Talk:Sahaj Marg/Archive 7

CREATED ARCHIVE ON AUGUST 28, 2007 --Renee 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Replacing with stub

The main problem with this article, besides its length, is that sources used are either self-published or anti-cult sources. As such, the article suffers greatly. We need third-party scholarly sources on the subject. I will do some research and offer sources that interested editors may want to explore. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi. I thought we had to source everything from the actual source, that is, the system itself.

I posted a bunch of third-party sources at the end of this article from various national and international magazines and newspapers. Would these suffice? Also, I believe there have been some dissertations in India on Sahaj Marg? If these are appropriate I can try and find these too.

Renee --Renee 16:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)\

I searched several online resources I have available, and my conclusion is that there are no third-party sources about this subject. All books and publications I found are by the Shri Ram Chandra Mission itself. (One example with free access: http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org&q=Sahaj+Marg)

The only few references I found were in Melton's Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, in which there is but a very a short section about the subject.

On the basis of this research, we have only one option: Reduce the article to a stub, with minimal information about the subject given the lack of third-party sources. That, or WP:AFD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this sounds reasonable. Will you reduce it to a stub? What is the process?

I've reviewed the archives and it's just multiple years of going round and around, so I think this is a reasonable solution. The blogs can serve the purposes of those arguing on this site anyways.

By the way, I've just searched for dissertations too but they're in the psychotherapy field (how meditation helps) and the Sahaj Marg books just appear in the references. Renee --Renee 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not do the stubbing my self, as I am not familiar with the subject. The way to do this would be to write three or four paragraphs that summarize the salient aspects of this path, provide a few links to official sites, and leave it at that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I could do that, or do you designate someone? How do we keep it posted and not reverted immediately?

I notice that Shashwat Pandey, who has had numerous complaints and violations (see his talk page) just went in and changed the opening line again to something reflecting his point of view. Originally it said that "Sahaj Marg is a meditation system" and now he wrote something like "Sahaj Marg is a system of obedience to the leader..." This cannot be supported by any literature.

Advice is welcome. Renee --Renee 18:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just create the stub and we will see what happens. The other option is to list the article in AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just to clarify, I go ahead and create a stub and erase everything else on the page? (I'm also okay to list the article in AfD. What do you think is best?) Renee --Renee 19:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[moved to archive so discussion can focus on proposed stub]

Proposed Stub

Dear Editors,

Here is a proposed stub. I reviewed the practices of Sahaj Marg across the three different factions and the following is common to all:

Sahaj Marg is a meditation system based on Raja Yoga (yoga of the mind). A unique aspect of Sahaj Marg is its utilization of pranahuti (divine energy transmitted to the heart) to transform the human being and speed evolution.

There are three steps to the daily practice of Sahaj Marg:

Morning meditation (focusing on divine light in the heart),

Evening cleaning (imagining the day's events evaporating out one's back and being replaced with divine light),

and,

Night-time prayer (to establish a connection with the divine inner Master before sleep).

Supplemental daily practices include 'constant remembrance' of divine light in one's heart and the keeping of a diary to mark one's progress. Practicants are also encouraged to take part in weekly group meditations and occasional individual cleaning meditations with trainers (sometimes called preceptors).

There exists some disagreement over the lineage and succession within the various factions of Sahaj Marg. (list the links to http://www.srcm.org, http://www.srcmshahjahanpur.org, and http://www.sriramchandra.org)

Here are the references showing that the above statements are common to each group that practices some type of Sahaj Marg.

SRCM-Cal: http://www.srcm.org/welcome/whysahajmarg.jsp

SRCM-Shahj: http://www.srcmshahjahanpur.org.in/sahajmarg.html

ISRC: http://www.sriramchandra.org/Methods/Methods.htm#Standard%20Meditational%20Practices http://www.sriramchandra.org/About/Isrc.htm#Uniqueness

Feeback is welcome. If you like and agree with this new stub, please post.

Renee --Renee 21:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s. the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page could be merged with this, since it is one of the organizational bodies related to this practice. If you like, a one-line description of each organization can be added. --Renee 21:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee, I think you are on the right track, but you might have to look at an even more minimal approach. You are going way out on a limb with your second sentence; it is not only unsupported, but unsupportable, and to me pretty close to incomprehensible.

The paragraph on the dispute is interesting, and perhaps is something you could expand, as there should be supporting references available.

The last section needs to be rephrased. You might just list the organisations that use the Sahaj Marg method, if you feel that is appropriate, and put in the cites to support your list.

I think the SRCM page definitely needs to be merged with this one, but you still might not have enough verifiable information to make an article.

Incidentally, "primary source" references (from "the man himself," so to speak) are often unacceptable in Wikipedia, unless they are very non-controversial. The reason is that they can easily be quoted out of context by a biased editor. A professional researcher will usually be better at making his/her statements misquote-proof. Rumiton 12:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Revised Stub

Dear Rumiton,

Thanks for your comments. Yes, I can see how the second sentence would be confusing. It's really a central belief from the three different groups but if people just click on any of those three sites, they'll get a fuller explanation in context.

Regarding your point about expanding on the disagreements, I think that would be opening a hornet's nest of unsubstantiated claims. For example, the first group listed has filed in court and won repeatedly over the last 20 years the right to the name, despite ugly allegations that were never proven (and anyone can make allegations). The other group continues to appeal with the same allegations. It's all supposition and the stuff of conspiracy theories with no convictions or hard evidence (in fact, the only [one-sided] evidence appears on the Shahjanapur site because they've posted their court documents on the web (so interested people can click on those if they so desire). The other side has not posted their documents because they are private court documents. Having said that, I tried adding a bit more text to give some flavor of the conflict.

Let me know what you think?

Renee --Renee 14:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee, The point here is that you must avoid the appearance and fact of advocacy. Readers of Wikipedia expect a neutral treatment of the subject. It is one thing to say something like "Practitioners believe..." it is another to state the belief as a fact, as this version does: A unique aspect of Sahaj Marg is its utilization of pranahuti (divine energy transmitted to the heart) to transform the human being and speed evolution.

Regarding the "hornet's nest," this should not happen, as emotional claims and allegations, positive or negative, have no part in Wiki. Only facts from objective sources are permissible. Regards, Rumiton 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Revised Stub

Okay, points well taken. Thanks Rumiton.

I've deleted the pranahuti line. I've inserted some description of the disagreement (the facts here are that the Chennai group has filed in court and won repeatedly over the last 20 years the right to the name and emblem, despite ugly allegations that were proven false (e.g., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 19202 of 1999; Appeal from Order 659 / 1991; and so forth). The Shahjanapur group continues to appeal with the same allegations. If people are interested in learning about the Shahjanapur side of events, they can click on that website or the blogs and get the various theories (which again, have not been proven in court, so are probably not pertinent to a Wiki article).

I drew the new text from the Shri Ram Chandra Mission article, which Jossi suggested be merged into this article (and tried to remove points of view). Let me know if it's too much or feels unsubstantiated.

Here's the revised version of the proposed stub:

Sahaj Marg is a meditation system (claimed to be) based on Raja Yoga (yoga of the mind).

There are three steps to the daily practice of Sahaj Marg:

Morning meditation (focusing on (imagined) divine light in the heart),

Evening cleaning (imagining the day's events evaporating out one's back and being replaced with divine light),

and,

Night-time prayer (to supposedly establish a connection with the divine inner Master before sleep).

Supplemental daily practices include 'constant remembrance' of imagined divine light in one's heart and the keeping of a diary to mark one's progress. Practicants are also encouraged to take part in weekly group meditations and weekly individual cleaning meditations with preceptors ( sometimes called trainers).

There exists some disagreement over the lineage and succession within the various factions of Sahaj Marg.

According to the largest faction, Shri Ram Chandra Mission (based in Chennai, India, and registered in California, USA), there have been three gurus, or Masters, each of whom is believed to have passed on his spiritual condition and teachings to his most capable disciple. These three Masters are: Lalaji, Babuji, and Chariji.[1]

A second smaller faction, the originally group, registered in India in 1946, also called Shri Ram Chandra Mission, is based in Shahjahanpur [2], and was initially presided by Babuji, the founder, then by the founder's son, Shri Umesh Saxena, and after his death, by Babuji's grandson (and son of Shri Umesh Saxena), Shri Navneet Kumar. This faction states that Babuji is their guru.

A third faction is called the Institute of Shri Ram Chandra Consciousness, and this group believes Babuji to be their sole guru. [3]. ISRC call their method PAM (Pranahuti Aided Meditation)

The common name, emblem, and spiritual heritage of the first two groups has been the cause of numerous court cases. The Shahjanapur group is appealing a court ruling in favor of the Chennai group. The President of India has been asked by the founder's family to intervene. [4]

Discussion welcome!

Renee --Renee 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

there is no hurry !! let the mediation priocess complete, also i would request you to read the last link provided by you. where does it say's ruling in favor of Chari ? it is not chennai group but california group. in indian media it is called as Chari group. Kindly re-read the court link provided by you, it does not say ruling in favor of anyone, just that order is reserved, not yet delivered.

Stub is not possible for such a page. as nither it is Raja Yoga (it is just claimed) nor the night time prayer can connect anyone with divine, it is once again a claim and cannot be represented as fect. Such religious claims cannot be represented as facts, in any article.

Have patience. wiki is a long term project. We weill join the discussion soon, let one process complete first.--Shashwat pandey 16:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat, You are in mediation with another editor, not the remaining editors on this page. Administrator Jossi said that according to Wiki policy, much of the text you are discussing in mediation would not be suitable on a Wiki article anyways and recommended a stub. I suggest arbitration if necessary.

Also, I simply pulled from all three factions of Sahaj Marg (not just the Chennai group) what their websites say. Finally, "claimed" is not within wiki guidelines. We can say "according to Sahaj Marg, it is ..." if you like.

Other comments?

Renee --Renee 09:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s. took out words "claims" in above proposed stub as not kosher per Wiki policy. Hope these words suffice. --Renee 08:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Allo.

I have make the proposed stub more NPOV and WIKI by removing the "unverifiable" claims, and other inaccuracies about the practice and titles.

Jeanne--J.d'arc 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Making Progress!

Thanks Jeanne. It's great to get feedback.

I have only two questions:

-- the words "claimed" and "supposed" are to be avoided according to Wiki policy [5] [6] I added words to attribute the source of the belief to the organization so hopefully this addresses your edit without using the words discouraged by Wiki.

-- Do you have a citation for the last line about the President of India? I searched all of the sites and could find nothing on that. I've deleted it here because there's no citation and per Wiki policy we need one, but if you find one please re-insert. [7]

Hopefully this is getting more and more NPOV. Here's another version:

Sahaj Marg is a meditation system said to be based on Raja Yoga (yoga of the mind).

There are three steps to the daily practice of Sahaj Marg:

Morning meditation (focusing on (imagined) divine light in the heart),

Evening cleaning (imagining the day's events evaporating out one's back and being replaced with divine light),

and,

Night-time prayer (said to establish a connection with the divine inner Master before sleep).

Supplemental daily practices include 'constant remembrance' of imagined divine light in one's heart and the keeping of a diary to mark one's progress. Practicants are also encouraged to take part in weekly group meditations and weekly individual cleaning meditations with preceptors ( sometimes called trainers).

There exists some disagreement over the lineage and succession within the various factions of Sahaj Marg.

According to the largest faction, Shri Ram Chandra Mission (based in Chennai, India, and registered in California, USA), there have been three gurus, or Masters, each of whom is believed to have passed on his spiritual condition and teachings to his most capable disciple. These three Masters are: Lalaji, (lineage to Naqshmumra via Lalaji's brother [8]), (lineage to Ramashram via Dr Paramsant Dr. Chaturbhuj Sahay ji [9]), Babuji (lineage disputed), and Chariji (lineage to AJ Bhatter).[10]

A second smaller faction, the original group, registered in India in 1946, also called Shri Ram Chandra Mission, is based in Shahjahanpur [11], and was initially presided by Babuji, the founder, then by the founder's son, Shri Umesh Saxena, and after his death, by Babuji's grandson (and son of Shri Umesh Saxena), Shri Navneet Kumar. This faction states that Babuji is their guru.

A third faction is called the Institute of Shri Ram Chandra Consciousness, and this group believes Babuji to be their sole guru. [12]. ISRC call their method PAM (Pranahuti Aided Meditation)

The common name, emblem, and spiritual heritage of the first two groups has been the cause of numerous ongoing court cases. [13]

How does this sound?

Renee --Renee 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Allô Renée

Your reference (No 11) to the last statement does not refer to the case having been decided in "Chari's favour" but the reference is to the current appeal where a "judgement reserved" (pending) is stated. Please add your reference to the statement "in Chari's favour".

I have added the reference to the President of India and added that the Prime Minister was also asked to intervene.

Please show where Babuji was "passed the spiritual lineage" from Lalaji with references to other than the PR from the SRCM. Lalaji already had an organization and Babuji met Lalaji only a few times, was never a preceptor, and got his "lineage" in a dream, 13 years after Lalaji's death (according to his "autobiography") and even though the lineage from Lalaji was already in existence through his brother. No one from those organizations state that Babuji was "appointed" as Lalaji's successor but many mention others as successors. That statement is POV, PR, and not properly referenced (it can't be as it is not true according to the adherents of the SUFI tradition of Lalaji) (see http://www.geocities.com/sufisaints/ (click on "Sufism in INDIA" and go to the section on Lalaji) which is Dr RK Gupta's site and is all info from his many books which are referenced in the SRCM article and were added by Dr Gupta) ..... WIKI stub should not be the PR for "one faction".

Please give proper references to the "Spiritual Lineage" statements.

Salut

Jeanne

Hi Jeanne,

Thanks for the information. We can't use any references from the organizations themselves, according to Wiki policy, so the last citation is not allowed (for the very same reasons you pointed out on the SRCM page, that anyone can create a webpage listing the facts in a certain way). (Also, even if they were allowed, I don't think the last sentence is relevant to the article because if even Buddha himself were "asked" to intervene, it really has no descriptive relevance to an encyclopedic article because it's coming from the group itself and not some outside independent source.)

Regarding the appeal of the court ruling, I just looked at the document and it says that the SRCM-Shahjanapur group is the appealer, which by definition means that the lower court case was against them and they want to appeal the decision. [14]

Having said that, I think to make this entry more NPOV that we should just agree to delete the last two statements (see revised version above). Those who are interested in learning about disputes should probably go elsewhere anyways, as disputes by nature are POV and for every allegation on one side there's a response on the other. Our goal is to just create a short informational neutral stub (the purpose of Wiki!). I did leave in the outside source appeal just to give evidence of current, ongoing disputes, but I think we can stop at that.

The references you put in for the gurus are fine with me, though Jossi or Rumiton need to offer advice as to whether or not these websites are adequate for evidence purposes according to Wiki standards. (I formatted the references properly in the stub above.) I am confused though as to why the two brothers are listed? If they went off in their own direction they're not part of this lineage, are they? It's just confusing to me as to why they're here? If you want those references to show more information about Lalaji, maybe we could just leave them in without the text that accompanies them.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 21:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Stub Posted

Article is now unprotected. Please implement the stub version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi. I've pasted the above stub into the new page. Thanks for your patience on this.

Rumiton, If you're willing to edit this for clarity and NPOV that would be great.

Thanks to all for working on this. Renee --Renee 08:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Renee, I tweaked it a little according to my own understanding, which may not be quite right. I think the paragraphs on the three factions might need some further looking at. Rumiton 10:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice, very nice! I think it reads quite well and for the first time ever, completely neutral. I think everything you did is correct, and the only question I have is whether or not the text regarding the two other lineages off of Lalaji should be in there (certainly we can keep the references). I think that's the only thing that disrupts the flow. I like how you highlighted words and made it easier to read.

Other people might have a few minor tweaks too, but my question now is how to keep it a stub and NPOV? After people have a little while to tweak it, will it be permanently protected (with some avenue to request change through administrator)? I ask because of the history of this page.

Thanks, Renee --Renee 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I found some third-party sources from the original host sites that give evidence that Sahaj Marg is a form of raja yoga (since someone disputed that previously). There are two articles that refer to Sahaj Marg as raja yoga, the first is in hard copy only (and I don't know how to reference that so please help there, I've inserted the whole reference). The other is a pdf file on the third-party site so it's okay. --Renee 12:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad you found it OK. There is a message that can be added to the effect that "This article reached its current form through long and difficult negotiation. Before making edits, please post your suggestions on the Talk Page and allow 24 hours for discussion." I suggest you talk to Jossi or Vassyana. They'll be glad to help. Rumiton 13:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee and Rumiton

This is from the article by Elizabeth Denley: this is hardley a "third party" and "arms length" report. It is PR and should be removed. Anyone could write in those "Magazines". This is not an NPOV article about Raja Yoga but simply re-states SRCM PR. It even adds a link to SRCM.org.

This article (stub) was not reached through long and hard "negotiation".

Elizabeth has been practising the Sahaj Marg system of raja yoga for almost 14 years. She lives on the Central Coast, north of Sydney, has a PhD in natural sciences, and is interested in communicating the deep philosophy and science of Nature found in yoga to modern-day audiences. She is a member of the international faculty of the Sahaj Marg Research and Training Institute of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission. For more information on the system: www.srcm.org

This article (stub) was not reached through long and hard "negotiation".

Jeanne --J.d'arc 19:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Renee and Rumiton

If as you state that each Guru has passed on his spiritual condition and teachings to his most capable disciple, then Babuji does not figure in the Lineage as there is no record that he did get the "passing on "NOD" from Lalaji, having met him only "a few times" (at 18 yrs old), was not a preceptor, and formed his own SRCM at 32 yrs (13 yrs later) from a "dream" about the long deceased Lalaji. But Lalaji "passed on" his lineage to his brother and to his SUFI organization, Naqshmumra and the RAMASHRAM of Dr. Charerbuj (that is recorded on their sites). Chari's getting the "passing on of Babuji's "NOD" is also disputed by many. WIKI demands that you reflect this to be NPOV.

That sort of makes the whole lineage and SRCM bogus does it not? First Babuji, then Chari appear as less than "spiritual" and certainly appear attached to material control of the "organizations".

NOW SRCM claims to be RAJA YOGA although one can see that it may be a "highly modified" (removing of Yamas (donations) and Tapas (austerities), to allow for "accumulation" of material, and "obedience". Raja Yoga is a system, not a worship of, and obedience to a PERSON. WIKI should not confirm that PR with a "biased" article for an "adherent" in a "questionable magazine" as if it was "thrid party" and at "arm's length".

What's next? Babuji also represents Christ and Vivekananda (from a dream of course), so now, SRCM is then Christian and..???

Where is the "verifiable" WIKI NPOV?

Jeanne --J.d'arc 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeanne and Rumiton,

Thanks again for your work on this (which for me personally was long and hard negotiation!).

It's my understanding that all factions say that Sahaj Marg is grounded in Raja Yoga (or more specifically, is a form of Raja Yoga), which is consistent with what you say above (you argue that it's not a pure form). We do qualify the statement in the article with the words "said to be" so hopefully that addresses your concern Jeanne.

Regarding sources, the Yoga Magazine has to go through a third-party review process and I think just because it's written by someone who practices doesn't make it invalid? Jossi and Rumiton -- what's Wiki policy on this? (I defer to your greater wisdom and knowledge!)

Finally, yes, I can see how the phrase "has passed on his spiritual condition and teachings to his most capable disciple" is value laden, so think it should be deleted. I'll go ahead and do that.

Rumiton -- I like the idea of posting the cautionary clause at the top of the article. I hope that works.

Thanks, Renee

Message Box

Hi Folks,

I created a message box per Rumiton's suggestion to put at the top of the page. (I did contact Vassyana and he directed me to pre-made boxes but I wanted to keep it light and positive and most seemed a bit heavy-handed. So, I made one up that briefly gives the rationale for brevity in editing this page [and you wouldn't believe how long it took me to figure out how to do it...].) The butterfly represents new beginnings, transformation, and lightness. Let me know what you think.

Renee --Renee 23:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We do not put these type of messages or disclaimer in mainspace. I have moved it to talk and edited it for accuracy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. Do you think "third-party sources" should be added? (Otherwise people will add tons of in-house sources and think they're following the guidelines.) Renee --Renee 23:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Third party sources that meet the criteria established in policy (WP:V, WP:NOR and, WP:NPOV) are most welcome. Those that do not, are not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - perfect - this is very clear now. Renee --Renee 00:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Critique of Elizabeth Denley's article presented as "third party" Notes to Raja Yoga

Hi Renee

I re-read the article you presented as third party NPOV research on Raja Yoga By Elizabeh Denley in Australian Yoga Life magazine.

1. This is more advertisement or "seeking credibility" for Sahaj Marg and not about Raja Yoga. there are many such articles in many such Magazines. I rejected them all. If you accept that article, you are opening a "can of worms" around what is acceptable as NPOV. I have many such articles that are not so favourable to SRCM (California) and I did not use them as they were not NPOV enough for me.

2. Elizabeth is a SRCM adherent and is just giving us the "company policy". Any reference to their site will do the same. This is not a "third party" but a member of the TEAM.

3. The title of the article refects a "flexible Mind" as in genuine YOGA. Sahaj Marg according to Chari, relies "MOSTLY" on "obedience" and not on the "flexibility" or "emptiness" of a "yoga" system. To decide to "obey" one person does not leave one "flexible" and certainly not "open minded". To obey is to decide to adhere to a "prejudice" and is not a flexible "system".

4. The raison d'etre of the "Australian Yoga Life" magazine is: "will encourage them to start or continue a yoga journey". It is a Magazine to advertise YOGA or do PR and hence the article is not NPOV or "at arm's length".

5. Ms. Denley's opinions of Raja Yoga are her own, (and SRCM California) and it is not "universally" accepted that the "obedience" to a Master such as recommended by Sahaj Marg, the "modified" or "adulterated" or rigid Natural Path that is the "obedience" of SRCM, constitutes the broadly understood definition of Raja Yoga, the eightfold path.

6. The SRCM adherent does not "empty" his mind but is asked to "surrender" to the will of the Master (a prefudice). The mind of the SRCM adherent is then empty of "friends, family, country, job, life's daily problems, etc...) but FULL of the MASTER, the Method, the Mission, and is not empty as in ZEN. This state is not "desireable" to the family, freinds etc... of the adherents, unless they are also "obedient" and full of SRCM also.

7. The article has not been "peer reviewed" but can be seen to reflect "obedience" to another PATH, SRCM or SAHAJ MARG. As such, is not a NPOV "third party" article.

8. The article title suggestion of FLEXIBILITY of Sahaj Marg adherents is not the qualities one sees in the friends and family who have become "abhyasis": ...the capacity to see the divinity in everything and everyone. In this we return to the state of humility of emptiness, where we ACCEPT and appreciate everything and everyone, including ourselves.

Are you "accepting" that way? Is anyone in SRCM? Is the Master, Chari? Why the legal battles? Why the edit wars on WIKI to hide SRCM Shahjahanpur, the founder's family's POV? Double standards or just words (PR) to grow the business of one faction with more "adherents"?

9. The Prayer: The words: "We are but slaves!", addressed to the Master (Chari) and credited (inspired by) to Vivekahanda in SRCM is not at all what Vivekananda said about repeating the "things one does not want". He and his Master Ramakrishna, calls it "silly" to pray by repeating an unfavourable (suggested and imagined) condition as if it is a "reality". SAHAJ Marg prayer is Not "FLEXIBLE" or RAJA YOGA.

The article contains all the flaws of the "modified", adulterated Sahaj Marg but these flaws are now (in this article) falsely credited to Raja Yoga by Ms Denley. This article exposes Sahaj Marg's (California) flawed teachings even more! It is not a credible article on RAJA YOGA and should not be used thus.

Please explain why you think that that particular article is NPOV and worthy of being included here. Are there no other "third party" articles that are more "accurate" or adhering to broader standards than Australia Yoga Life? All that info in on SRCM or SMTRI sites and is not credible there also but is SRCM (California) POV and I will accept that as one POV.

I could go on much longer....read it and see! IS IT PR? Or "third party" info?

Should we get the assistance of "mediation"?

Feedback please by (unbiased) arm's length readers.

Jeanne--J.d'arc 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeanne,

Thanks for your feedback. I understand from your message above that there is a lot you don't like or don't agree with about Sahaj Marg. The Sahaj Marg Wiki entry doesn't paraphrase the Denley article or try to represent it in any way, it just provides it as a source if persons want a further explanation of Sahaj Marg in a third-party outlet.

My understanding of the Wiki site is that it is not our responsibility to make judgements about the Truth for people, but we are to present information that is verifiable from sources other than the primary source itself, preferably from articles that are published in outlets that have a vetting or fact-checking process. (wp:v) I'm still a little confused myself as to what "counts" as a bona fide source and what doesn't, and would appreciate an admin's opinion.

Right now, every single citation in this article, is a primary source quotation. That's why I tried to just state the facts simply and then let people decide for themselves. A case in point is the court case; this is an appeal of a ruling in favor of the SRCM-Chennai, but I agreed with you that that statement, though true, favored one side over another so I just put simply that there have been court battles. We can't present one side's versions of events as the SRCM-Shah group tried to do (especially in court cases where lower courts have already ruled against them), because as you note, that is simply PR.

As Jossi recommended, I think our only hope of a NPOV article is to maintain a stub. If you feel the Denley citation is not an adequate third-party source, then yes, let's ask for an RfC. [15] It may help us in the future to know what's within Wiki guidelines and what's not (and as I said, I'm learning myself.

Renee --Renee 17:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Key Questions for Consensus

Jeanne,

I'm trying to figure out the root of your concerns. It seems that you are okay with the practice of Sahaj Marg, that you don't like SRCM-Chennai, but that you are okay with SRCM-Shah and ISRC. Is this correct?

My next question is, does SRCM-Shah and ISRC view Sahaj Marg as a type of raja yoga?

If yes to the two initial questions above, then I think this Sahaj Marg page is actually okay as it doesn't describe the practice, simply states that Sahaj Marg is a meditation system, describes the three factions with links to each so people can check them for further information.

According to my research about whether or not each group saw Sahaj Marg as a form of raja yoga, the answer is yes because:

-> Babuji wrote the book, The Efficacy of Raja Yoga... [16] -> Dr. Varadachari (ISRC) wrote a book on Sri Ram Chandra's Raja Yoga [17] -> and the SRCM-Shah site has a link for ancient raja yoga but they haven't filled in any information on it yet [18]. (Also, SRCM-Shah says Babuji is the only guru so it seems the book above by Babuji calling the system a form of Raja Yoga would be valid?)

I've added the ISRC raja yoga source and the Babuji raja yoga source to the raja yoga text so this makes all three factions represented (Babuji's original book which presumably SRCM-Shah endorses since he's their guru, the ISRC book, and the lay person explanation by Denley from a third-party source).

It seems the main quibble is with the three organizations, not with the practice of Sahaj Marg. If this is true then I suggest we move to cleaning up the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page and leave this page alone.

Other editors' opinions welcome too!

Renee

Edits in intro section

Removed POV, the autralien page is an advertisment site for California SRCM, and is not RS. info regarding disputed trade marg with accurate date is also provided. this info also cannot be ommited in any encyclopedia article. Will be adding the pilosophy and outcome of Sahaj Marg soon.

Tnx--Shashwat pandey 18:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion at the end dismissed the case. So the trademark is no longer disputed. This sort of information does not belong in the first paragraph. IPSOS (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The court link provides, information regarding date of registration of both the trade marks, initially it was registered in india (1945) then again in US (1997) which was then challanged, ruling was in favor of India SRCM, but similar case is also pending in SC of India as well order is not yet dilivered. Now will provide info regarding next changes !! --Shashwat pandey 18:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Autralien yoga link is not wiki link, its advertisment site for califronia SRCM, and as such is not a reliable source !!.

Also Sahaj Marg is a trade Mark, registered twice, case pending, why do you think this information is not relevent in an encyclopedia page ? --Shashwat pandey 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't even read your reference. See the bottom for the conclusion. Case isn't pending, it is over. IPSOS (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Case was indeed over in US,(ruleing was in favor of indian group) but same is still pending in india.

2. Date of registration of trade mark is present in that page, it is used not to display dispute but to display date of registration's, this is a secondary sources for information regarding date of registration of trade mark, and this information is needed at info section only, as this page is about Sahaj Marg only, and SM is a trade mark. kindly add this info back in the main page.

Tnx--Shashwat pandey 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Addition's

An encyclopedia article regarding a group without stated philosophy is something missing greatly !! hence philosophy of both the factions have been provided. few correction's also done they are:-

1. ISRC is not related to Sahaj Marg, they have different trade Mark PAM, and only claim linage from founder, they do not claiming to teach Sahaj Marg, but PAM, which is their own method, any reference to Sahaj Marg is direct violation of WP:NOR.

2. Largest group and smaller faction. Again a POV push. they are simply group registered in California and USA, their sizes are only claims are cannot be verified.

3. Major disagreement between two Sahaj Marg's one claims living leader is must, another say's not at all needed.

This info is part of an encyclopedia page, can be ommited in different groups personal website's !!--Shashwat pandey 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Constant Remembrence

This is another trade mark and is an important method of the group. now prayer of the group will be added. --Shashwat pandey 19:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Revert your Edits and Discuss first

Dear Shashwat,

According to the box at the top of the page, this article is to remain a stub due to lack of reliable third-party sources. Further, editors are respectfully asked to discuss any changes and keep them short because of this. This scenario was agreed upon with intervention from administrators.

To avoid starting an edit war, I respectfully ask you to revert your edits back to the stub of July 12th, and then let's discuss any changes one-by-one.

I looked at your edits so far and virtually none pass the Wiki standards for reliable evidence.

First, "anti"-secte sites are by definition biased (they promote an anti-secte view).

Second, Elizabeth Denley's article in Australian Yoga Life is a bona fide article. Where is your evidence that this was an advertisement? You must prove that this magazine is not a valid magazine. You just assert it.

Third, the philosophy section and the constant remembrance section are not admissable according to Wiki standards, because you use only source text to make your POV. Vassyana gave an excellent example to Sethie about why this is not appropriate, and I paste in here below (found on Sethie's talk page):

Brief explanation. When using only primary sources, it is very difficult to build an article without including original research by drawing conclusions from the information. Secondary sources allow the sourcing of conclusions about primary sources without engaging in original research. A good example of this is the meaning of religious texts. As an example, Jesus says it is better to cut off a hand than to sin. This would be easily presented as Christian scripture encouraging severe self-mutilation if only the primary source (the Bible) was used. However, that is not an accurate presentation and not supposed by reliable secondary sources. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Vassyana 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope this illustrates why it is inappropriate to use source citations as is done in this article.

I am happy to discuss these things with you and then we have to agree. Also, you can publish all of this on a thousand blogs if you want, but Wiki is not the place for this.

Renee --Renee 19:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Response inline (in bold)

According to the box at the top of the page, this article is to remain a stub due to lack of reliable third-party sources. Further, editors are respectfully asked to discuss any changes and keep them short because of this. This scenario was agreed upon with intervention from administrators.

It was also agreed that page will remain same, during mediation process, however, wiki is dynamic, and is bound to change, there is nothing in recent edits with is against any wiki policy, kindly point out one such incidence.

To avoid starting an edit war, I respectfully ask you to revert your edits back to the stub of July 12th, and then let's discuss any changes one-by-one.

why would there be any edit war? if there is nothing against any policy ? if you feel there is something which is against wiki policy then kindly point out which edit you are refering to ? as a matter of fact, stub is not what is intention of wiki project, an encyclopedia has detailed information as in case of word book or britanica. stubs can be used in any blog or groups personal website, not on wiki, here information needs to be placed.

I looked at your edits so far and virtually none pass the Wiki standards for reliable evidence.

pls point out one such edit along with reference to wiki standered where you feel is not a reliable source. once you have found out, we will remove that section

First, "anti"-secte sites are by definition biased (they promote an anti-secte view).

it is WP:RS as they are:- 1. SME (subject matter expert) 2. Unbiased to any POV (they have info regarding cults, not only SRCM, it is one of them)

Second, Elizabeth Denley's article in Australian Yoga Life is a bona fide article. Where is your evidence that this was an advertisement? You must prove that this magazine is not a valid magazine. You just assert it.

Elizabeth Denley's is a member of SRCM California, and hence his POV is advertisment and not a neutral source.

Third, the philosophy section and the constant remembrance section are not admissable according to Wiki standards, because you use only source text to make your POV. Vassyana gave an excellent example to Sethie about why this is not appropriate, and I paste in here below (found on Sethie's talk page):

Brief explanation. When using only primary sources, it is very difficult to build an article without including original research by drawing conclusions from the information. Secondary sources allow the sourcing of conclusions about primary sources without engaging in original research. A good example of this is the meaning of religious texts. As an example, Jesus says it is better to cut off a hand than to sin. This would be easily presented as Christian scripture encouraging severe self-mutilation if only the primary source (the Bible) was used. However, that is not an accurate presentation and not supposed by reliable secondary sources. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Vassyana 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Both the section are supported by secondary source, pls refer to the section, WP:OR is possible incase of dispute, there is no dispute regarding what is the philosophy of the both the group's. They have different philosophy (rather one group has no philosophy). In addition primary source is used only for quotations and not and OR. Conatant Remembrence is a trade mark, it has to be part of an encyclopedia article

I hope this illustrates why it is inappropriate to use source citations as is done in this article.

Primary source is used to quote's and secondary source is used for explaination, thereby avoiding any chances of any sort of WP:OR

I am happy to discuss these things with you and then we have to agree. Also, you can publish all of this on a thousand blogs if you want, but Wiki is not the place for this.

Blogs are personal openion. and those who wish to publish will publish, wiki is open to all who can discuss without any WP:NPA you have demonstrated something else before. pls be polite and understanding. this will not pass, it has to come to a conclusion, as i have nothing else to do currently so i can easily discuss with you.--Shashwat pandey 19:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent communication on user talk page

It was discussed between Renee IPSOS and me also that there is need to create two different pages for Sahaj Marg, one is the Sahaj Marg (California) and another one is Sahaj Marg (India) then both the faction's can add or modify their own flavor of Sahaj Marg according to their POV's and can easily be discussed and debated there.

Welcome more comments about creating two different Sahaj Marg pages'--Shashwat pandey 20:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not ...

...re-add material about which there are no third party reliable sources. The article was re-created as a stub for this reason. Attempts to re-add unsourced material, may be considered disruptive edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to inquires in my talk page: Wikipedia articles cannot be based on self-published sources only. For NPOV, we need secondary sources. As there are no secondary sources about this subject, the only way that an article may remain in Wikipedia is by creating a stub with minimal information, or it will be otherwise deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There are way too many secondary source's for this perticular topic. I have used the same, pls see abouve discussion with IPSOS. refer secondary sources for detailed information regarding secondary sources.

Moreover which source is not reliable, and what is the reliable source for current claim like largest group and smaller faction is this not a POV push ? kindly point out one source which is not reliable as per wiki and was used in the page --Shashwat pandey 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS

Below i am posting few edit's, i would request all editor's to point out what all sources in this section are not reliable sources and how, also kindly explain this edit is against which wiki policy below is a snap shot !!

Sahaj Marg (Hindi = the Simple Path) is a meditation system, said by the groups to be based on Raja Yoga (yoga of the mind.) [19] [20][21].Sahaj Marg is a trade Mark, first registered in India (1945) and then again in USA (1997)

Groups that currently teach and practice Sahaj Marg

There are two groups teaching Sahaj Marg. First one is registered in California Second one is registered in India.

According to California group, there have been three gurus, or Masters (Leader's). These three Masters are: Lalaji, (lineage to Naqshmumra via Lalaji's brother), (lineage to Ramashram via Dr Paramsant Dr. Chaturbhuj Sahay ji [22]), Babuji [23], and Chariji.[24]

According to India based SRCM (Based in Shahjahanpur, India, registered in India 1945) which is the original group,, [25] It was founded by Babuji, who was also president of the group, then by the founder's son, Umesh Saxena, become president of the group and after his death, by Babuji's grandson (and son of Shri Umesh Saxena), Navneet Kumar, is current president. This faction considers Babuji to be their guru. California group is an offset of this group.

Ownership of The group name, emblem, trade mark and spiritual heritage is claimed by both the group and court case is pending infront of Supreme Court of India. [26]

Philosophy

In Sahaj Marg (California) it is recognized that a living Male Master is indispensable to an adherent's spiritual progress. [27]. According to Sahaj Marg (California), Leader is representative of God, The Ultimate and inner divinity of its member's. The stated goal of the Sahaj Marg practice is complete oneness with divinity (Leader). According to SRCM (California), the Leader not only represents the higher self but is a representative of God [28] and that this God is "male", while nature is "female". [29]

In Sahaj Marg (India) Only one guru is identified (Babuji the founder) and it is stated that a Guru never die's. India based SRCM does not recognize the need for changing guru with time. [30]

According to recent speeches by the leader of the SRCM (California), the adherent is to: First, love the Master. Then meditate, do cleaning, because he says you should do it. I don’t personally believe that meditation can lead us to the goal because, according to the spiritual history of India, there have been people who have meditated thousands of years and they didn’t make it.... “Obedience. (To) create obedience in people.” [31]

The founder, Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur, (Babuji), wrote a book called "Sahaj Marg Philosophy." Chariji, the president of the SRCM (California) faction, in his New Year's address in Jan. 2005, stated: There is no room for philosophy in speeches of Sahaj Marg. In fact, Sahaj Marg has no philosophy. It does not rest on any philosophy. It is neither advaita nor dvaita nor vishishta advaita.[32]

Constant remembrance

Constant remembrance is a Trade Mark registered by California group [33]

• The method for cultivating constant remembrance is to think with firm conviction during your leisure hours, whether at the office or at home, in the street or at the market that the leader is pervading all over and everywhere. The adherent is to try to remain in the same thought as long as he/she can.
• The adherents are to feel connected with the leader every moment with an unbroken chain of thought during all their activities
• According to the SRCM material, retaining the remembrance of the leader at all times engenders in the adherent a deep attachment to the leader, the representative of the divine, and leads to the state in which love for him develops.

The adherent is to think about Chari throughout the day, whereas when thoughts of daily life come, they must ignore them "like a dog barking". According to some, this method causes adherents to become totally isolated from all their responsibilities and the leader's responsibilities becomes the adherents' duty, and the leader thus becomes "responsible" for the adherent's life and death.

On the question if member's can continue with their normal life like to keep the contact with his family, his children, one cult watch group claims that Chari teaches that it is not possible. As for member's if they obey him and fulfill their duty towards him, that take's care of all their responsibilities.[34]

Chari is explicit: It is the error which the people make who imagine that, because they met the Master, they can with abandonment partly continue or old life and also take part in spirituality. They think that they can follow spiritual practices and also remain attached to their customs. It is not at all possible. He says in addition: When we fill our duty towards the Master, all our duty will be accomplished. It deals with the remainder in our interest. It takes even care of your duties for us.[35]

--Shashwat pandey 20:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat, All that you put in is either source or an anti-secte citation. As such, it must be removed per Wiki policy. I have done that here. Please reduce and retain the stub, not add primary source info.

Renee --Renee 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

pls point out any wiki policy which prohibits direct quotation from primary source, also kindly provide any reference from secondary sources which indicates that neutral group cannot be used ? anti-sects is not against SRCM but is a reliable SME relating to cults. hope this clarifirs secondary sources pls feel free to ask me for further clarification's.

What do you say about two Sahaj Marg pages. will that not solve the purpose, both group with their own Sahaj Marg.

--Shashwat pandey 21:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Teachings section will be added now, most of them are direct quotation !!--Shashwat pandey 21:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

teaching section is mainly quotes of the leader, with reference to main topic's concerning humanity and approach of Sahaj Marg towards those issue's like religion, homosextuality, democracy etc. I have tried my best to avide any WP:OR while useing primary sources for quotation's. if i have missed anything pls feel free to correct it.

Now Criticism and responses will be added. --Shashwat pandey 21:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat, You can't use "mainly quotes of the leader" because, as Vassyana pointed out in the text I pasted in previously, this information can be pulled out of context and selectively interpreted. That's why it's not valid. That's why this article was reduced to a stub. Again, I understand you want to get a certain perspective out there, but a blog is the place to do it, not Wiki. I hope you can respect that. Renee --Renee 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion on this page, but it is going on on various user pages ? this indicates something..--Shashwat pandey 22:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what it indicates is the one editor, namely yourself, is not listening to the other editors about the use of primary sources. That's why people are talking to you on your talk page. The other editors get it. IPSOS (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Shashwat, I keep trying to engage you in discussion, but you just ignore everything I say and post what you want. Again, what did you think of Vassyana's explanation of why you can't use primary sources (like "quotes of the leader")? Does this seem reasonable to you? Do you agree this is Wiki policy? Renee --Renee 22:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Great citations

Dear IPSOS, Thanks for your edits. I was so glad to see the secondary citations in newspapers, etc. thanks for your efforts. Renee --Renee 22:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As per discussion

Pls avoide any communication regarding article on user talk pages lets them be here only. I have added two section's Philosophy and Constant Rembrence, there are no unreliable sources nor there is any OR in those two section, if anyone finds it, kindly point it out here !! --Shashwat pandey 22:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You keep wiping out other editors work by reverting. STOP!!! IPSOS (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Request to Renee to stop personal attack

It has become your trend that whenever i do any edit, you go to some admins talk page or report me for vendalism, i am not sure why you have soo much of personal enimity for me, as far as i remember, you claimed that i own this blog [36] and you also refered to comments at last on jossi's talk page which state's, that owner's wife is adultrus and hence he got divorced, link to wikipedia, points to your contrib's. Kindly keep me away from that blog, and do not shead your anger on me pls. comment on my contribution and not the me who is my POV or who i am or what i wish to do. pls restrain yourself to my edits and nothing more. also your discussion on article talk page will be highly appritiated rather then talk pages of various user's. that makes no sense. discussion about article must take place on article talk paga and definatly not user talk page's.--Shashwat pandey 00:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear IPSOS, Jossi, Sethie, Vassyana, Rumiton, and other editors,

I have pleaded with Shashwat to work with me. After fair warning I asked administrators to help. After he repeatedly reverted their edits, I filed AIV, to which he retaliated and filed an AIV against me. (I believe these are the steps to follow when handling disputes, according to Wiki policy.)

Now, he is posting personal attacks on the talk page (as well as on my user page). I would like to request a permanent ban against him for tendentious editing, persistent disruptive editing, persistent edits from primary sources with selectively chosen text to promote a point of view, as well as personal attacks. We were really making progress on this article and the Shri Ram Chandra Mission articles and then today the edit wars started again.

I am unsure as to what process I should take in addition to the above steps? I would like to continue editing on Wikipedia and have faith the community will police such actions.

Thank you, Renee --Renee 00:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. the blog Mr. Pandey refers to above was accessed through a link formerly posted on the Wikipedia page [37]. On this page, Michael refers to "Shashwat Pandey's" blog (see second paragraph and links on the right). This same blog also appears as a direct link on a former Sahaj Marg page (see the end of the Wiki Sahaj Marg page June 26th and previous). If the Wiki user "Shashwat Pandey" is different from the "Shashwat Pandey" blog, my honest mistake and my apologies. The style and syntax of language sound identical to me and I thought he had purposely posted his blog on the page.

Response

Dear IPSOS, Jossi, Sethie, Vassyana, Rumiton, and other editors,

I have pleaded with Shashwat to work with me. After fair warning I asked administrators to help. After he repeatedly reverted their edits, I filed AIV, to which he retaliated and filed an AIV against me. (I believe these are the steps to follow when handling disputes, according to Wiki policy.)

Kindly provide any refrence where you intended to discuss any topic on article talk page, you have always been contacting various admin with sole intention to block me. which is not an act of good faith, nor it indicates a healthy approach to debate.

Now, he is posting personal attacks on the talk page (as well as on my user page). I would like to request a permanent ban against him for tendentious editing, persistent disruptive editing, persistent edits from primary sources with selectively chosen text to promote a point of view, as well as personal attacks. We were really making progress on this article and the Shri Ram Chandra Mission articles and then today the edit wars started again.

I have simply replyed to places where you have tried to defame me with reason (along with diff/links) there is no edit war, i simply added a section in article, after discussion, and asked editor's to point out if there is any OR or any mis-quatation of RS. thats it, there is no revert by me in last 10-15 days.

I am unsure as to what process I should take in addition to the above steps? I would like to continue editing on Wikipedia and have faith the community will police such actions.

You are always welcome to edit wikipedia but not other editor's, if you disagree with some topic, discuss it on article talk page, asking admins to ban a user is not what is intention is any fair debate !!

p.s. the blog Mr. Pandey refers to above was accessed through a link formerly posted on the Wikipedia page [38]. On this page, Michael refers to "Shashwat Pandey's" blog (see second paragraph and links on the right). This same blog also appears as a direct link on a former Sahaj Marg page (see the end of the Wiki Sahaj Marg page June 26th and previous). If the Wiki user "Shashwat Pandey" is different from the "Shashwat Pandey" blog, my honest mistake and my apologies. The style and syntax of language sound identical to me and I thought he had purposely posted his blog on the page.

[39] this is Micheal's blog and it has no refrence to Shashwat Pandey as such, it only uses first name, which happens to be Shashwat, name that i also use here as i like this name. This pre-judgeing of your's claiming that a link give's full name of a user whereas it does not, also clearly indicates that your approach is very much personal rather then edit oriented. This however is not my actual name!!. Here(www DOT orkut DOT com/ Community DOT aspx?cmm=15300853) you can find more then 100 Shashwat's around 40+ Shashwat Pandey for that matter, most of them are against one or the other cult and almost all of them has a blog or other, how can you pinpoint a user on wiki with any blog on internet. without any crdible source of information !! this tentamounts to personal attack and also act in bad faith. If there is any issue with my edits, you can disucss it on talk page, if consensus is not reached, then we can go for mediation process which we accepted and is currently underway, You have demonstrated lack of faith in wiki community by changing the complete article even when mediation process is underway. I simply tried to restore what was there. an encyclopedia is not a place where information can be hidden. whatever is truth must be project here. no false information or manipulated version is acceptable in open forums like wiki.

Thanks for your understanding. !! --Shashwat pandey 01:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to IPSOS

Excellent job editing this Sahaj Marg page IPSOS. For the first time in ages it reads like a high quality Wiki article, complete with proper formatting, references, and further reading. Your work is greatly appreciated. Renee --Renee 03:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Article is now protected for 1 month. Please take the opportunity that the protection affords to attempt and find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Dialogue about WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V and other source issues

Dear Shashwat,

I was wondering if we could take a section that you posted on Saturday and get some neutral outside opinions and explanations about whether or not that type of material posted is within Wiki guidelines. It is entirely possible I don't understand WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, so it would be useful for me too. Since Vassyana is your mediator, I would like to ask for his opinion on these items, and if administrators Jossi, Sfacets, and IPSOS would be willing, that would be great too (or anyone else you want).

Does this sound like a good strategy?

If yes, here's a section you repeatedly posted on Saturday on constant remembrance (I have numbered the paragraphs so they can be easier to reference for discussion):

1. Constant remembrance is a Trade Mark registered by California group [40]

2.The method for cultivating constant remembrance is to think with firm conviction during your leisure hours, whether at the office or at home, in the street or at the market that the leader is pervading all over and everywhere. The adherent is to try to remain in the same thought as long as he/she can.

3.The adherents are to feel connected with the leader every moment with an unbroken chain of thought during all their activities.

4.According to the SRCM material, retaining the remembrance of the leader at all times engenders in the adherent a deep attachment to the leader, the representative of the divine, and leads to the state in which love for him develops.

5.The adherent is to think about Chari throughout the day, whereas when thoughts of daily life come, they must ignore them "like a dog barking". According to some, this method causes adherents to become totally isolated from all their responsibilities and the leader's responsibilities becomes the adherents' duty, and the leader thus becomes "responsible" for the adherent's life and death.

6.On the question if member's can continue with their normal life like to keep the contact with his family, his children, one cult watch group claims that Chari teaches that it is not possible. As for member's if they obey him and fulfill their duty towards him, that take's care of all their responsibilities.[41]

7.Chari is explicit: It is the error which the people make who imagine that, because they met the Master, they can with abandonment partly continue or old life and also take part in spirituality. They think that they can follow spiritual practices and also remain attached to their customs. It is not at all possible. He says in addition: When we fill our duty towards the Master, all our duty will be accomplished. It deals with the remainder in our interest. It takes even care of your duties for us. [42]

My questions for you: Regarding #1, the citation you give for this does not say anywhere that constant remembrance is trademarked. It seems if the citation does not match the claim, the claim must be deleted - yes?

Regarding #2-5, these have no secondary citations and seem to be your understanding of constant remembrance based on your analysis of the literature? To me this seems like original research?

Regarding #6-7, besides the same issues as for #2-5 above of being OR, it also is my understanding that anti-secte sites are not viewed as reliable or verifiable by Wiki because they are (a) partisan websites and derogatory [43], (b) self-published[44](and meet the following Wiki guidelines for non-reliable research -> are contentious, self-serving, involve claims about third parties, and promote a non-neutral point-of-view), (c) are not in English [45], (d) present non-verifiable original research ("The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" [46]).

Other administrators have pointed out as well on this talk page that anti-secte or cult sources are not within Wiki guidelines.["The main problem with this article, besides its length, is that sources used are either self-published or anti-cult sources. As such, the article suffers greatly. We need third-party scholarly sources on the subject. I will do some research and offer sources that interested editors may want to explore. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)]

Dialogue and feedback welcome.

Renee

Hello. The main point is that sources used should be unbiased, even if they cannot be entirely neutral. For example, in writing a biography you would not quote from a book written by an ex-wife (or husband) unless it was for simple facts, dates and places etc. and other non-contentious issues. Similarly in writing about a spiritual or political group, you would not accept information from an indignant ex-member, a member of an opposing organisation, or from a person or other group dedicated to damaging such groups. You would not quote Pope Benedict's opinion of the Dalai Lama, regardless of how worthy the Pope's opinion may be on other subjects.

Also, though it may seem strange, quotes from the organisation or person themselves are generally not permissible. This is because such sources are not professionals, and are generally not writing with a view to the possibility of being quoted out of context, or in a hostile way, perhaps years into the future. Professional researchers are aware of the pitfalls, and guard their statements accordingly. If there is no research available from professional scholars there is no alternative to leaving the article as a stub. Rumiton 12:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

My questions for you: Regarding #1, the citation you give for this does not say anywhere that constant remembrance is trademarked. It seems if the citation does not match the claim, the claim must be deleted - yes?

Kindly refer bottom of the page, in small text, all the trademarks registered are placed, C R is one of them

Regarding #2-5, these have no secondary citations and seem to be your understanding of constant remembrance based on your analysis of the literature? To me this seems like original research?

These are from primary sources from Sahaj Marg site only, now there are two Sahaj Marg, one is California based and other one is India based and both have different approach towards CR, this is the only reason why i had praposed two page's one for Sahaj Marg California and one for Sahaj Marg India. SRCM will ultimatly become one only after court decide's. Hence there is no need for two SRCM page's but there will be two Sahaj Marg for sure, as both the groups will be teaching their own version of Sahaj Marg. Reference for the same has been provided

Regarding #6-7, besides the same issues as for #2-5 above of being OR, it also is my understanding that anti-secte sites are not viewed as reliable or verifiable by Wiki because they are (a) partisan websites and derogatory [47], (b) self-published[48](and meet the following Wiki guidelines for non-reliable research -> are contentious, self-serving, involve claims about third parties, and promote a non-neutral point-of-view), (c) are not in English [49], (d) present non-verifiable original research ("The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" [50]).

I respectfully do not agree with the above reference's because:-

1. It is not Biographies of living persons 2. [51] this clearly say's Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. Now any article has to be based on secondary sources and the anti-secte is a secondary source as it is sourced from newspaper article's and based on government report kindly verify this statement from above link In general, the most reliable sources are books, journals, magazines, and mainstream newspapers; published by university presses or known publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. this will clearly demonstrate that the above link is very much a secondary source as it is not biased against any perticular group but is againts cults in genral!!

3. Non-english pages are very well accepted in english article. I can provide you link for that statement. but after sometime.

Other administrators have pointed out as well on this talk page that anti-secte or cult sources are not within Wiki guidelines.["The main problem with this article, besides its length, is that sources used are either self-published or anti-cult sources. As such, the article suffers greatly. We need third-party scholarly sources on the subject. I will do some research and offer sources that interested editors may want to explore.

Pls provide a diff. As per which policy of wiki does an anti-cult group report is non-acceptable ? in the same line under what condition does a government report not accepted as valid wiki source ? kindly provide a link for the official wiki policy which state's 1. Non-english pages cannot be used (i can provide reverse link soon) 2. Govt. report are not considered as valid wiki source. 3. Newspaper article's are not reliable. 4. Link to a page which has reference only to newspaper report's are not considered as valid wiki input. Lets solve this with discussion, (on this page only !!)--Shashwat pandey 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Undoing of archiving

Heya Renee

Thanks for trying to keep the page clean and tight and Sethie unarchived it for two reasons:

1) Generally only old discussions are archived... there is no hard and fast rule and Sethie doesn't archive that are less then a month old.

2) When you archive, you create a new page, not add to the old one.

peace, Sethie 02:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

oh, sorry, I thought it was by length (it seemed like we had to scroll a long ways). Thanks for fixing it! Renee --Renee 10:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Working Method

All Editor's,

Kindly refer [52] I fail to find any useful contribution from the user regarding content of the article but discussion is only about one perticuler user (mostly on admin's talk page) and that's me. Is there any experienced user who can elaborate more on working method on wikipedia ? as per my understanding, it is more or less content oriented and not contributer oriented.

It will be benefitail for all, to make sure that we keep focus on content's rather then contributer. Which is the very core of wiki policy. I will be proposing a new page here soon. lets discuss that. --Shashwat pandey 14:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see [53]. --Renee 17:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Trademarks

Discussion of trademarks does not belong in this article. It belongs in the articles about the organizations only. That is, you are putting it in the wrong place. IPSOS (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary so far

Hi Folks,

Here seems to be the summary so far of Shashwat's text:

-- Rumiton -- "sources used should be unbiased...Similarly in writing about a spiritual or political group, you would not accept information from an indignant ex-member, a member of an opposing organisation, or from a person or other group dedicated to damaging such groups...quotes from the organisation or person themselves are generally not permissibleItalic text...If there is no research available from professional scholars there is no alternative to leaving the article as a stub..." [italics/bold added]

-- IPSOS -- "Discussion of trademarks does not belong in this article."

-- Shashwat -- "These are from primary sources" and "the above link is very much a secondary source as it is not biased against any perticular group but is againts cults in genral!!"

-- Renee -- anti-secte sites are self-published, non-verifiable, original research.

(Shashwat -- you asked for the sites to prove this and I provided them above, but here they are again: [54] [55] [56]

Analysis of primary source material by an editor is considered original research, i.e., "Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a positionItalic text. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." [57]

-- Vassyana (this originally appeared on Sethie's page but it explains why one himself cannot conduct original analysis with primary sources; analysis or interpretation has to come from secondary sources that have a fact-checking or vetting system, see OR):

Brief explanation. When using only primary sources, it is very difficult to build an article without including original research by drawing conclusions from the information. Secondary sources allow the sourcing of conclusions about primary sources without engaging in original research. A good example of this is the meaning of religious texts. As an example, Jesus says it is better to cut off a hand than to sin. This would be easily presented as Christian scripture encouraging severe self-mutilation if only the primary source (the Bible) was used. However, that is not an accurate presentation and not supposed by reliable secondary sources. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Vassyana 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So it seems in summary that two of us agree sources should not be biased and there should not be text pulled from original sources (three if you include Vassyana). Are you willing to compromise on this Shashwat and propose something shorter, like as stub?

Renee --Renee 17:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I did check the trademark site and saw the reference below. I checked with the organization, and this trademark is for a magazine they publish called "Constant Remembrance," not with the practice of constant remembrance (like the word "Target" is trademarked for the store, but target is not).

Sahaj Marg - the Practice

Regarding the proposal for two Sahaj Marg pages, this makes no sense at all, as the practice of Sahaj Marg is the same across all three groups.

ISRC: http://www.sriramchandra.org/Methods/Methods.htm#Standard%20Meditational%20Practices http://www.sriramchandra.org/About/Isrc.htm#Uniqueness

SRCM-Chennai: http://www.srcm.org/members/meditation.pdf

SRCM-Shah: http://www.srcmshahjahanpur.org.in/sahajmarg.html

Each group does have its own body of literature that is different (though there are core pieces shared across all three).

The "text" that Shashwat is analyzing and extracting information from is all from the SRCM-Chennai, and it is not part of the basic practice. Most of this text is from compilations of speeches given in certain contexts, responses to specific questions by practicants, talks at specific events within a specific contect, etc. To me they appear selectively chosen to promote a certain point-of-view.

It is my understanding that text pulled from primary sources to support claims made by an editor is analysis, and hence, original research. And, I think that Rumiton and Vassyana agreed with that from their comments above.

Clarifications from other editors welcome and appreciated?!

Thanks, Renee --Renee 18:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)