that!! Chari would!!

HERE is an exerpt of the PRIMARY and SECONDARY source GUIDELINES (not rules) from WIKI and they ask for a reliance on "COMMON SENSE" and "WORKING TOGETHER"...not DICTATING and "ERASING" any attempt to define a source as has just been done over and over again. Since when is a NEWSPAPER article, PRIMARY as the article is written by a REPORTER who is sometimes "a witness" but most of the times is "quoting" and is not the PRIMARY researcher or ACTOR or the DOER... beware of feigned "authority" and interpreters of guidelines as if they were RULES....

READ THIS and then go to this [HELP PAGE] on WIKI and then ask the other editors to become WIKI COMPLIANT or take it to a higher and more "concensual" decision body...

Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines. In historiography, it is a document, recording or other source of information that was created at roughly the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. Similar (but not identical) definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. A primary source could be a first-handed source from the past including diaries or artifacts. Primary sources have been described as those sources closest to the origin of the information or idea under study.[1][2] Primary sources have been said to provide researchers with "direct, unmediated information about the object of study."[3] They may contain original research or new information not previously published elsewhere.[4] They have been distinguished from secondary sources, which often cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources.[5] They serve as an original source of information or new ideas about the topic. Primary and secondary, however, are relative terms, and any given source may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used.[6]

and later...

Though the terms primary source and secondary source originated in historiography as a way to trace the history of historical ideas, it has been applied to many other fields. For example, this idea may be used to trace the history of scientific theories, literary elements, and other information that is passed from one author to another.

4d-don--don (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There are so many errors, distortions, accusations, and lack of clarity that this doesn't really warrant any kind of reply. If you can express yourself without the conspiracy theories, and without ummm quoting a wikipedia article to try and argue for wikipedia rules.... then there might be something to discuss. Sethie (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sethie...

Since you refused to assist on this interpretation of the WIKI guidelines and since I don't accept that NEWSPAPER articles are PRIMARY as per WIKI, then I am asking that you not erase this post so others may give their opinions as to wether these article are written by the PRIMARY person or is it from "interviewing" of people and the reporter is a "second or third" source, not PRIMARY as most newspaper articles are...

PLEASE don't erase so others may read and see that the reporter was on the scene, after the fact and was "interviewing" the actors...so not PRIMARY as per WIKI...

The first paragraph above makes no sense to me, since I refused nothing, and honestly your stringing together of different connected yet unconnected thoughts isn't computing.

As for erasing, I haven't erased a single post of yours. I have merely erased your postING of various materials that advance your POV without helping the article grow. Post a link, ok? Sethie (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Don,
With all due respect to your motive/wish/stand to add the material you posted in this article (and without questioning its authenticity), here is my take on it. Don't know how to express it other than talking in terms of an example:
I hope you agree on the fact that Wikipedia is not out there to publish the truth, because it can not claim that it knows the truth. Further, is there any such thing as "The Truth" about different things we see/experience in this world or is just ONE truth in all which we all see differently becasue of our unique compositions ... is a deeper question to ponder about. Coming back to the topic of WP policies or guidelines, I would think, because WP can not verify who is true here, it goes for consensus. Which mean .. may what ever is most acceptable to most people, be published. Taking an example of a new doctor in town who uses a new or reformed technique/medicine, and whose medicine has benefited lets say 50000 people but has also adversely affected let's say 2 people for whatever reasons, should the local media who, for the first time is reporting about that doctor and his technique listen to those 2 people who claim that the doctor is a fraud or should they first focus on the new technique and method this doctor is using, and then come to these cases in due course. So to me, not publishing the opinions of those 2 people initially is not really blocking them, it's just giving a fair/sensible relevance to it while considering all available information on this topic. And for those 2 people, if they think their claim is right then surely their numbers will grow to a much larger number and then automatically it will make it to the media, however if they remain 2 and try all means to post their claims in all around the town, it might/can be considered as vandalism. Duty2love (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10