Talk:Shri Ram Chandra Mission
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please do not post above this section or archive it.
 |
This page in a nutshell: SUBJECT TO DELETION: Any and all redundant or repetitive posts, posts addressed to specific Users, which should go on User Talk Pages only and posts in violation of Wikipedia polices in general on this Article Discussion Page. See Talk Page Guidleines and Wikiquette and User Page help. |
| Wikipedia policies |
|---|
| Article standards |
|
Neutral point of view |
| Working with others |
SHRI RAM CHANDRA MISSION Discussion Archives:
/Archive 1 Older and/or content not germane to Article Talk Pages archived here July 19, 2006.
/Archive 2 Older and/or content not germane to Article Talk Pages archived here Dec 3, 2006.
SAHAJ MARG discussion Archives:
Archiving - How, When, and Why
How? See ways to properly Archive.
When? Wikiepdia Guidelines on page length recommend when pages get too long ( over 32 kB, but as rule of thumb, not whenever thsy pass 50kB.
Why? Because some users (Firefox and Google toolbar tabbed browsers) have edit problems and for those with slower connections or PDA mobile browsers -- and frankly, people do not read LONG pages or articles!
ARTICLE Talk Pages and USER talk pages: the DIFF:
The purpose of this Article Talk page, according to Wikipedia: The primary purpose of the Talk Page (also referred to as a /Talk page) is to help to improve the contents of the main page, from an encyclopedic point of view. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page is all fair play. An Article talk page is used in wiki collaboration to talk about ways to improve an article. Topic of Article talk pages exist to discuss Main article and proposal and discuss changes to the Article. Discussion about ways to improve a wiki page can be short and to the point, resulting in changes that are easy to make quickly. At the other extreme, they can drag on for months with no conclusive result.
A User Talk page (See User Talk help page} serves other purposes. For those who want to edit this discussion page and/or the Main Article, it is suggested that you open a User Page and write a short bio so we may know who you are (no name needed). Also by clicking on the User name of the Editor with a User Page, you can see some information on that User. For example, My talk page with a short bio is here and my Talk Page for Don is here. --Don Two further notes:
- 1. Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. (See an example of User Talk Page. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a free host, webspace provider, or social networking site. Instead, think of it as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they're working.
- 2. For Dispute resolutions, Wikipedia recommends this: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will rarely help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia. User talk pages are also recommended as the FIRST STEP users address personal notes to each other at the user talk pages. For example, in addition to addressing Sakha on anything, you can put whatever you like or do NOT like about at Sakha's posts in particular here at his talk page.
BE BOLD Policy
The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the language is precise, and so on. We expect everyone to be bold. It's okay. It is what everyone expects. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit the article — it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see.
FFR: What it Means and How it applies to Wikipedia NPOV Enclyclopedia-style articles
FFR is an acrononym for
- FACTUAL - Researched from direct sources, if possible, not 2nd or 3rd hand repetitions, not interpolations, or original writing
- FAIR - not lifted from context but truly representative
- RELEVANT - no side issues, personal philosophy, personsal attacks, etc).
Please let us keep the discussion to the Article and what should be in it. For those who want to promote Sahaj Marg, proposals can be made to the Shri Ram Chandra Mission at their site or in writing. For more in depth debate on the values of Sahaj Marg (spiritually and socially), please visit the many blogs on the WEB.
These are some:
- Inner Circle of SRCM-Eng
- Poxy SRCM
- The Desperate abhyasi web-site- Fr & Eng
- Mielk - A French Analysis- Fr. & Eng
- Le Shri Ram Chandra Mission Verolee-Fr
- Poxy SRCM
- SRCM=Danger Fr
- Le Sahaj Marg a Detruit Ma Famille
- Une analyse anthropologique
- Power to Speak
Let's keep this discussion on the "encyclopedic" value of the information presented. Sahaj Marg and its proponents make certain claims and there are others who make different claims. We can accomodate all or most if we try.
WIKIPEDIA POLICY
| Wikipedia policies |
|---|
| Article standards |
|
Neutral point of view |
| Working with others |
According to Wikipedia Policy, We can all question:
NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW (NPOV). If we who want all the information on Sahaj Marg to come out are not "neutral" then adherents to Sahaj Marg who are attempting, as they are asked, to be: "living dead", serfs, obedient to the point of "killing", not responsible for their lives and deaths, according to the Sahaj Marg material, can certainly be thought of as "not neutral" also!!
INCLUDE ONLY VERIFIABLE INFORMATION Statements of "GOD REALIZED" or that Sahaj Marg will make one "divine", or in touch with the "Divine" and many other such statements are "NOT VERIFIABLE". The only adherent to this system who has been verified by a panel of "arms length" members is Lalaji according to instructions by his Master. The panel stated that: Lalaji was a copy of his Master". So Lalaji can be said to be a copy of his Master and that statement is "verified" by an "arms length" panel. All the other statements of attainment through the Sahaj Marg meditation with a Master are "NOT VERIFIABLE"
NO ORIGINAL RESEARCHThis policy states only that published material should be from reputable Peer Review Journals and other such credible publishing houses. Of course, there are no verification body for "spirituality". Maybe: By their fruit you will know them, as attributed to Christ as quoted in the Bible. Publishing is now done on-line and many such on-line publishers are not necessarily credible. So if one source is questionned, then the other should also be. One authority, ie a published book, is not any more credible that another authority ie a published blog or on-line newspaper or on-line book.
AUTHORITY is what adherents to HOLY BOOKS (SOMETIMES EVEN WRITTEN BY THEMSELVES) want to claim, but as we all know, the claims made in HOLY BOOKS are not necessarily the TRUTH, but can be included in an Encyclopedia as "claims" or "Quotes", and as "fair use". Is is not because one claims to "represent God", or be the "special personality" that it is necessarily the TRUTH. And the claims of Sahaj Marg bringing one to the Divine or that the Master of Sahaj Marg is "divine" is also not necessarily the "concensual" truth and should only be added in an encyclopedia as a "claim" or a "quote".
[edit] Post below this point
Hi all...
Thank you for posting below this point...
--don 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] THE HOMOPHOBIA ISSUE - LETS DEAL WITH IT
This was my original post -
First of all, let me introduce myself. I am a 30 year old gay male who is also an abhyasi, though I use that term loosely. When I was about 21, I entered a wonderful 3 year long relationship with another male abhyasi, and this was obviously something we kept from anyone, considering the rampant homophobia in the Mission (this is a fact, lets face it).
However, things were going fine, when a female abhyasi who fancied my partner went directly to Master and said that she wanted to marry him, and Chariji without a word called my partner (we were in Chennai at the time) and instructed him to do the divine thing and marry the girl. He knew that the two of us were together of course, though he never addressed this to us.
The breakdown of life after that was immediate. The horror of it is something I will never want to relive and was the darkest period of life for me. When someone you love is 'instructed' by their guru to get married to someone they have no interest in, then you can only imagine not just the pain but also the confusion. However, my partner was so stressed out and had a family to protect (his mom and kid brother were also abhyasis) so he mindlessly went ahead and got married to the girl. I left India a few days prior unable to handle the stress.
Tell me all of you, does any of the above strike you as divine? To me, being a gay person is totally normal and part of who I am. I have no confusion about it. However, Chari did not approve and therefore I am single to this day and the one I love is in a marriage he wants out of. I haven't met him in five years and miss him every waking hour.
So, for those of you who defend Chari to the core, understand that Sahaj Marg is tolerant on its own terms. It has no respect for your individual rights or freedom. That may be fine in a spiritual sense, but considering the ruination of my life and the lead to absolute Godlessness in my life due to Chari's anti-gay stance, it just does not work.
Clark, we need to talk.
K
I cannot name these abhyasis obviously, nor do I want to point fingers at people though I must say, especially to people like Vivekdurai who seems articulate yet a little deranged, WAKE UP. There is no ONE SYSTEM. Find your own God within you, and if you look to someone other than yourself to tell you who your God is, you are in trouble.
That said, SRCM clearly violates many aspects of the UN Charter - however, expect the institution to flourish. There is one soul, Patrick Fleury, a member of the Mission and many other such preceptors, who have no qualms about flaunting their 'powers' or 'influence'. I wish these people much love and luck, and thanks for the memories!!
Let us discuss the SRCM policy on same sex issues. This has been a personal problem for me from day one in the Mission which is why I no longer actively practice.
61.14.10.196 13:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Kay
http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_headline.png Level 2 headline
[edit] Reply to Kay...
Hi Kay..
Thanks for re-posting your message above...I have been trying to keep your point on the "Homosexuality" issue and as you notice, the "talk page" discussion and testimonials does not seem to satisfy one person who asked for "citation needed"...That could get rid of the other statement by "defenders" of the Mission also. So we would be left with the "speech" content. Unless we can find a statement in a "newspaper", a book or such "source" material that is acceptable to all. As per Wiki rules, uncited statements are not "protected".
I think that would be sufficient as an encyclopedia article .... If you have other suggestions, let me know....
I appreciate your courage and your input...
You can find much discussion about the UN Charter issue on the Blogs mentionned above, I will attempt to stick to the "encyclopedia" article here and not get into the "value" of Sahaj Marg as a "spiritual" path...
Don--don 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] To Shashwat pandey
Hi Shashwat pandey
Thanks for you input...anticipating your kind permission, I have rephrased your input with corrections in grammar, sentence and "subjectivity" (POV-point of view) so as to make it "encyclopedic" (as in a "dictionary") which is the rule at Wikipedia...
If you have any concerns or more changes, could we discuss them in the "discussion" page and then post to the article.
I hope you will agree with the "process" and that we can work together on this...
Thanks for your understanding...
P.S. Check the editing tools at the top of the "editing" page. There is a "signature tool" with a date ...(it is icon # 10 from the left)....the "Large A" gives your message a place in the "contents" at the top of the "discussion" section of the page....
Don --don 03:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to 84.222.133.32
Hi 84.222.133.32
This is the last request for money with a specific purpose, a gift for the Master... So please do not state that the money collected is to assist others without proof. I have worked in the "charitable" sector and know how pools of money, once established, can be used to fund all sorts of "administrative" functions such as travel, lodging, conferences, etc...Chari has reprimanded the French SRCM for charging his "entourage" for attendance to seminars. Does this mean that the entourage is to attend the conferences "free of charge" or at the cost of the "general membership"?
As neither you or I know of the income and salaries of the Master, the houses for the Master and the income of the Master should be references from Financial documents before being stated in the article.
Here is the full post on the Desperate Abhyasi blog in Europe: (I translated the comments from French using Babelfish)
'Christian said...
Dear Sister / Brother:
“MASTER’S 81st BIRTHDAY GIFT”We have to announce, with Rev. Master’s permission of course something [read well the intro, bacause we don't know more at the end] He is going to offer to us on His 81st birthday which falls on the 24th of July, 2007.
A project is being developed and executed to give to all of us abhyasis.
"Master's 81st Birthday Gift" which will be available to all who wish [to pay 1200$] it on His 81st birthday at Tiruppur, India [first information]. In case you think this is our gift to the Master, please disabuse yourself of this thought, for it is His gift to us, which He assures us we can use again and again throughout our life. For the moment, that is all we are permitted to say, except that donors who donate USD 1,200 to the Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation will be the first recipients Please complete the attached SMSF (India) - Corpus Donation Form and include it with the donation remittance-
You may learn more about the Birthday Celebrations on the Mission’s web site End of request for money for the Master's "birthday"
The section is under the heading "TEACHINGS FROM THE SAHAJ MARG MATERIAL". The Chapter on "donations" is taken from the Salient Point of Sahaj Marg Series 3. If you add something to that, please state your status as an authority of Sahaj Marg and/or reference your statements to Chari, Babuji or an other authority. You have added your bias to the article with unproven and un-references statements. Discuss the issue here and then we can change it together.
On Homosexuality...read the statement above from a "ex-abhyasi". Because there is "one last gay" left in SRCM does not mean that now Chari thinks Homosexuality is "natural". The statement of the Master, the person with authority, is the standard. The pressure on Homosexuals to change or leave is written by the Master, not by the "serfs"... The "Natural" path should be "NATURAL", as in Nature where there is "homosexual" activity in at least 450 species of animals, according to current science. In sociology, there being a few Jews, gypsies, (or other targeted group) left in (pre-war) Germany does not mean that the Nazis did not persecute the Jews...You will have to prove that the (unsubstantiated) "Gays" in Sahaj Marg are not "pressured" by the statements of the Master...That could prove "interesting" to say the least. Maybe the Master should withdraw his statement.
We have already gone through that issue many times with similar "unsubstantiated" statement from other abhyasis. If there are no references to credible sources, then the statement from Chari is the standard for SRCM unless he has "recanted" his statement somewhere since...Please offer a statement from Chari that Homosexuality is not "un-natural", and we can add that in the article and that will end the debate and we can take it out of the "TEACHINGS" of the Masters of Sahaj Marg.
4d-don
-
- Could we please begin to source the material in this article? Right now it is mostly unverifiable by other editors. -Will Beback · † · 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to Will be Back
Hi Will be back...
I have sourced and referenced all or most of the material I edited. What is not referenced is the material that were entered by others (abhyasis) and that I finally left in so as to not debate the issues ad infinitum. If you want some specific reference without reading all the books and material I have read, I can research it in the books and speeches that are listed in the References. In some of the books, I already have the pages in my files and can add them in for the edits I entered...
For other "POV" and for much of the un-referenced material, the editors who made the entries made a few edits and then "left" and I just left them in. I can remove them if it is a problem for anyone although I generally do not take umbrage to most of them. They are not of major significance in the general teachings and general character of the Mission. The words in the books and the speeches are more "instructions" and those are the ones I entered.
The edits by un-authorized and un-read adherents, I cannot reference...I can remove them and then debate the issue with the editors (adherents). You will notice that most statements by 84.222.133.32 are POV and not verifiable but I have left some of them in and placed them in the "activities" section exept for the pension and salary of Chari which is just "not acceptable" without some financial documents, which I suspect the editor does not have as I have attempted to get them myself over the years.
Thanks for your input... Information sets us Free...
Don --don 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Message to Shashwat Pandey
Hi Shashwat...
I corrected your spelling in the activites and removed your "note" on Raja Yoga (Yama) after researching in these sites...If you have a reference that confirms your statement, please make it available to me...In future, please state your references so that other editors may check your statements easily.
http://www.yogavision.in/articles/displayarticle.aspx?id=334 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja_yoga
Your post said:
Note:- According to the first principle of Raja Yoga (YAM) accepting donations/gifts etc is prohibitted.
Thanks for your input...
The truth will set us free...
Don--don 17:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Message to Don
Kindly check this refrence, The first step of Raja Yoga is Yama which means self restrain, and it includes not accepting any gift or donation, kindly refer to "Complete works of Swami Vivekananda" Vol.1 Raja Yoga Chapter -2 "The first step" the first line of this chapter itself says the accepting of gifts etc is against the teachings of Raja Yoga. See this link
http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_1/vol_1_frame.htm
Regards Shashwat
[edit] Reply to Shashwat
Hi Shashwat...
Nice work...
I will put it in the Teachings (First paragraph). You will notice that many other points such as the "austerities" (tapas) have also been removed from the Sahaj Marg practice and is specifically mentionned in their Public Relations material as a "selling point". Some claim that these two items are what kept Raja Yoga ( octave or eightfold path) a "caring, charitable, compassionate and loving" path rather than a "self-serving", un-caring, divisive, and accumulative business of Spirituality. But these are "POV" or Points of View and we can only put them in with "references" to other sources than "ourselves"...
Keep up the Good work...Information will set "ALL" FREE!!(Those who want to be free)
4d-don
[edit] Reply to Don
Hi Don kindly see this link
http://www.geocities.com/sha211_211/teachings.html
here i have proved that SRCM and its teachings are no-where related to what is called as Raja Yoga, they are just fooling people in the name of this absolute truth. Raja Yoga was proposed by Patanjali about 8000 yrs back and till date there are no addition or subtraction in this method, as this is the ultimate path, this path is realized by an enlighten person who was absolutely unselfish, and this is so accurate that no-one including SV RK Christ Buddha or anyone could add or subtract from this. All of the enlighten people have only said what was discovered by patanjali, this was present before patanjali and will be present even if all of humanity forgets it, like gravity, when people did not know it was present Newton just discovered it, same way this method was also discovered by patanjali, now selfish people are trying to claim it, but these fool don't understand they cannot invent truth, they are just fulfilling their selfish motive by fooling people, for those who seek to know the truth must realize this fact, a thousand fakes cannot deny one truth, also no-one can imitate nothing, there has to be one truth which can be found by the various Yoga as proposed by real enlighten people, for those who are in family life must follow teachings of Karma Yoga, and for those who are not involved in family can follow Raja Yoga, or Dhyan Yoga or Bhakti Yoga, No-one while living in a family taking everything possible from family and society should get involved in any such group, if one is taking from family it must be returned to the same object from where it is taken, no-one should go on taking love, comfort, all material needs etc from family and declare that they love Master and have surrendered to the mission and method, this is foolishness of highest degree, what is the need of loving a Master when you have a loving soul as your partner? There is no need to work for mission or method when you have family children and society to work for, we have taken so mush from these things and are not returning only because we have been fooled, all those who have started a group or an organization are just fooling people. We must be aware of these cults. Kindly read below as how SRCM is against Raja Yoga also as knowledge of what actually Raja Yoga is must be understood by all those who seek it. Like there is no modification in what gravity is similarly there cannot be modification of the truth.
Below is the abstract of what is said in that link.
This is the biggest lie of the system, it is no-where related to Raja Yoga which simply teaches meditate on the object that appeals you, here master is first made the object, replacing spouse, to be specific as most natural love is for the spouse and immediate family members, that is replaced by a living male master, women?s whose hearts are naturally soft and accepts only one man, are also told to accept master in their hearts, replacing husbands, thereby killing their family life.
Raja Yoga on the other hand is the most scientifically developed method of controlling the mind and there by achieving the goal of life while reaming in the world of Maya, the methods of SRCM is based on heart to heart transformation, which is a Sufi concept, and has nothing to do with the Veda's as such, not going into details of religion. The perfection and spiritual growth is again made a subjective phenomenon, and is compared amongst the adherents and with that of the master, Which in any concept of philosophy can easily be termed as stupid approach.
Raja Yoga as proposed by Patanjali about 8000 yrs ago in India, is a step by step method of attaining the highest elevation possible for human beings that is union with Bramh. it follows the eight steps namely:-
1. Yam:- Truthfulness non- taking of gifts, chastity (absent in SRCM)
2. Niyam:- Tapas, study(Veda) purity and fasting (absent in SRCM)
3. Asana:- various body postures (absent in SRCM)
4. Pratyahar:- non-attachment while fulfilling the duty of love.(absent in SRCM)
5. Pranayam:- Controlling the prana, which is essence of life, it can be controlled by controlling the breathing, the force which causes the lungs to move is prana, by controlling the breath we inturn control the prana i.e essence of life.(absent in SRCM)
6. Dhyan:- focusing the mind to any object (it can be an imaginary god, wife husband, father mother anyone). (absent in SRCM)
7.Dharana:- Focus on body, any part of body will do, mind is the best option because mind is the subject of meditation as well as object, thereby you are meditating on oneness, which is the only truth.(adavita)(absent in SRCM)
8.Samdhi:- enlightenment, when ether becomes one, love, lover and beloved become one.(beyond reach of SRCM)
Regards
Shashwat
[edit] Reply to Shashwat
Hi Shashwat..
Thanks for that clarification and your input...And thanks for using the discussion page... I will leave it here for all to see and read...
The truth will set us free...
4d-don...
[edit] Reply to Don
Also if you see the limbs of Yama they include Aprigrahan which means non-covetousness (Oxford dictionary definition of "covetousness" is "inordinately or wrongly desirous of wealth or possessions") But in SRCM we find that they want people to donate and buy book CD and attain functions etc, they are only the means to collect money and more money. To any sane person visiting a gathering to celebrate some-one birthday after paying, makes no sense, hence we see that mind control technique is also utilized in SRCM, so that people do not realize what they are subjected to, this is exerted in form of peer pressure, (called preceptor’s in SRCM terminology) No organization which is working for the development of people will apply mental pressure to make money for itself. kindly see definition of "cult" type organization to get more information on these topics.
Regards
Shashwat
[edit] Comments to Marathi
Hi Marathi Mulga
I believe you, and good for you that you benefited from SM and Chari.
To retain "charitable" status, non-profit organizations must show some "charity" work and most do. Having worked in the Charitable sector, I can also assert quite confidently, that the total of money gathered under the name of "donations" is not used for charity and that there are always opportunists who also benefit from any "pool of money", even in the churches and the Charities. And the questionnable morality of tactics of some charities, such as placing the word "donation" on meal receipts or other purchase or service receipts are sometime used. So the testimonial of one person does not prove or disprove anything without financial documents. They are only POV and "anecdotal". We can only decide on the "charitable" status of a "society" with the financial report.
Usually, where there is controversy in charities it is in the realm of "expenses" (free food, free services, travel, lodging, etc..) covered for the "management team" or for the "insiders" and not for the "general membership" exept for a few "tokens" so as to keep the "charitable" status.
Wether this is in accord with Raja Yoga is another matter. Shashwat has shown with references that Raja Yoga, at least some Raja Yoga, does not allow the taking of gifts. So Sahaj Marg should be specific as to which "branch" of Raja Yoga it is a "remodelling".
Don --don 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
== Reply to Marathi ==
Tnx for the mail, i sincerely hope that u will also ultimately realize ur true nature in coming time, we all have infinite life's before us and there is no harm in trying out different methods. I do not expect any intellectual discussion from any member of SRCM as intelligence is the first thing that is destroyed in SRCM and people are converted into unthinking masses same as animals, therefore question of any intellectual debate does not arise in case of SRCM, as evidence u can see response on my orkut scraps all have stated that they cannot discuss SRCM, because they really cannot.
Practice has nothing to do with Patanjali what he stated in form of 198 words not more not less SRCM has nothing to do with that, since Raja Yoga is the most accurate method of realization therefore this name is used as a selling point, don’t u think u must know what is Raja Yoga in case some-one is selling their version of Raja Yoga? Once u know what RY is u will immediately renounce SRCM, as it is just fooling u in by using the name of RY, but they do not allow anyone else to use sahaj marg they even file court cases to prove that sahaj marg is invented by them and use name of Raja Yoga freely, this is another deception, I hope u will realize this truth soon,
unfortunately u think that u found love in this organization can u inform urself why u could not find same love in ur family? Or in ur society? Are those people bad ? u r made to understand that u can find love only in this organization and this is a tool to keep people stuck to this group. Incase u find love in ur family u need no organization to love, this is another deception, u have developed a new relation as Abhyasi, and lost contact with the Son, Husband, Father, brother or friend, this is very painful to those who expect complete u, what being an abhyasi u have gained only u can find, u will find all that u r looking for is already in ur own home all bliss is there at the feet’s of ur parents, but since u r told that bliss is not there but in organization hence u r saying so, only if u could have seen that bliss in ur home u would not have needed any organization as such. U have received nothing from anyone, u already have everything, u r just fooled that anyone can give u something, don’t be a fool and realize ur true nature, u need no-one, just those souls around you are enough to make u understand who u r. no Chari can help as much as ur spouse can, understand this.
Who paid for ur travel ? did u reach manipakkam for free?
I will be surprised incase u tell me that u have no books or CD or anything like that. Incase u visited Raipur didn’t u paid 300 Rs ? what are these for? Why do u need to go to ashram when u already have a ashram in ur home, all people there are God more u go outwards more away u will be moving from urself, and there is no gain but only loss these functions are just advertisement stunts to promote SRCM, why don’t u feel the celebration with ur family? Why u run here and there searching for bliss when it is there right in ur heart? What good can u get by ignoring ur self? Iif pressure is not applied then why people are made to understand that mission needs growth? Why? If it was possible that any good could have been done to the world do u thing world today could have been in this shape? Do u think there have been no good people in past? Why is it that people kill people even today? Why there is cheating why is there deception have enlightened people not visited earth before? Those who have, have stated clearly that there is no cure to the pain of this world, pain and pleasure are basically same object just manifested at various degree, world will move on no-matter what, nothing will cure this world all will pay price of their deeds as SRCM is paying currently. U r just fooled nothing more then that and here u have an opportunity to become free and feel the bliss of freedom, no slavery can help, only freedom will make u understand ur true nature and not slavery.
What is the need of a family within a family? This is clear at the beginning, u r first made to understand that SRCM is something like a family and u must contribute to its growth, why u don’t contribute to growth of ur own family? Why u need a family other then what Lord has offered you? Don’t u see the deception here? Don’t u see the mind controlling tactics applied here? Don’t u already have a family that u are induced into another family? Is this not a cultic behavior ? Understand this dear, and make urself free.
Yours in the lord
Shashwat
[edit] To Shashwat...
I guess you know that when editors (journeyers, searchers and re-searchers)come to any site on Wiki, most have an "agenda". Some are religious, some are nationalist, and some are just plain into "money" and power as in the Tourism Industry and the Chambers of Commerce who organize "Promotion" Projects for their "sectors" who will then develop markets for the "Mother" or "Father" country.
Not too many come here with a NPOV and just want to "have logical and verifiable" proof of anything. Most are here for a "pryor" reason. And they will mostly always use the "I have a freind"...line. so I'm NPOV and an "outsider" or "at arms length".
I will post the link the site of the result of our reasearch on "SRCM/Sufi" and even the historical background of the different times...Most of the facts are verifiable with proper references...and there are still a few "probables" and "uncertainties" around dates but we are at the first draft and will get some comments others, including from the Sufi community...soon I hope...I am translating the material now... But it is a great work for this specific "branh" of Sufism and the placing of SRCMtm in that lineage. It will answer a lot of questions on the "origins of the teachings" (Raja Yoga, Sufi, as well as the "historical context"...Most of which I'm sure you (and other readers) already know.
Safely tucked inside the ONE (What some call God but I see as a Principle, a Dynamism) where we live!!
4d-don--don 00:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Small Change...
Hi Shashwat...
I have re-place the "Islam" edit with the "Lalaji's Naqshbandi Sufi Lineage (from Islam)" where it was originally and removed it from the "Lineage of Shri Ram Chandra Mission"... That makes it more accurate I think...That research paper is on my blog and can be read at any time for a full understanding of the Sufi lineage and the SRCMtm in that lineage...
Your comments ... if you think it should just be "removed" all together... We can wait for comments from the Sufi community and Mr. Gupta...
Don--don 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] looks fine
This seems more accurate, since we do not know when and how SRCM took a u turn from Islam (Sufi concept) to Hinduism (Raja Yoga) that should also be a point worth mentioning here, from discussion on other platforms it seems originally SRCM was a hardcore Islamic concept, as it is stated somewhere about lalaji's urge to convert to Islam, also reason's as why that was not officially decleared? if a person wants to convert to Islam, if his/her faith has changed then why it was not decleared officially? i believe this point should also be explored and presented to readers, as originator's faith was already in rasul-allah, the when why and how did his hardcore deciple's decided to switch the concept to hindu concept, or when and how this concept was decleared as related to Raja Yoga, these things should be discussed as to bring out clear picture, about this group.
Regards
Shashwat
[edit] Research Paper on the Sufi link to SRCMtm
Hi Shashwat...
I just finished the first draft of the translation the above-mentionned "Research Paper", and it is on my blog for comments and final edits...I am not posting my blog here so as not to "commercialize" my POV but you can read it for your info...I don't want too many comments before we get comments from the Sufi community (that have started coming in)...
On another point, the first mention of "Sahaj Marg being a "modified" Raja Yoga" seems to be one attributed to Dr Varadachari, a professor of Philosophy. You will notice that the "Lalaji/Huzur Couple", in the research paper were trying to "hindu-ize" the teachings of Sufism by referencing to "vedas" and other Hindu scriptures and to Hindu Saints rather than Islam and Muslim Saints. The "forcing" of Sahaj Marg into "Raja Yoga" (square peg into a round hole) could be an example of that process. I think (POV)it could be called a "very, very, very modified" Raja Yoga (lol) to the point the it can be debated (and supported by logic) that SRCMtm is not a Raja Yoga at all even though the SRCM at Varadachari's time (1950's) may have been. It was certainly smaller, constituting of a few hundred members.
Keeping in mind that Sahaj Marg was only formed in 1945 although Lalaji died in 1932 so 13 years of Babuji "meditating" by himself or with other "groups".
Then he is appointed (according to him) as "successor to Lalaji" (as mentionned on SMRTI) in a dream by "his dream-character", even though Lalaji's teachings are in many corners of India by his "legitimate" successors. There is mention of him keeping in touch with Dr Chatterbuy and the Ramashram (for Ram Chandra of Fatehgarh Lalaji).
I am starting to work on the period from 1932 (Lalaji's death)to 1945 (Babuji founds SRCM)(13 years). He is now called "Ram Chandra"...Christian is still going through the "autobiography of Babuji" and I will translate his "quotes" as they come up on his or Elodie's blog......SP Srivastava (Interim President of SRCM after Babuji's death before Umesh Saxena (Babuji's son))", has a book coming out soon that should enlighten the "true seekers" for truth. The followers by "blind faith" will not even read it, any more than they read the other material. And even if they read it, they won't believe it. Such is the state of the Mind of the adherents by "blind faith".
Information will set us Free...(yet....soon)
4d-don...
[edit] To 203.196.250.155
Your statement "yet none claimed due to respect to their guru, but enhanced the mission" is ambiguous (who did not claim? references?) and not correct according to the information on the sites of those groups, and has been removed. See the Web site of the various groups and individuals mentionned, Ramashram, etc.. and you will see that the lineage to Lalaji and the Naqashbandiyya Order, include the Masters (Gurus) of those groups. They thus claim "lineage", according to their sites... If you have any "references" that prove your statement, it will be put back in. Remember, according to Wiki, no original research and statements must refer to "credible" sources.
Jeanne--J.d'arc 20:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ALERT ALERT ALERT Accusation by Babuji..
New site by Navneet Kumar, Grandson of Babuji
New OFFICIAL SRCM site...Accusation of Murder! New OFFICIAL SRCM site...Accusation of Murder!
Hi all...This is from 4d-don Site...
Sahaj Marg! Accusations of Forgery and Murder!
ALERT...ALERT...ALERT...
Hi all involved with Sahaj Marg and Shri Ram Chandra Mission!
Accusations of Forgery and Murder with documents and legal adviser's statements...
See the new Official Site of SRCMtm: (do not miss these two sections as the site is not complete yet)... http://www.srcmshahjahanpur.org.in/default.html
Legal adviser's statements: http://www.srcmshahjahanpur.org.in/who_can_be.html
Documents, letters, etc.. http://www.srcmshahjahanpur.org.in/facts.html
Information will set us free...We won't be fooled again!!
Safely Tucked inside the ONE (God) where we live!!
Please make copies of all information that could be lost or disappear in the next few weeks!!...
4d-don--don 04:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Message for owner of http://tyakapil.googlepages.com/home
Your page provides no information about this group nor does it gives any input to reader's about the contents of your page. Kindly discuss here before you put your link again in section of blogs of de-associate's and questioning.
--Jhonsmith1234 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Court Case
Comments regarding court case filed in france about SRCM reported as cult in french govt. report has been removed as there is no authentic refrence to verify the said statement, if any such statement is to be added it must provided a link to copy of the judgement as what was said in the judgement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jhonsmith1234 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Reply to Jhonsmith1234
Hi Jhonsmith1234...
Agreed...The pattern is to put the "Citation needed" Template:Fact..and date where references are needed, and leaving it for a few weeeks for the references or citations to be inserted by the poster...any statement with "citation needed can be "deleted" after a few weeks....
Thanks...
4d-don--don 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Message for 84.220.247.119
Hi,
You had removed the information from the front page which provided a refrence as where current master has been accused of murdering the privious master of the this group. Information like these is must know, for all those who seak information about this group, we are not here to present a good or bad picture, we should try and bring out facts as is. The Saxsena Family is of the view that Babuji has been murdered by Mr Chari, hence it is must for all to know what are the view's of Original SRCM owners.
If you don't feel comfertable with any topic, you are free to discuss those topics here or on any of the websites listed above, kindly do not remove any relevent information from the page before discussing it here.
--Jhonsmith1234 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Message to jhonsmith1234
Hi John...
I may have inadvertently cancelled some of your edits when I re-edited Einsteins's changes...Sorrry...
Einstein...before making changes, discuss them here so we can get "all" of our information without "eliminating" other's POV so that the sum total of the article will represent all the POV and will thus be more balanced...If not, we are just un-doing each other's edits...
The truth is not "uni-dimensional"...Others have "information" that should be included in an "encyclopedia" that is WIKI...We can accomodate all POV's if we put our "SPIRIT" into it... (please sign your message using icon #10 at the top of the window... Use Icon #5 (A) to include you message in the INDEX (or use two of the (=) symbol in from and two in back of the "addressee")
--don 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)4d-Don...
[edit] Message for 4d-Don and others
Dear Mr. (4d-)Don, Here I am as you suggested, to discuss! Sir, I saw your Wiki-profile, and i am telling you very honestly, that i respect you a lot. All the awards you got and the language you use in writing are really very impressive. And now that you want to reach to a solution to the "edit-war" is again something really nice.
Please see the editions i made, and tell me which of those editions are acceptable to you (others' reactions are also welcome) and which are not. I will be happy for those which are acceptable, and I shall explain those which are not.
Thanks a lot.
The einstein 21:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to The Einstein...
Hi The Einstein...
Thanks for the discussion....
It would be more effective to discuss one section at a time rather than get into editing the full article at one time... Keep in mind that there is a dispute about the "succession" in the courts... so references are very important...
Many (but not all) of the "controversial" edits were done by supporters of one group, the SRCMtm (Shahjahanpur), which is presently in court with the Chari group of the SRCMtm (California) about the successorship of the SRCM. It is seems to me that you are with the Chari group and as such see the truth from that angle...(correct me if I'm wrong)...The other group sees it from their angle...All can be included in the spirit of "concensus" and harmony in the "SPIRITUAL" sector.
Without removing other's "claims" to the successorship of the Society, you can make your own group's (Chari) claims. We should be able to accomodate every aspect of the truth without "attacking" or "removing" the other' s truth such as in an "encyclopedia" that presents many facets of an issue by proponents of one or others aspects of the "story"...
The story should not necessarily be a "PR" for either side but all sides should get their "word" out if this "WIKI" encyclopedia works.
Thanks for your understanding and your attempt at "concensus" and harmony in these "controversial times"...
The truth will set us free and we will not "hide", or eliminate any part of the truth, even the truth of our "opposite"...
The words spoken "truthfully" should be "referenced" to someone in authority in the "society" or from an authority in some aspect of the topic at large (insiders, directors, administration, PR, researchers, etc..)....No personal opinions (in the article) or sentences in any "person" beside the "3rd" person...presented in a "neutral" point of view and not necessarily "one's own view"....
4d-don--don 23:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Message from Daniel (lonesomecowboybill) aka 216.165.52.187
The line, "The family of the founder of this group claims that current Master of California based SRCM is not of divine essence, and they have also accused him of murdering the previous Master of the same lineage. (see answer to question 3 in the link)" is not of encyclopedic quality. It will be deleted if you cannot come to some other solution. The link provided is of the party involved, and therefore in no way a proper citation. Perhaps if a new page was developed on the feud between the two groups, this would be appropriate content. At the moment it is unacceptable.
This whole page deserves to be deleted, realistically. Perhaps someone should divide the page into two separate entries, one for each of the divided factions. Does anyone have a problem with this solution?
Daniellonesomecowboybill 03:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to Daniel (lonesomecowboybill) aka 216.165.52.187
Hi Daniel..
Thanks for your comment.
I at first agreed with you on the statement and asked for references and they showed me that this matter was before the courts (Supreme Court of India) and the accusations were "public" for all to see so is not a rumour or something that can be "hidden". Please read the documents (6) at the SRCM (Shahjahanpur" site at:
http://www.srcmshahjahanpur.org.in/facts.html
and then the accusation...by legal adviser... http://www.srcmshahjahanpur.org.in/who_can_be.html
These are documents that are before the courts and as such constitute a "legitimate" encyclopedic entry as it is now "history". Once the judgement is in, it will be recorded as such and the matter will then be relegated to "history" for all to see.
I have suggested the "partition" of the article but then the "encyclopedic" value is lost according to some WIKI-ans. There are no such "partitions" in an encyclopedia. According to WIKI, the journalistic approach of "referencing" all statements to "individuals" that are at arm's length to the editor and a "knowledgeable" person on the topic is the one recommended.
You rephrase that statement for me in a way that would be acceptable to you and yet not lose the "significance" of the statement to the editor who entered it? The statement seems attributed to "Navneet Kumar" I presume as Umesh is deceased and his wife and mother are not making statements. Is it the "divine essence" or the "murder" statement that you take umbrage with? The "murder" statement is supported by documents and is now in Supreme Court. The "Divine essence" is certainly not NPOV and can be "rephrased".
I can't see how we can partition the articles to suit everyone. The Sahaj Marg Philosophy page was such an attempt as Chari's speeches (and books) seemed to be developing a philosophy (or no philosophy according to him) that is different from Babuji and Lalaji and their books. It was an attempt by an "abhyasi" and I encouraged him to do so. Unfortunately it became too time consuming for him and he just left and I was left with one more page to "edit" and correct the grammar, syntax, content, references etc...
It seems that content can't be protected on WIKI and unless there is someone who is willing to spend a lot of time "defending" the site, it is open to endless edits of varying quality...the best way is to reach concensus and "defend" one anothers "POV", without necessarily "endorsing" it.
I am open to suggestions...partition will need "co-operation" by two "antagonists" who do not communicate readily...At the top or in the ranks...JUST MY humble opinion...
4d-don...--don 05:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Message to Daniel
Dear Daniel, Even the line which suggests that 'the FAMILY of the founder accuse...' is wrong, because it is not the whole family that is making the accusation, out of more than 3 children of the founder (and their respective families), only 1 grandson of his is involved in the accusition. I think this should also be considered while making the changes. I have no problems with both the solutions suggested, either partition of the page into to separate pages, or deletion of the page. If this page is deleted, then pages titled "Sahaj Marg" and "Sahaj Marg Philosophy" should also be deleted, since they contain similar controversial text. Thanks.
P.S. please see the changes i just made. may be someone will edit it before u see it, so please have a look from the history.
The einstein 16:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Message for Daniel and einstein
Your input is highly appreciated, pls note in order to grow spirituality, one need not lie, there is no point in hiding the fact that Mr Chari who claim to be divine and sole living representative of divinity on this earth is actually accused of murder, fraud and other illegal offences (cases are pending in various courts of india) , kindly keep in mind that information cannot be hidden, people cannot be manipulated to become divine, it is not possible to hide information, here our job is to provide information and leave the decision on those who seek information, once again wiki is not an advertisement website, it is a platform to provide information. Kindly do not try to hide information. --Jhonsmith1234 19:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response from Daniel (lonesomecowboybill) aka 216.165.52.187
Don: You cannot cite the propaganda of one group as a reference for anything. The site you use to support the "legal proceedings" is one-sided and clearly expresses non NPOV statements (including the straight assertion, "P. Rajagopalachari succeeded in his final attempt by poisoning our Guru Pujya Babuji Maharaj."). It is for this reason that it is not a credible source, and cannot be used anywhere on this page! Unless you supply unbiased evidence for the OFFICIAL accusation, I cannot see how it can continue to remain here.
As I suggested the split, I do not see why it would lose encyclopedic value. One could be the details of one group, one could be the details of the other. See, for instance, the different pages on Catholics and Protestants; they would all be linked to Christianity. In this case, the main page would have only the information that is agreed upon by all sides, and then blurbs about the sects, with links to the 2 separate pages. We could write, "following the death of Ram Chandra, groups splintered following contradictory interpretations of his wishes," or something to that effect.
As for "Jhonsmith...," I am sorry you feel I am trying to hide information. I find that reproducing conspiracy theories is tantamount to providing non-encyclopedic information. I am not involved with either of the groups (and I assume everyone else involved in this editing situation is) and I truthfully have no interest which side says what. But in the end, unless there are links to objective facts (and not documents/"facts" hosted on either parties' websites), this kind of information must be omitted.
Daniellonesomecowboybill 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Daniel
Can u pls explain how is reproducing facts based on the testimonials provided by one the party can tantamount to non-encyclopedic ? There is one group names Shree Ram Chandra mission, two parties claim ownership, one is registered in California USA(late 1990’s) and other is original registered in U.P India in 1945, but the group which is registered in California claims through it website that it is actual SRCM registered in U.P, India, hence division of page is not possible till California based group removes this claim from its official stand.
If you are not involved with either of the groups then why are you offended by changes filed by either party against each other?
--Jhonsmith1234 21:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to all...
If we can't use the "words" of the leader of one faction, who is the grandson of the Founder, and son of the Past President,such as Navneet Kumar who is the "spokesperson" of One faction and claims to have documents to show such (minutes of meetings) then who's word can we "use".
Can we use "Ram Chandra's words" then? The claim from Navneet is that "Ram Chandra (the Founder and the "victim") accuses" in a letter to "an abhyasis". If the accusation is "unfounded", it is not up to us to "ascertain" the veracity of that statement. That is a legal matter for Chari or the SRCM(tm) California, to consider . But it is our place to record that "fact". The succession is before the courts and until the court hands out a "judgement" we are just recording history and not "gossip".
I agree that we should "focus" on the spokesperson or persons who represent the "society". If the society is referenced, it must be for statements by the spokesperson and not by an "adherent" who is not "authorized" to speak on behalf of the society (or faction of the society. So I agree that the name of "Navneet Kumar" (or his "legal advisor" on his .org site), the founder's grandson, be added as "reprenting" the SRCM (Shahjahanpur) faction and claiming to represent the Family of the Founder, Babuji. If that is OK with all? Jhonsmith1234?? or Heartsease?? Sfacets?? Daneil, Einstein? all numbers, and/or all?? lol ;-))
This issue will clarify itself soon, but we will still have the broader issue of "This is not a "PR" site but an information (encyclopedia) site...The words of the "leaders" and/or the "spokesperson" are "fair use" for criticism, education, or discussion, and can be used by authorization, in commercial use (which this is not), or can be "paraphrased" and placed in the 3rd person (as I have done in most cases)... Some direct quotes from some books are from the groups claiming to have the "rights" to do so. (ie Sufism (RK Gupta), and SRCM (Shahjahanpur)
The reason for the suggestion of "losing the encyclopedic value", is this. How do we decide "neutrally", for example, if the words (and their meaning) attached to Ram Chandra (the Founder) by one group is in accord with what the other group claims is meant. Another would be: Is Chari's idea of the philosophy (or "no philosophy") of Sahaj Marg in accord with Raja Yoga, or the Sahaj Marg of either Lalaji or Babuji. (ie. donations, homosexuality, theology, philosophy, democracy, obedience, the method, spiritualism (messages from the dead), and all the other isues approached in his speeches that now "define" the NEW SRCM (tm) registered in California. We are not equipped to make such decisions. That would be no problems in the case of Christianiy as these debates have taken place centuries ago and have been made part of the "dogma" of the individual faction. Such is not the case with Sahaj Marg. We would then be unable to "NEUTRALLY" decide the meaning and the "intent" of the words being debated. These debates have to be done by the individual factions and they have to "define" themselves"... We can only state what words are being "spoken" by all and every factions and not get into theological, philosophical, legal, arguments with "no end".... Words are not as accurate as numbers, but are simple enough for us to define....concepts and meaning in theology, philosophy and legality are a labyrinthe...
No words of the leaders are "SAFE" and NONE CAN BE HIDDEN....as long as "referenced" and NPOV. OUR words (the words we chose to use) can reach concensus if we are truly spiritual and not "obsessed" with "ourselves". IF we are, we will be back to "EDIT WAR"...and doomed to repeat it over and over...
Stepping back a bit, it is true that the two groups are now different but using the same "litterature" much as Catholics and Protestants but they (the Christians) are actually using many different "Bibles" that do not have an "ownership" dispute attached to them. In the case of Sahaj Marg, we have ONE set of Books by the founder claimed by all groups (exclusively) and the other groups are "challenging" (in a disorganized way) the control and use of ONE group (Chari's clan), of the Founder's words, intent, succession, meaning, organization, etc... That is quite different from the Christian analogy. If we add other schisms such as ISRC, we are getting very broad. The .org is a place for all the groups to do their PR and we at Wiki, are the "Information" that is not necessarily the PR of any groups...including such informatiion as unflattering history, court and media records of alleged illegalities, criminality, etc... Not rumours. but documented and reported by reputable sources (governemts, courts, media, researchers, etc...)
Some considerations...for editing...
The words of the LEADERS (president, spokesperson) of all legitimate factions (even disputed... if before a "tribunal" of some legality), are "fair use", for discussion, criticism and education,in direct quotes and/or "paraphrased".
Any "controversial" statements by "authorities" should be referenced and also be able to be followed (immediately) by a "counter", or "alternate", also with references.
No personal opinions...no instructions...no PR...
Please make edits in only one section at a time and do not take a "slash and burn", which is a "no-no" in WIKI. Also please leave some time for others to respond. We all have other lives.
Please make sentences and stay away from N.B....in fact... In all truth... etc...and such prepositions that puts doubt on the veracity of the statement.
I am sure that we will come up with more but we can start with that and see if we can make some sense...We could be an example for the world...I keep hoping...
I am not the boss here, just a tenacious proponent of the WIKI concept...If we are successful, we all will "win"...and none will "lose"... We all already know anyway...
4d-Don--don 02:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response to all
Jhon:
I truly feel that you are not listening to a word I am writing. You ask me to explain how "reproducing facts...is non-encyclopedic." Again, as I said before, I am not convinced that they are facts. If the case is up for the courts, then prove to us, through actual references, that it is in the courts. Simply having one organization (the legitimacy of which is based, seemingly, on a single website, a couple of rag-tag blogs, and this wikipedia page) claiming something through a website, with the incredibly sketchy signature of "legal advisor" makes me think: 1. There is no such court case at all, and 2. There is not really such a schism as this page makes out. I am not making any moral claims here, but simply that the opposing organization cannot be held liable as a host for "public documents." Please provide a reference to the Indian court record held by the government of India, or any other non-involved entity, and my major complaint will be withdrawn. Until that request is met, posting "facts" about the accusation and trial is as legitimate as a psychopath posting on their blog about their relationship with a celebrity. I am sorry to sound harsh, but I am very skeptical about using any libellous information from such a biased website. If there is actual, legitimate documentation about the trial, I firmly believe we should post the accusation.
Division of page is still possible, also. You say that it is a problem because they both claim the same name (SRCMtm (UP)). Why can't we just split them by different distinctions? One page will be "SRCM (Chari)" and one "SRCM (Nanveet)." We can also avoid the problems
Finally, you say I am offended by charges filed by either party. I never said I was offended; if offended by anything, it would be the rudeness by which you interpret what I write. As I said before, the sides make no difference to me; what is important is that the "facts" that are presented on this page are accurate, neutral, and referenced properly. It simply is not appropriate, as I have said before, to use the highly opinionated (not to mention very poorly upheld and organized and full of broken and empty links) website of one person (and that seems to be, as I pointed above, the only reference to this organization anywhere on this page) as historically valid and of being capable of providing legitimate information and documents.
So, I say I am not convinced there are charges filed. I am also beginning to doubt if there is even such a group as is called "the family of Babuji," or whether it is just "disillusioned" old members of the organization who have gotten carried away in trying to ruin the reputation of the original group.
Don: Some of the things you say are valid, others are not. I do very much agree with what you say about exposing alleged illegalities and unflattering information. But, as I have said from the beginning of my involvement here (and note that I haven't edited the page once), I don't know if this accusation, on the top of the page, is actual. Anyone can create a "court document" and host it on their website. It doesn't make it legitimate.
I am certain we can ascertain the common ground between the two groups (which we already have, to an extent; all of the data that are are not qualified by "followers of x believes this..." is common). This would go into the SRCM main page. Everything else can be split into the new, individual pages. I am willing to do this work if we can agree. Currently, this page is out of hand and doesn't look like any functional page on wikipedia. This page could be successful.
LonesomeCowboyBill 19:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to LonesomeCowboyBill by 4d-don
Hi LonesomeCowboyBill
I enclose the link to the Supreme Court of India: http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/ac661900p.txt
There was an additional entry on this file on April 5, 07. Hopefully it should be cleared up with a judgement soon, as long as there are no appeals...
Presuming that there was a page called SRCM (Chari) and one called SRCM (Navneet), the content would still have to be discussed and defended by someone from both groups and we would still be dealing with "what should be said" and "what should be left out" as no PR or "advertising" is going to be tolerated by some, and claims of "intangibles" such as "representing" the Divine or "messages from beyond the grave", will not be accepted unless "shown" to be TRUE...How do we do that beside stating that these are simply "claims" and leave it at that. We can do that with this article...
A system, such as Raja Yoga is easy to define. Once it get into claims of "abstract" gifts or powers, and "mystical" (or "Mythic") events, the burden of proof is too great to be acceptable by many.
Most of the Chari faction's opposition to the article is that we are exposing "chari's words" and the philosophy (or lack of), that is expressed in the litterature but that they don't want to get out. I can understand that. No one wants their failings exposed, myself included. That is why I, and most people, stay away from claims as those that are made by Chari and the various SRCM factions and schisms. They want this site to be a "PR" for their side and not an "information" site, with all it's "warts". ;-))
That's why I (and some Wikians ..pun on Wiccans..lol) think that the .org and the .com which are SMRTI, SMSF, SRCM(tm) (California), SRCM (Shahjahanpur), and ISRC are the right place for the PR arm of each organization. I don't see how PR content can be defended from those who want to "expose". I include myself. And believe me, we are not getting into (in the article) of many of the "allegations" around the avoidance of "national" taxation laws as money (cash) is allegedly carried accross nattional boundaries and goods and services are not "sold" but are given free of charge for a "donation". Some of the material in Chari's speeches is fundamentally (and in my view, unflatterinly) "telling" and since it is in the words of the LEADERS of these organizations, it is coverd by the "fair use" policy. (ie God is Male, homosexuality, claims of democracy in SRCM, targeting children, and the "Value based Spiritual Education" curriculum).
Nothing stops anyone from creating any articles on WIKI. It's in the "mutual" defense of the content that I see the amazing working of WIKI. As I revert a change, I am defending all the edits that were posted by all other "editors" of the article. My edits are also being defended by people I don't even know. I've seen it work, I've been to the mountain. ;-)) That is why I am still here. Others said it could not work.
So I think that we might as well try and make this one article as best as we can and then try to collectively defend it even if we accept One main article and two articles for the Factional differences. ... If we do, I would suggest that we eliminate the "Sahaj Marg Philosophy Article as it was another attempt by an abhyasi to a "two article" approach that was abandoned. Same debate, different page. (I have seen the "vandals" and they can be Time consuming). Still, I will go along with the "concensus" and will encourage all to "put out their truth". I will also do the same. The truth will survive our folly and will bury us all... lol
The truth is not "one dimensional" but n...dimensional. We, who want to experience "REALITY", now have the occasion to see the REALITY of SRCM as it is seen by MANY not just by the PR machine's version of the Truth...Some experience of Truth is first hand, some through research and intellect, and some (myself) as believers in the WIKI project and the "Concensus Building" mechanism that as a global society, we are going to have to reach. I have warts...so what?? ;-)) I will live with it and now, so can and must ALL... The Master is not Perfect and the Emperor has no clothes...;-))
I appreciate your offer and your genuineness...
4d-don--don 01:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to Don
Don: Thank you for your link. This clears much up for me. Why it is not included on the page itself, I do not know.
But, now that I can see things more clearly, here is another suggestion:
1. Take out all references to controversy at the top of the page. The "heading" should be strictly informative. 2. Create a subheading, as "European headquarters" is now, called "legal dispute over succession." 3. Under that section, use the link to the supreme court of india, saying something to the effect of, "following the death of Ram Chandra there was a schism among followers. Two major factions have begun, and currently the Indian Supreme Court is deciding who is the rightful heir to the mission." 4. Create further subheadings in that section, one for each of the two groups, explaining BRIEFLY their stances, such as, "one group, SRCMtm (California), belives P. Rajagopalachari is the current master." and link to the new SRCM (Chari) page by saying, "link to main article SRCM(Chari)."
I think this is the best thing we can do. I know that you say it will still require moderation, but let me express my feeling on this. Currently, there are obviously bad feelings between the two organizations. If their sections are split, there will be much less reason to be in these "EDIT WARS." The people will want to edit their own groups section, and, hopefully, people who are unbiased will stop them from being PR. Overall, though, if there are separate pages then there will be less fighting. Occassionaly, someone will vandalize the opposing party's page, but it will lessen because there will not be, on each member's group's page, information that they find to be controversial.
Have I been clear about this? Do you agree with me?
LonesomeCowboyBill 17:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comment in genral
"there are obviously bad feelings between the two organizations"
Pls note both these group claim to spread universal brotherhood and claim that they can take people to attain salvation, this is so ironic, they cannot even have feeling brotherhood amongst themselves, and go on fighting court battles, invest the donation money in paying advocates, court fee etc, and still claim that they spread love and brotherhood !!!! how can any normal person beleive these craps when they themselve are not doing what they preach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jhonsmith1234 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Reply to LonesomeCowboyBill by Don
I agree...
There is already a section called "Dispute over the lineage of Shri Ram Chandra Mission"... all the dispute material could be placed in that section. You will notice that the "Supreme Court link" is in already in that section also but the section is not in order...
I would ascertain that the "general info" does not favour one "faction" and is not PR but Information...
I have no objections and was going to do some "clean-up" after the continuous edits stopped...you could be doing this for a while if the edits continue...lol... Be ready for grammar, spelling, syntax, etc... corrections...not to mention, keeping things in order...
Thanks for the offer...
To Jhon...
I agree with you. We have to make sure that the claims of SRCM are shown as "claims" and not necessarily "facts" and not entered as "PR" or "advertising". I'm sure you will remind us if something is not written accurately and sounds like PR...or false advertising or "mis-representing".
Thanks for all your edits also... Hope you don't mind all my corrections for NPOV...lol...
4d-don...
