Talk:Shri Ram Chandra Mission/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archived Dec 3, 2006
On the Proposal
You say: So this new "Masters" article, which you have invited from me, could also include any additions that you (or any contributor) may feel is essential concerning Chariji, his personal views (e.g., on homosexuality, which Chari himself stated are "NOT Sahaj Marg" as you quoted from a speech
I think that whenever a Master has to be obeyed as in Sahaj Marg, his words become the system and his statements should also remain as Teachings from the Sahaj Marg Material. When Chari gives a speech, he is teaching. That is accurate and transparent, and also reflects his tolerance, his acceptance, his compassion and his spiritual "enlightment". He could have chosen "abnormal" or "not the norm" and it would have been logically acceptable without debate, but he chose "un-natural" and that must stand as a testimony to his accuracy, his tolerance, his intellect and "enlightenment".
To say that "it is not Sahaj Marg" as an after-thought to at-one for that statement is not like saying that the Catholic Church stand on Homosexuality is not Christ, which we could all agree. Christ was compassionate, the Church is not. But to say that the Pope's stand on homosexuality is not Catholicism, is not accurate. As long as the Pope has to be obeyed (which power is now severely limited since the Reformation)it becomes Church policy even though it is sometimes "unwritten" or "unspoken" or non-transparent policy. You are not going to see an "openly gay" Pope in the near future. We want to see transparency. The statements of the Master in Sahaj Marg should stay in the Sahaj Marg article and, if you like, also in the Masters of Sahaj Marg page, where and if it is relevant. The statements of the Master certainly reflect on Sahaj Marg wether Chari says it does or not. That morality, which Chari calls "being right" is also being "transmitted" by the Master. And the Abhyasis. who want to be just like the Master, will also think that homosexuality is "un-natural, if they want to please the Master. And it will be like the Christian "Love the neighbour", and even "love the enemy". Everyone speaks it, calls it Christianity, but...then the bombs??
--don 06:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikiquette on making Article Changes
HI...202.39.223.4
If you want to make changes [in Main Articles], discuss it first [in Article Talk Pages]....
A Proposal
May I propose an addition and ordering for the two Wikipedia articles related to the Method, or practice, the Mission, and the Masters, which are three aspects of the Raja Yoga system known as Sahaj Marg? As I mentioned elsewhere, Sahaj Marg has from its beginning been known as a single system or entity comprised of three distinct but intimately connected aspects - namely, the Master, Mission, and Method - which could be likened to vapor, ice, water, or soul, body, mind.
I suggest expanding the two aspects below thus far given articles to three, adding a separate article about the Masters, Representatives, Presidents, etc. Naturally, all three articles would be cross-linked. Any and all informed, accurate and preferably cited contributions, including those which are dissenting or critical, should be fully represented according to Wikipedia NPOV policies and traditions:
- (1) METHOD - make more brief with the focused on the "Way" or practice itself, while referencing Mission and Master.
- (2) MISSION - Clarify and update MISSION article (which in current form drifts to topic of MASTERS).
- (3) MASTER - add an entirely new Wikipedia article on Chariji and the three (publicly) known Masters in the lineage. (Perhaps this article could extend to Chariji's recently-named successor?) All materials in the articles above primarily related to MASTERS could be moved here, e.g., the lineage, how representatives are chosen, their role in the Mission and the Method, any relevant personal views (which may or may not reflect official policy), etc. This new article and its subsequent discussion page would be the appropriate place for bios, critiques, etc related to any of the the Masters/teachers/Gurus of the system.
- The simple idea of my proposal, again, is that the main reference article remain under the subject-title Sahaj Marg, with only general and brief references to the Shri Ram Chandra Mission and to the Masters. The main subject, Sahaj Marg should focus on the philosophy and technique of Sahaj Marg. (And yes, Don, you're right - there is a philosophy, and always has been -- one of the books by Babuji Maharaj, if I rightly recall, is so titled!) More in-depth would be the entry (clearly linked from the Sahaj Marg entry) on Shri Ram Chandra Mission. Secondly, this "umbrella" article on Sahaj Marg would also reference and link to a new article (now dubbed with the working title "Masters"). As proposed, this one will go more deeply into the both the lineage, the biographies, and role of the Masters of this form of Raj Yoga.
With due respect, I feel this proposal is a good one and worthy of calm deliberation in due time. As requested above, it is posted here for others who care to comment or make suggestions.
-- Sakha 09:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Counter-Proposal
The page called Shri Ram Chandra Mission, named after Lalaji by Babuji, should remain as such and reflect the history of the Mission founded by Babuji and named after Lalaji. It is not "Sahaj Marg". Babuji's succession from Lalaji was accomplished according to Bauji, in his dream. This history should include Lalaji's accurate history, lineage (and even his teachings which in my humble opinion, are very close to Raja Yoya and I will add at a later date in point form). It is the Sufi part of Sahaj Marg and should not be construed with the later-created "Sahaj Marg" (modified method of meditation created by Babuji, and that some claim is a form of Raja Yoga and others call a "non-renunciate" modified form of Raja Yoga. This is debateable. That Sahaj Marg is a "modified" form of Raja yoga is a more accurate description. Wether the modifications have left the results promised by Raja Yoga intact is a question to be answered by later generations). (see Raja Yoga on Wikipedia for an abridged definition of the eight-fold path and the results promised by Raja Yoga)
I think that would retain the respect that Babuji had for the teachings of Sufism and Raja yoga, dessiminated by Lalaji, his direct Master, and the Naqshbandia order of Sufism, that were offered on a more more personal level (one on one, heart to heart, and not one method fits all), and were much more inclusive and universal in their philosophy. (not an pyramidal institution with membership cards etc...).
Sahaj Marg
I agree that the 3M's (if there is no conflict with the use of 3M's (i.e. the sticky paper Company) of Chari's Sahaj Marg could be added in the Sahaj Marg page and I will do that. I will change the heading called: "Gurus and Leadership" to "Masters and Leadership". Anyone can then add their info on Chari's successor and the other leadership, which I believe should be included. (there has been some resistance to that in the past). Lalaji's Master should also be included there so as to show that one of the results of the Raja yoga meditation, "honesty" is reached in Sahaj Marg also. That would be one confirmation of the claim that Sahaj Marg is a form of Raja Yoga, and does not hide it's past history in Sufism and Islam. (Away from the myth of "Lalaji meditated for 7 months and became a Master".)
In the Sahaj Marg article, I will change the heading called: "Daily Practice" to "Method and Daily Practice" or just "Method". And I will add a section called: "The Mission" where we can include the history of the Mission in the world. (Including but not exclusively in Europe where there has been much "negative" reported on Sahaj Marg and the Mission in the media and by governments.
I think the other heading, Maxims and Philosophy (Although Chari claims that there is "no philosophy in Sahaj Marg", should remain as such.
New Article called Masters of Sahaj Marg
Now if you want to add a seperate article on the "Masters of Sahaj Marg", I agree with you that it would be a good idea and could include the leadership and the different committees etc. (as much information as you can get and keep up to date)...but not at the cost of the other two articles. For the researchers, which I am one, I like the seperation of the Method (including the Teachings ie written and spoken words of the Masters), and the Organization (political structure, finances and history).
In Sahaj Marg, the spiritual Master is also the political and financial leader, so there has to be a "dual" entry system (as the dual management "zonal" structure, where meditators and preceptors are not being appointed and/or removed from the "Board of Directors" of the Society) and cross-over in all the articles. So the Spiritual and Political Masters, being the same person, have to be in both the Sahaj Marg and the Shri Ram Chandra Mission articles. That is "transparent".
Hope this will be acceptable to all....Information will set us free....
Agreed: but may take Weeks or Months
Acceptable to me, for one. So, with your invitation and kind permission, Mr. Don, I accept and volunteer to write this article in due time and make the changes suggested here.
>Now if you want to add a seperate [sic] article on the "Masters of Sahaj Marg", I agree with you that it would be a good idea and could include the leadership and the different committees etc. (as much information as you can get and keep up to date)...but not at the cost of the other two articles. For the researchers, which I am one, I like the seperation [sic] of the Method (including the Teachings ie written and spoken words of the Masters), and the Organization (political structure, finances and history).
- Okay. This may take a while, since I am moving abroad at the end of the month and have a jillion things to do. By "a while" I am talking not in days, but perhaps weeks or even months.
>I agree that the 3M's (if there is no conflict with the use of 3M's (i.e. the sticky paper Company) of Chari's Sahaj Marg could be added in the Sahaj Marg page and I will do that. I will change the heading called: "Gurus and Leadership" to "Masters and Leadership". Anyone can then add their info on Chari's successor and the other leadership, which I believe should be included. (there has been some resistance to that in the past).
- Good enough. Changing the heading makes little difference -- to me, at least.
>The page called Shri Ram Chandra Mission, named after Lalaji by Babuji, should remain as such and reflect the history of the Mission founded by Babuji and named after Lalaji. It is not "Sahaj Marg".
- It is indeed not "Sahaj Marg." But it is also not simply the lineage and biography of the Masters (see above). It is or should be, however, about the whole of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission as the associated and legally-required organization (reqistered in some 80 countries), which would include its history, NGO status, current membership totals, structure, etc.
- The article about the Masters, yet to be written, would focus more on the parampara or lineage of the Masters, and add more than is already there. This does in fact dovetail with the history of the Mission (again my re-arrangement can be "edited mercilessly," by you or anyone afterwards, to use the famed Wikipedia dictum, and is, as are all articles, open to "dispute"!). So this new "Masters" article, which you have invited from me, could also include any additions that you (or any contributor) may feel is essential concerning Chariji, his personal views (e.g., on homosexuality, which Chari himself stated are "NOT Sahaj Marg" as you quoted from a speech) or any other matters, as long as they are FFR (fair, factual, relevant - see above).
The Five Blind Men and the Elephant
- At this juncture, I confess that I feel like one of those five proverbial blind men, perhaps the one holding the tail of the elephant, who can only describe the animal as being like a snake - and I do bear some battle scars from Shankara-like debates with my elders over the origins of Sahaj Marg and of SRCM! I presume no great authority to write on Masters far beyond my ken, or the history of the Mission, but I do have access to unpublished materials, that eventually, I hope, will go into a book. FWIW, I've researched this over a period of some ten years, and if you'll kindly indulge a few highlights, I once held satsangh in Lalaji's home in Fatehgarh at the invitation of his disciples and some family members. I have met and interviewed his Naqshbandi Sufi disciples. More recently I have corresponded with and later filmed an interview with my respected Sufi colleague R. K. Gupta in Delhi, and studied his two published books (one more is in MS at the time of this writing). Some things I am not given to speak of, but there is much about the Masters and the Mission that has not been widely known. -- Sakha 08:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Removal of Copyrighted content
I removed content that was a copyright violation - such content cannot be posted on wikipedia. Sfacets 06:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Sfacets...Corrected
Hi Sfacets,
Thanks for the "heads up". I have paraphrased the info and re posted. If you find something else, I will correct ASAP. I have protected the info you gave me previously from those who would erase it. Keep on giving feed back. It's appreciated.
4d-Don
Neutral POV
You've all put a lot of time and effort into this. It's good to see so many people interested in disseminating information on various subjects, and providing useful information. I'm eager to collaborate with you all in this endevour.
It seems to me that the "neutrality" notice at the top of the Sahaj Marg article, perhaps fair given the subjective nature of some of the text, ought to be addressed. This being an encyclopedia, pehaps it would be best if anticipated questions such as "To Whom is the Mission Prayer Addressed and Why" and selected quotes were left out altogether, and the ideas behind the Master, Mission, and Method were put into a seperate article, entiled Sahaj Marg Philosophy. A simple and concise explanation of the 3Ms ought to be enough to accomplish the aim of an SM article from an encyclopedic point of view, and would leave little room for debate over "neutrality". I feel a spiritual system ought to make it's own case, and that persuasive material ought to be left out of an encylopedic effort. I hope you all agree.
I've also noticed that a sizeable portion of the text is also availalbe at 4d-don.blogspot.com[1]. The author makes some very valid observations and relates many experiences, using relevant quotes from Sahaj Marg material to expand some points. A personal blog is an excellent venue for such material; perhaps having it all in one place on the internet is enough, and a link to this blog could be added to the bottom of the page?
-- MatheoDJ 2006-10-16 07:35 (UTC)
Reply to NEUTRAL POV
Hi Matheodj
Thanks for the input...
I take it you are talking about the Sahaj Marg article and not the Shri Ram Chandra Mission.(which is the page we are on)..
So are you saying that the section called Method which includes the "prayer" should remain and the sub-section called "To Whom is the Mission Prayer Addressed and Why" be placed in the "Philosophy" sub-section which is a few paragraphs higher? Or are you suggesting that you want 3 seperate articles one "Sahaj Marg", one "Shri Ram Chandra Mission" and one "Sahaj Marg philosophy"? There is already a sub-section called "Philosophy" although Chari claims that Sahaj Marg has "no philosophy".
The entries on 4d-don's blog are "quotes" and not "paraphrased" as in this article. And this is the preferred "research" place. This article should stand alone with links and references to other blogs. The concise explanation of the 3M's, being a PR tool, should be done on the SRCM sites. The neutrality issue will not be dismissed by simply carrying the SRCM PR in this article. It is already there. It will only skew. The Method, the Master and the Mission (the Shri Ram Chandra Mission article) is already part of the article as well the material about to whom the prayer is addressed and the questionnable "lineage" of the Masters of Sahaj Marg.
An encyclopedia should not avoid such issues and should not simply be a PR for the organization in question. We don't see that when we research other groups with questionnable practices and philosophies. When an organization claims "advancement" in an "un-verifiable" and "un-proven" area such as "spirituality" or "heaven" or the "brighter world", that being "subjective", there will always be those who make "counter claims" and who question those claims. That is to be expected. The claims of Sahaj Marg are in the articles in "journalistic" form and that can be amended if we agree. Words like "claim" are acceptable in the Wiki. The words of the Masters or leaders of those organizations are "open for scrutiny" in a democracy, and not to be "hidden" from view even if they are "controversial". The controversy and/or contradictions belongs to the Organization not to the writers of this article. We only report. We do not create nor hide material for them. In this format, we can accomodate all and not only the large "organization" or "business".
Now if you see some "subjective" material that should be made (written) in a more "objective" (to you) manner, please mention which one and we can discuss that and make it more "objective" (to you and me) and then we will have to deal with others who think it is "subjective". But at least we will agree eh? LOL I trust you are "objective" and/or have an "arms length relationship" to the organization?
Information shall set us free if we don't become "slaves" to Propaganda put out as "information"!
Don --don 21:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Reply to NEUTRAL POV
It appears that the Shri Ram Chandra Mission and Sahaj Marg discussion pages refer to the same discussion. Posts on one appear on the other, and vice versa.
I am so glad that you agree that Wikipedia should not be used as a propoganda tool. I see it as the future of free, public information, and as such there should of course be no limits on the dissemination of information. One of the goals I hope we share is executing this to the highest standards, without getting caught up in the squabbling and in-fighting that can pervade such volitile subjects. After all, as true Wikipedians we're on the same side.
I've read much of the literature of Sahaj Marg, as well as many other groups. I firmly believe that all people should be offered clear information, and not be bullied, cajoled or persuaded into (or out of!) joining or leaving any system. The choice ought to remain with the individual aspirant, and all spiritual aspirants should thouroughly test out any system before deciding if it is the correct way for them. I do identify with many of the ideals laid out in Sahaj Marg, but I think it's rather safe to say I've got an "arm's length" from the inner circle. In my particular case, I think my contact with the Sahaj Marg community has given me many insights into the philosophy and practise of this system, while also giving me an informed and reasonably objective view of both the ups and downs of the system.
Perhaps unfortunately, an encyclopedic effort often comes down to presenting a large quantity of information in less depth, rather than taking an in-depth analysis of of few points. In this way, the audience can derive the benefit of basic knowledge, and if a certain point bears further explanation, the reader can make use of copious references and citations to illuminate herself.
* The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see Wikipedia:POV) * While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased. * Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance). * The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another. * The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view. * A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives. * The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious. * Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.
Obectivity and neutrality in addressing a subjective matter in the written medium is eminently possible; it often comes down to a simple turn of phrase, citation, or presenting both sides of a contrversey without using "persuasive" language. It's an exhaustive process.
Example:
On Idolatry, the Sahaj Marg material states:
"Sahaj Marg has nowhere said temple worship is wrong, nor does Master expressly forbid idol worship" ....To other abhyasis, the preceptor has become such an idol. I believe that any abhyasi who says, "my preceptor" when talking about the preceptor who is serving him has fallen into this form of idol worship. Here it is the preceptor who has been transformed into an idol, or idolised. Here again the Master may be in the background, but is that Master's rightful place?
- Unless specifically within quotation marks, a statement like "I believe" could be misleading, as this is a subjective term.
- Sahaj Marg literature provides many different insights into idol worship, which could be included. Further ides and citations could help give the reader an even better idea of what is being explained.
- While this particular point does pertain to the philosophy and practise of Sahaj Marg, it is not directly related to the core teachings or philosophy.
- An open-ended question at the end may seem out of place.
This is not to say that any or all of the above changes are necessary, just an example of different changes that could make the text even better. We could go through each section one by one, or go over the entire article at once, which ever you would prefer. I enjoy working with such like-minded people!
MatheoDJ 05:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Concensus building with Matheos
Hi again Matheo DJ..
I changed the sections that you had some problems with. The "Beyond the Grave" was replaced by the "Brighter World" although that is an "un-verifiable" statement and almost "religious" and not "spirituality" but I will not debate it. We all know that the senders of the "messages" are "deceased" and are not "living" in this plane. Wether they are in a "brighter world or not" is debateable and not worth the time or space. Everyone knows what a "medium" does. And the "unknown medium being a French lady from Montpelier" is a rumour so I removed it. I kept the "pre-sale of the book in French as that is a fact, unless it was cancelled recently. If that is not the case, then it stays.
I am the one who is keeping the POV statement there. Many statements in this article are "not verifiable" and are "Point of View" and certainly "not fact" by any stretch of the imagination. If ever you want it taken off, we can talk about it. I could add it to your "Sahaj Marg Philosophy" also if some "wild" statements about "being divine" or other "religious" statements are included. I would suggest that we just leave it there and let the "people" decide what they want to believe. That way, the claims of "representing God" can be seen as POV and not "neutral".
If you see some others let me know...
don--don 03:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
RE: Concensus building with Matheos
Thanks for the quick turnaround on that. Sorry about the French vs English pre-sale mixup. I confused the two...
I'll add a short explanation on "brighter world" to the Sahaj Marg Philosophy page. I think the essense of it is, that an idea can be factually verified as existing even if the idea itself is not verifiable. A perfect axample would be Pastafarianism. Though the Flying Spagetti Monster is unverifiable by definition, everybody agrees that Pastafarianism (the idea of a Flying Spagetti Monster) exists.
In that Sahaj Marg is a self-contained ideology and philosophy, we should be able to agree on explanations and terms that are completely verifiable, and give this article the credibility it deserves.
Well, I'm ready to get started. Would you rather go concept by concept, or start at the top and work our way to the bottom? And is it easier for you to start with a suggested edit, and work it out here in the discussion page using it as a sandbox, or for me to just go ahead and do what I'm thinking, and then discuss it here?
Pleasure working with you Don!
MatheoDJ 05:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
RE: Concensus building with Matheos-Don reply
Hi MatheoDJ
What we are doing now is fine. I can adapt to anyway you want to proceed. Usually the "linear" approach is the traditional way of doing it but tradition eliminates "intuition" as the genius sometimes gets an "inspiration" and in "anarchaic" non-tradition, I want to pursue that approach a little more and see if our world would not be in a better state if we tried "something new". So I am open to any method that is not "dogmatic". I will not be "dogmatic" and I will oppose "dogma" in a "non-dogmatic" way, for a more "logical" approach. The Greek philosophical concept of "Logos" (logic as defined by sound using words) for me is the "shining elevation" of the Mind to a "gem-like state" and should not be "gone around" but "through it".
As far as Sahaj Marg being a "self contained" system, I will debate that in some areas as it claims to be a "modified form of Raja Yoga". So it must adhere to some "Raja Yoga" guidelines if it wants to claim that. Or we should report on the modification in "journalistic" fashion. The "wisdom" of the modification is open for debate also but will not be used in the article by me as a "propaganda" for my views. I will debate it here though.
Also, Sahaj Marg can claim anything it wants for Sahaj Marg but it can't include others such as Christ in it's "hierarchy". Statements such as Christ being a lowly "liberated" soul when Christian claim that Christ is the "son of God", are POV and not "fact". The Christian claim of Christ as their "messiah" is the one that should survive in an "encyclopedia" and the view of the Sahaj Marg proponents should be as: "Chari claims that Christ is ....". So far, he has not shown much respect for other religions. I will let that stand but not the lumping of Christ or Buddha or Mohammed in the Sahaj Marg system exept as a "POV", which it is. Then the POV Template will be made to stand for what it is now standing for. ie In this article, some statements are POV...That means that Sahaj Marg adherents are making some "unverifiable" statements but they are left to stand as POV. So far, all have agreed that statements by the leaders of the system are "fair game" and can be used as what the system is and not it's "propaganda". Much the same as we cannot write an article on Christianity without using the "words" of Christ athough we are not sure that they were actually his words as they were written from memory and not "taped" on the spot. We are not even 100% sure that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. But in the WIKI environment, we can state things as "claims", "according to", "he said", and try to reach a general "concensus" on the issues. It will not be "the TRUTH" but as close as a Shining Gem (matter) is to Light (energy). The written word is matter, the concepts expressed are "energy" or sound, or thought (mind).
Hope we can continue to work in respect and in logic and show that "religions" do not have to divide the "intelligent" and the "highly evolved" such as "ourselves". Even in the duality of the MIND, we can be bound and guide by the UNITING grace of the ONE spirit. (I use the numeric and neutral "ONE", or UNITY so as to stay away from the divisive duality of MIND and the "emotional", personal, gender-based concepts of "God" (a Gothic, ie. Germanic tribe's word for the "Creator") as defined by various religions and so-called "spiritual" groups).
Happy Journey...
Don--don 16:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
RE: Concensus building with Matheos-Don reply
I agree. A claim or assertion should of course be cited as such. Widely held beliefs should be noted as just that: widely held beliefs, and not facts, per se. I'll just start with some of my ideas, and we can discuss and modify them along the way.
Happy Journey!
MatheoDJ 00:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Management Committee Internet Policy
Hi Matheo DJ
I trust you got this e-mail from the Mission. It has been sent to everyone in Europe at least. You might risk "displeasing" the Master and the Mission and not get to experience the "Brighter World". LOL I hope you are not that "obedient" and that we can continue our "duty" to our family, country, culture and our planet of "telling the truth" without fear in true "anarchic" fashion. The Master has closed other's people's sites already and others have been reprimanded and have closed their blogs. I know of loss or suspension of Preceptorship (without naming names in public). Read Michael's (ex-preceptor who has gone public) "Inner Circle" blog for his complete story and a historical perspective of the Mission in the past. Read the comments also as some other "insiders" are also speaking out.
INTERNET POLICY Per Master’s guidance, the Mission has adopted a policy to discourage the use of online groups, chat rooms, blogs, private email distribution list or unauthorized use of third party list servers to disseminate Mission related information. Abhyasis, who require any clarification regarding their practice may direct their questions directly to Rev. Master or may seek clarification from their prefects. Those who wish to record their spiritual experiences may do so in their personal diaries which is confidential.
Hang in there!! Be strong!!
Don --don 09:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
SRCM internet policy
I have read the e-mail you specified. I am not interested in disseminating Sahaj Marg material, per se, nor in relating personal experiences. I am interested in consesus building, the free flow of information, and practically implementing my own commitment to fostering a dialouge on spirituality in a spirit of brotherly/sisterly love. All of humanity stands to benefit from tolerance and acceptance of different people with differing views.
I am also familiar with the SRCM policy on copyright, and respect it both on grounds of international law and Wikipedia policy. I think it is advisable for anyone interested in Sahaj Marg to contact the head of the mission personally for clarification on matters realting to the individual prctise of Sahaj Marg meditation, and that the same applies to any spiritual practise.
MatheoDJ 11:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
References and citations
Hi Matheo Dj..
Fairly painless so far...lol
We'll have to figure out a method for citation and referencing without referring to the material on our "blogs" as it is very difficult to for the reader and researcher. Some material such as video and transcripts are also difficult to make available. I have some transcripts that I had sent to me over the years of research but that could be called "original" research, as I now have them in my files. Some of the material is "on-line" on my blogs but I don't like referencing to my blog. It is "not fair" as I am the editor and the blog only contains the "controversial" material and is therfore "POV" although I did not make it up and it is not my opinion but I chose the section to put in my blog. We should almost have a site for the "complete" files to be posted on and then "referred to" and "cited".
Of course, material referenced to a Book is also not "readily available" to the reader also.
Your ideas... How do we get around sending people to the blogs?
don--don 00:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Lalaji, Sufism and Heart to Heart Transmission, RK Gupta
This is the view of Mr Gupta on this matter...
Lalaji and Transmission “Heart to Heart” Transmission... (posted on PoxySRCM)
Interview by Peter (from Europe, previously with SRCM, now with ISRC) and RK Gupta, author of the site http://www.geocities.com/sufisaints/
"Sufism is ancient wisdom and it is beyond religion, as Sufism simply means the path of the lovers of God."
"In my opinion, spirituality should encourage one to be broadminded. Kindly have no hesitation in exploring the truth."
Q: "How and why is it possible to hide such important things, from highly spiritual persons? (in a preface of Complete Works of Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur, Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari said, talking about Lalaji: "He rediscovered the spiritual ancient technic of yogic transmission.")" R "While what they have written about Janab Lalaji Maharaj, most of it is true, yet they have hidden the fact about the spiritual Master of Janab Lalaji Maharaj. He was initiated and authorised in this Order by Maulana Fazl Ahmad Khan Sahab alias Huzur Maharaj, who was one of the greatest and the most liberal and revolutionary saint of his time. For him religion and spirituality were two different things. Janab Lalaji maharaj was his dearest disciple, who was given the full authority, and that too without conversion to Islam, even though Lalaji at one point of time offered to embrace Islam. Huzur Maharaj rejected the idea outright." "I am not competent to make comments upon the observations made by great people like Shri Chariji, but I wish to say with all humility that Janab Lalaji Maharaj received the most precious divine wisdom from his Master and he propogated the system followed by his Master. Yes like all saints, he added in that his own experiences and divine gifts he received, for his successors. It is said in the Holy Qu'ran that "We are the treasure of all knowledge and We send it according to the need of the time". Spiritual knowledge is also revealed gradually and new generations benefit by the experiences of previous saints and their own experiences. In that sense newer methods are also revealed by improvement over the older methods."
Q: "From when does this transmission from heart to heart exist?" R: "But to say that heart-to-heart transmission did not exist before Janab Lalaji Maharaj is like denying the facts. It is written down that when he met for the first time his Master Maulana Fazl Ahmad Khan sahab he received such powerful transmission that changed his life."
5:51 PM
Can we reference to the "discussion page??
Don --don 17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The need for a LIVING MASTER
Where previously Sahaj Marg professed that a "living Master" was indispensable to attaining Liberation and reaching the Divine, now Chari seems to be "back-tracking". This is the question and answer part of his speech at the:
PRECEPTORS' SEMINAR Talks and Question & Answers Preceptors' Seminar January 16 & 17, 2001 Babuji Memorial Ashram, Manapakkam, Chennai
Qn: While explaining about the system to a newcomer, should we emphasize the speciality of the living Master? Please clarify.
Ans: I think much harm has been done by preceptors who think they are very devoted to the Master, by emphasizing this concept of the living Master. Because there are other people who don't like and they say, 'Oh, the Master can never die, which is true. So does it mean that the so called non-living Master and the living Master are there simultaneously, is it possible? But we must remember that you need somebody who can interact with you to help you, that is all you see. So we need somebody who is 'here and now' with us. But I would not carry this business of 'living Master, living Master, too much you see, because it has been an embarrassment in the mission and put off many people who don't want to listen to such nonsense. I've heard people say, 'Oh, you know, my wife died. Should it be that should I immediately remarry? Can I remarry? There are arguments for and against. There are people who have married several times happily; there are people who never married, and find their way in their existence in the memory of the one they lost. It is only called fidelity, it is not called love. I wouldn't call it love. They are having or exhibiting fidelity to an image or a person they have enshrined in their hearts. But when I'm thinking of the Master as somebody who is in my heart, we should not "Ragado" (rub) as we say in Hindi you know. We should not tear the cloth by trying to make it too clean. We have seen people who go on rubbing it against the washing stone and it comes out in tatters. So for me personally, I would not talk about living Masters, dead Masters, existing Masters. I'd like to distinguish between life and existence. Existence is eternal. A Master is eternally existing. But he is only alive when he is in the body. And when we talk of a living Master, we mean the fellow who is here in suffering with us, trying to mequid himself along with us, live with us, in a very limited sense. I hope it is clear.
don
Matheo, DJ
Hi Matheo...
I have tried to cover all the points you made and corrected as many points as I could. (including some on your Sahaj Marg Philosophy page...Just some spacing and small edits.)
Thanks for your assistance and co-operation in this very complex matter...
If you see anything else, we can just proceed as we are doing and I will be grateful and happy and content as a little clam...
You are a gentleman anarchist... and a scholar...lol
Safely tucked inside the ONE God where we live
Don--don 18:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism Warning to Vivekdurai
There is a Discussion page at the Sahaj Marg and the Shri Ram Chandra Mission site for debate about the "unbiased" nature of your PR for the Mission. Take your discussion there. The words of your Master are the teachings and the beliefs of your system as the Master is to be "obeyed" as per your litterature. This is in keeping with the Wikipedia ideals. The words of Christ are Christianity. The words of the Pope are Catholicism. They can be included in an "encyclopedia" and are not to be "hidden". This is not a site for PR but is an "encyclopedia".
Your change was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.
Don--don 07:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Don - Demonstrated Bias
4d-don:
Take your discussions elsewhere if you please. You have effectively stifled discussion by insisting that your additions make the Sahaj Marg page more balanced. Outside wikipedia, you maintain a blog focussed on compiling and aggregating reports and posts from former practioners of the system who are not favorably inclined towards the mission anymore. You are without doubt a person who loves to hate this system. You do your best to pursuade people as subtly as *you* possibly could, away from the Sahaj Marg system. You refer to Christ, Catholicism and by such reference expect us to nod our heads and follow standards of acceptability about what may be included on the SM page. You take extracts out of context and with little knowledge of their essence from private lectures of the present spiritual master and impose them willy nilly on those who might want to know what the system of Sahaj Marg is about. SM literature is available on the website for the benefit of its members, not for your hacking pleasure. All I have done is to revert the page back to its original form - unbiased, unloaded and truthful (in a way you can't get close to). Don't distort the concept of an encylopedia - its not about size or volume dear! The question really is - why do you waste your time? I'm young and ready to tango.
(Vivekdurai 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC))
Attempt at Concensus with Vivekdurai
Vivekdurai
You are allowed to your opinion of me. Try some "spirituality" in action. If you want to be "spiritual", you could display the great qualitites of "getting along" with your neighbour that you learn from your system and that would show the spiritual value of your system much more than your "name-calling" and your insults.
In an encyclopedia, an attempt at concensus is what is expected of the editors. So I am attempting to reach concensus with you. I have been a practitioner of the system we are now editing and want to show all of its attributes, not just the PR that the Mission tells it's adherents to "repeat".
I will continue to attempt to not use my words but the words of your "leaders" and Masters to show what the system is "really about" and who are the "leaders" are and what are their ideas and philosophy (if there is a philosophy at the Mission). If you disagree with the words of your Masters, you can attempt to "teach us" how the words can be taken differently. The words speak for themselves. Why are you trying to hide them? No academian or student and writer of Christianity or other religions attempts to hide any words of Christ or other leaders in the "History" of those religions. Chari even insults Christianity and Hinduism. All the different opinions are left to exist in an encyclopedic article on Christianity, including the "horrors" and "massacres" that the Church has been involved in. Some people, even with that information, still are Christians. The truth does not destroy the "religion" if is has "depth". It (the critical exposing of their own material) is supposed to make it "better" and "stronger" and more "spiritual".
I am as biased as you are and my bias should survive as well as yours. The article is the way it is because there have been some "of you" who have seen that an "encyclopedia" is not a PR site. If you want to do PR for the Mission, start a ".com", or work on their site. They could use some help and you seem young and able to devote some time to their "Mission".
I, on the other hand, am old and have seen many "come and go"....I don't get that "excited" over words anymore. I just want the truth to be allowed to "exist".
Don --don 19:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Consensus? Response to Don
Consensus means we reach a point where you and I agree to a version of the SM page in a certain form or at least with respect to specific contributions by each of us. I am of course willing to do so. I hold no brief for any party and would like to have a page that tells everyone about the tradition of Sahaj Marg.
It is obvious, however, that you make no real attempt at consensus and I have therefore given you no relief. Wikipedia policy requires discussions "in good faith". Because of your background, your parallel publications and your actions on this site, I find it hard to believe that you would truly attempt to achieve consensus with me in good faith but rather, would use this as a necessary stepping stone for escalating the dispute to the next level.
However, I am not a stubborn person. We can have a discussion. Since you like to think you are logical and rational, please review the points below and answer or respond to them pointwise:
1. Please point out specific instances of my having insulted you.
2. Please point out demonstrated instances or proof that I would like the site to be a PR platform for an organization or individual.
3. Please demonstrate how this is "your" wikipedia. If your claim of "ownership" is verifiable I will withdraw and seek only legal redress.
4. You openly and brazenly admit that one of the purposes of editing this page is to serve to redirect readers to your blog.
5. Please demonstrate that you know enough about a sophisticated spiritual tradition and its masters to be able to publish on wikipedia, extracts from their teachings such that those truly familiar with the system's teachings would consider appropriate and balanced.
6. How many years did you practise this system? Who did you interact with? What was the level of your interaction with the present spiritual representative of this tradition? How do you quantify spiritual progress?
7. You do realise that in many jurisdictions you risk pecuniary liabilities because of your consistent efforts at denigrating an organization and individual. You publish material on your website that can objectively be considered libel. You insert material on sexuality on a page that is least focussed on such a subject. On your website you welcome posts that have an overtly racial overtone.
8. Practioners of this system may be non-violent and believe in the oneness of God and the divinity of all creatures, but don't make the mistake of thinking they will take any such nonsense lying down. This perception that adherents of the system, by nature of their training, should *get along* with people such as you demonstrates amply your confusion and how superficially you have understood the Sahaj Marg tradition, if at all.
9. You imply that this is a system based on hierarchy and rigidity, that complete obedience is required by the present teacher and seek to present him as a dictatorial personality. Dismissive as you are, you welcome everybody to get "safely tucked in the ONE GOD" where we live without realizing that obedience is central to a "discipline" especially one that is exacting and reaches for the highest. The yoga of the mind is an exacting discipline. It requires years of courage and openness of the heart. Having approached a spiritual master, you obey his suggestions with more of an inner openness rather than just some misplaced sense of doing whatever you're told to do.
10. You admit you are biased. I don't admit any such thing on my part for I don't believe I've been biased. If you disagree stop implying it in an indirect manner and please demonstrate it.
11. Sahaj Marg literature is not an open literature yet. Publications of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission are not offered for sale to the public at large and are subject in any case to copyright protection, including under the laws of Canada. Taking matter subject to copyright and hacking away at it in a way that mutilates it or re-publishing it out of context is a serious infringement of the copyright holder's rights. My edits serve to ensure that such a situation does not arise. As you have been advised before, keep the page simple and straightforward. Don't overload it with information you deem relevant but which you have no rights to publish. If you wish to contradict me, please feel free to do so, but back it up with evidence that you have appropriate licenses in place. Consult a lawyer.
12. Sahaj Marg is not a religion or theology of such mass base that it can be liberally subjected to your purposeless dissection. In law, it is promoted by private institutions set up in each jurisdiction and open for prospective members who wish to join and try out the system - the purpose of these institutions is certainly not to allow people to join it, collect a confused impression from its varied literature, leave and set up blogs to criticize and *try* to pull it down.
12. Thanks for your advice on setting up dot coms. We may be young, but we work, have day jobs and have a life. We have our share of life's joys and sufferings but focus on the positive that life, today and beyond, has to offer. That is an undiluted aspect of the Sahaj Marg tradition.
(Vivekdurai 14:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC))
Reply to Vivekdurai re concensus
Vivekdurai...
I will attempt to deal with all your issues.. See my Userpage for a short bio.
1. In your first reply: "immature activities", being a serious researcher and hardly "immature", I would think you were not attempting to "praise" me. And then you go on: "Sahaj Marg page was unbiased, truthful and balanced till you came in". That is not the truth in my view. You can respect that. It is more balanced now. I have included informtation that the Mission did not want in but it is still the "truth", is not "immature", and hopefully, is not unbalanced. There are many good points for the Mission in the article. As far as some of the "Statements of the Master", if they are "not good" for the Mission, then Chari should not say them. They are not good for the institutions he targets also. Is that acceptable. I have gotten input from the Catholic Church and some "gays and lesbian" activists on some of the statements. Once he has said them, they are part of the history and the "teaching" of the Mission as the Master is to be "obeyed". They are also allowed to be revealed as "education, criticism and discussion or debate.
2. In your "slash and burn", you just erased all that you thought would put "questions" in peoples mind. That is not a "balanced" or "unbiased" opinion. Many statements of the Mission are "unverifiable" so must be in as "claims" and not as "facts"...
3. Where do you get that. It is not my WIKIpedia...I never said that...It is yours and mine and everybody else who wants in...For PR, one must use the "commerce" .com's
4. I agree with you. My blog name was put in by someone from the Mission even though I did not want to put it in. They thought I was "hiding". If you agree not to put it back in, I will remove it. I will leave the other sites in though. I want to get full view of the MISSION. I will not promote my blog but the point of view of the many who contact me with info is to remain. I posted the other blog sites on the discussion page so as to not get into the debate of the "spiritual value" of Sahaj Marg here, and focus on the encyclopedic value of the information.
5. I am a researcher and as such, I have the skills to decide not on the "spiritual value" of the Sahaj Marg but to report on the words and the information put out in speeches, books, audio-visuals etc...that are sent to me daily. The spiritual value is for others to debate. It is not difficult or sophisticated to decide wether the statement: God is Male, is an important statement or not. It is almost a "dogma" if the Master is to be "obeyed". The "sophistication" of Sahaj Marg nor of Raja Yoga is not an issue. I personally find it quite "simple". It is not Raja Yoga but a "simplified version" of it.
6. That is irrelevent. I was an abhyasi and know enough about it to "speak out" and to write an article about it. If the article information is directly from the spoken and written words of the Masters and the leaders of the Mission.
7. First insults and then "threats". I have hosted and moderated many TV talk show and written columns and articles for newspapers. I know the legal aspects of "freedom of speech". We have a "fair use" principle for "criticism, education, and discussion" in most countries. If you want to pursue that, go ahead. I knew the ramifications of this work, knowing Chari and having read many accounts of others who have "had experience" with him. If you want "concensus" you can try a "concensus" approach.
8. The accounts of others cause me to think that abhyasis are not "non-violent" and the Spiritual qualities that I have encountered on this site and on the blogs, does not convince me that they are "compassionate, loving, charitable" either. The threats and the insults that I have received here are more like I was in a "bar-room". Abhyasis are an "emotional" lot. To emulate the LION, a predator, is not a metaphor for "non-violence" either. How about a lamb? or a gentle creature..
9. The Master is the PRESIDENT of the MISSION and has all the power centralized in one person. In Canada, the Board on Directors is not from Canada. The control is with the Management Team. Obedience is important to some paths. To other paths, logic, reason and rationale, is important. If Sahaj Marg Masters want "obedience" that that should be said.
10. I was an abhyasi, I am not anymore. I have a bias. If you don't think you are, then you are not an abhyasi or are not the "represnetative" for the Mission or you just have an "arms length" relationship with the Mission. You just read about it and have never practiced it. If that is not the case, you have a bias and as such your ipinion is POV and not a NPOV. Just like mine. "Slash and burn" that you have performed without discussion is not "un-biased". Anything you don't like, you erase? You don't even discuss? You appear to display a BIAS
11. Your view on copyright infrigement is yours. If you see a area where "fair use" for education, criticisn or discussion does not apply, let me know...We will change it or "paraphrase" it to make it more "acceptable. In my opinion, the quotes have not been mutilated or taken out of context. If you see differently, discuss it. I tried to take as much context as possible without getting too lengthy and get into "copyright" infringements. One or two "direct quotes" I left in for education purpose, so as to show the exact language and to not be accused of "mutilating" the quotes.
12. To criticise an institution or a private club in most countries is part of our "freedom speech". If I misquoted, let me know. Your insinuation that I am trying to "bring Sajaj Marg down" is just your bias. It is not the truth, as I am a truly democratic person. I don't even oppose satanism, or other such quesionable spiritual, political or societal "isms". I do want them to be honest about what they are doing though and if they didn't, I would certainly write about them too. But most societies are "proud" of the statements they and their leaders make. One has to wonder why Sahaj Marg, since Chari is not?? Maybe a little publicity would do the Mission some good. Get the "word" out. If the words the Master speaks might "bring it (Sahaj Marg) down" if they are revealed, one has to wonder about the words!! And the threats just makes one want to "push the issue to the public arena" The World should know! What is there to hide. If you believe in "obedience" to the point that Chari mentions, then don't hide it.
Keep on the Sunny Side of Life...
Don--don 20:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Citations...
Hi Willbeback...
Regarding your request for "citation" on the Homosexuality statement. This statement contains two part which I questionned including and got much feedback. The first part is from the defenders of the "Master" to show that Homosexuals were still involved in the Mission. This statement was not "cited" and I wanted it taken out but I finally gave in and left it in. Then another Gentleman, a Mr. K, left a message on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sahaj_marg )the last section, and wanted the statement to stand that Homosexuals were under pressure to change or leave.
How do I deal with these two "un-cited" statements? Does a "testimonial" on a "talk" page constitute a "citation"? Can I refer to the Talk page??
You can either leave me a message at my User page or leave it here if you prefer... I will leave you a message on your User page, "discussion" ...
Thanks for your assistance...
Don--don 19:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Don...
- Any uncited material may be removed. It is politie and more productive to first request a source. Much of the information on Wikipedia isn't sourced, but could be if someone checked. Other material can't be verified. One of our core policies is WP:Verifiability. As for the quality of verifying source, that's covered in WP:ATT and WP:RS. Preferred sources would be respectable media, like books (not self-published though), newspapers, and magazines. Talk pages, forums, most blogs, and other unedited sources are not sufficient. -Will Beback · † · 06:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Will Beback...
Thanks for your input...
--don 19:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
