Talk:Sahaj Marg/Archive 10

Created Archive

A new archive was created with discussions through October 2nd, 2008 (see Archive 9). Renee (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To Kanojia

Dear Kanojia, I see you have repeatedly deleted the one-line sentence appearing in the "Controversies" section. Can you please tell us what your specific objections to the sentence are? (i.e., do you object to the content? to the source? part or all of it?) I've pasted it below so you can tell us what you like or don't like about it:

There have been several disputes over the control, domain and trademark names of the group since the death of the founder (Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur) in 1983.[14]

Thanks for your thoughts. Renee (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Books and lists

Dear Kanojia, I see you've listed several books and lists. Would you mind taking a quick like at WP:Five Pillars? After reading this, do you think this still belongs in the document? Thanks, Renee (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Legal cases

there are ton's of legal documents available online related to this topic, why they have not been included in this article? those who know about this topic, balance it. --Cowboy forth worth (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The website you appear to be promoting is clearly self published and not up to WP:RS standards. Please stop re-inserting your views with aggressive edit comments such as, "you are here to write encyclopedia or prevent people from writing one?". I may be mistaken but I get the impression you have something of a history with this article. Bksimonb (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Cowboy forth worth, Wikipedia follows certain rules to maintain a quality encyclopedia. A key policy is to cite only reliable sources. The place to publish one's opinions or analysis of certain groups, events, or persons is a blog. Orkut blogs are "blacklisted" on Wikipedia because they are not WP:RS. Legal documents are called primary sources, which cannot be cited unless the "facts" are undisputed (say things like elevation of a town, year a country gained independence, etc.). Most legal documents contain unfounded and unproven accusations from opposing sides. This is why legal documents cannot be used in Wikipedia unless they are reported on by a secondary source, preferably an academic source that has a high quality vetting process. There's also something called "original research" where one picks and chooses points out of primary documents (like legal documents) to "make a case." Again, the place for that is one's blog, not an encyclopedia.

Those interested enough in a topic will do a search and come across the legal documents you mention (which probably contain enough material to do a pro and anti Sahaj Marg blog, depending on your opinion), but for Wikipedia, the goal is to create a neutral article.

Renee (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Using the website, you propose would be the same as using this one for an article on Christianity. [[1]] Sethie (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear IP Addresses,

While its good to see your interest in this topic, but would you please log in and then contribute here. This way we can associate a name, which will help working as a team, plus it will be good for you security wise. Also, please discuss things here before making non trivial changes. Thank you! Duty2love (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing

Please know that this page has been through tumultuous changes over its history. Please do not resort to mass changes without first discussing on this page. Mass-changes without first discussing with this community will do little more than start an unending edit war, and I assure you nobody wants that - Not me anyways.

Lets all get together to help maintain this page, ok?

--Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have protected the page temporarily, blocking all edits. Protection is not an endorsement of any version, but a tool to stop edit warring. Please use this talk page to discuss changes to the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's Edit

Rambabujichandra - I went through your edits in detail. There's a ton of POV controversies that could ignite from the statements in here.

Let's start with what we agree on perhaps (i.e. The similarities between the two versions)?

--Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello - Anybody home? --Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed some of the subject views from the intro, things like its good for humanity et-al are not part of articles.--Cowboy forth worth (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm reverting one passage of your changes, Cowboy. Rick Ross' website simply lists "An Internet archive of information about cults, destructive cults, controversial groups and movements. Nowhere does it state that SahajMarg is a cult. The Links page only lists someone's blog (Yours?) and thus represents a POV conflict.

In addition, please understand that SahajMarg is the practice. A cult - by definition - is a group of people, so that doesn't apply here. You're perhaps looking for the page on the Ramchandra Mission?

On the MILIVUDES report, please check the archives of the discussion for this page. It has been debated ad nauseum by the authors of this page and removed.

However, your other changes are valid and I'm OK with them.

--Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, whoever is making changes to this already well-established article, please refrain from doing so. At least, please login and discuss in this page before over-writing the content which have been carefully edited over years of effort and obtained consensus from everyone who participated in that effort. It looks like someone is editing without even logging in (just with IP address). Please refrain. Embhee (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Words of Chari, President of SRCM (California-1997)

Read this speech: "Securing the Future of the Mission" at: http://www.sahajmarg.org/literature/online/speeches/securing-the-future-of-the-mission

Find these words:

"A new Bible to replace the old one!"

These words are also from your Master.

"It will be the future Bible of our Mission, Shri Ram Chandra Mission".

That article is accurate with the words of your Master refering to the Bible of your MISSION.

-0

Please provide secondary sources. Also, you changed the entire article and not just this one thing. Let's start with discussing this one thing. Any reliable secondary sources? Thanks, Renee

Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

In many fields and contexts, such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources if possible, and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources."[15] In addition, primary sources avoid the problem inherent in secondary sources, where each new author may distort and put their own spin on the findings of prior cited authors.[16] However, a primary source is not necessarily more of an authority or better than a secondary source. There can be bias and other tactic used to twist historical information.

Here we see a situation where some disciples of SRCM or Sahaj Marg are trying to eliminate "primary" information from the MOUTH of the MASTER, the President of their "religion", which would embarass them (hence is very subjective and POV)... The TRUTH should be what we want from an "encyclopedia".

If you have "secondary" sources which disagree with the PRIMARY source presented, then show it and have your MASTER address the "contradiction". When one calls a document a "bible", it means that that document is IMPORTANT, and should be mentioned in the article.

I have presented information from PRIMARY sources and it is acceptable and valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.148.150 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoever is 24.108.255.48: Please do not make edits without discussions. You are spoiling a well-established source completely compiled after several discussion threads in Wiki and concurred by all participants. Embhee (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who is reverting without discussion... The material presented are from "PRIMARY" sources and are acceptable and even preferred according to WIKIPEDIA... see above... Your material is simply POV and most are from "SECONDARY" SOURCES... and now you revert without any "worthwhile" discussion...

Hey - I'd recognize your random use of caps (and your rants) anywhere - You're 4d-Don and have been barred from editing this article. Could you kindly desist from doing so?

To your point that Chari said the things you attribute to him, that's fine. But kindly explain to me how this has *anything* to do with the ton of edits you've made. I'm reverting them all except the Whispers part (WHICH I expect to discuss with you because I don't see how this is a notable enough entry to be placed in this article).

--Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

209.52.148.150 - Please discuss before making reverts. This revert war benefits nobody and isn't doing anything to improve the quality of this article. --Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

207.81.215.196 - Please discuss before making major changes to this content. It has been discussed in several forums and a conclusive stub of a page has been decided by the various authors and finalized. Please do not change without discussions in this page. - Embhee (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Scan of LEGAL DOCUMENTS:

(To be found on a .org site)

Scan of Legal Documents (many have the Supreme Court of India seal, as being received and accepted by the courts in Babuji’s family’s case against Chari and his clan.

See scan of Chari’s letter of succession, the fake one rejected by the Board of Directors of SRCM (Shahjajanpur-1945). http://www.freedom2think.org/documents/fraud_declaration74.gif

See scan of Umesh’s (Babuji’s son) letter of succession, accepted by the Board of Directors of SRCM (Shahjahanpur-1945). http://www.freedom2think.org/documents/nomination_1982.pdf

See scan of Confirmation of acceptance of Umesh Chandra, Babuji’s son as his successor. http://www.freedom2think.org/documents/1984.pdf

See scan of Shri Ram Chandra Mission Constitution and By-Laws, filed by Babuji at Lucknow, India in 1945. (notice it states that it is a “dictatorship” in favour of the President. http://www.freedom2think.org/documents/original.pdf

See scan of Shri Ram Chandra Mission(California-1997), filed by Chari in San Luis Obispo, California, USA. You will notice all the stamps of the courts of India (if the courts accept this document as presented, then so should Wiki ) http://www.freedom2think.org/documents/fake.pdf

See Page 14 Section 11 ( Improper and Evil Practices (Stoppage of) ... for statement regarding “standards of spiritualism”. Who is into “Improper and Evil Practices” in Sahaj Marg?? What are the “standards of spiritualism”? Put that in your article also. That is very important. http://www.freedom2think.org/documents/fake.pdf

See on Chari’s SRCM site, confirmation that they state that their SRCM is registered as a charity in California. You can find that one very easily by yourself ... It is on the SRCM site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.215.196 (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources all, not sure of relevance. Also, "freedom2think.org" reference proves that the IP that keeps reverting is the banned IP. Renee (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

All: It certainly appears that based on the above, the wording in "Controversies and schisms" that "The court verdict was given in favor of his nominated representative." - is misleading, at best. There is ample evidence that Babuji's nomination was not Cheriji, regardless of the court's ruling. I'd suggest that it be changed to "The court verdict was given in favor of the current spiritual leader, Shri Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari, commonly refereed to as Chariji by the practitioners.

Comments?? RHW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.110.141 (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Number of practitioners is not documented anywhere as secondary source

The number of 400,000 practitioners is not encyclopedic. It is a claim from the movement itself, but their documentation is not public, and therefore not in any way accountable. Let alone that this figure can be taken as a secondary source. I quote from Wikipedia guidelines: "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."

I see that the caption about controversies has been taken out of the article. These controversies and lawsuits in contrast are well documented as secondary source. Furthermore, the two references to the rather obscure Australian Yoga Life magazine cannot in good faith be counted as secondary source (like I said earlier) since this magazine simply publishes whatever authors send in, as is, mostly under their own (not the magazine's) responsibility. Elizabeth Denley is an abhyasi, so these publications are essentially primary source. Australian Yoga Life is such an important magazine, that it is not listed on Wikipedia...

Well, I'll come back again in a couple of years to see how the article progresses :-) and will read any replies then, best wishes Frank W (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

There are some blogs that are criticising the practices of SCRM and are claiming to debunk the Sahaj Marg system. There should be a criticism section for Sahaj Marg.

I was personally able to verify a few claims on the blogs from practicioners of Sahaj Marg and some ex-abhyasis. Most people I talk to agree that SCRM is some kind of dangerous cult.

http://srcmcultofindia.blogspot.in/ http://innercircleofsrcm.blogspot.in/ http://bewareofsahajmargsrcm.blogspot.com/ http://shriramchandramission.blogspot.com/ http://4d-don.blogspot.ca/2012/03/what-they-say-about-chari-and-his-sahaj.html http://www.freedom2think.org/index.html

--Yogesh Girikumar 08:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogeshg1987 (talk • contribs)

Blogs are not a reliable secondary source. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)