Talk:Aum Shinrikyo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject Buddhism This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Aum Shinrikyo, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Peer review Aum Shinrikyo has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
To-do list for Aum Shinrikyo: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Requests: [http--www.stimson.org-cbw-pdf-atxchapter3.pdf]

Contents

[edit] Developing nuclear weapons

The group had access to a uranium mine and tried to develop nuclear weapons.

Sounds a little far fetched to me Jackliddle 12:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Removed this part again. Argumentation: theories and assumptions must not be part of encyclopedia articles (i.e. even if a reputable newspaper such as New York Times speaks of something as of a fact, we still need to check the source). Another unconfirmed fiction are that Aum "may have attempted" to purchase uranium in Africa and Russia. That's what immediately comes to mind. In my humble opinion, if any traces of uranium extraction at the "uranium mine" (=Australian farm) were found, the goverment of Australia would not hesitate inform the public. Same as with bio-weapons (i.e. alleged testing of them in Australia).
Removed the slightly rephrased passage one more time (this brings total removal attempts to over 5). Those trying to restore this information, please kindly discuss your efforts here before editing, provide source. One little hint: as we know, Saddam Hussein also reportedly developed WMD to attack US, where are these weapons? No government has ever officially confirmed any nuclear weapon development by Aum on its territory (and Australian government even disproved the media reports on this matter officially, if I remember correctly). Georgetown University Paper (which the author of this edit posted as his source to justify the change) specifically says that "it is not clear if Aum considered radiological weapons", so I assume the author misunderstood the meaning. For this reason I removed the passage. [User:ExitControl|ExitControl]

Re your comment: "Georgetown University Paper (which the author of this edit posted as his source to justify the change) specifically says that "it is not clear if Aum considered radiological weapons", so I assume the author misunderstood the meaning. For this reason I removed the passage."

You are mistaken. Read the Georgetown paper carefully and you will note this passage refers to purchasing a nuclear weapon, like a suitcase nuclear bomb, as opposed to building one out of uranium.

See the below passage about Aum's attempts to build a bomb out of uranium.

Re “In my humble opinion, if any traces of uranium extraction at the "uranium mine" (=Australian farm) were found, the government of Australia would not hesitate inform the public”. IMO, the opposite is true. Why alarm the populace? And perhaps there was and is an ongoing investigation by Aussie FBI. No need to panic the media; just play dumb.

But I propose we leave this issue in this "Talk" Section, rather than battle over revisions in the "Article" section.
BTW, anybody who definitively knows whether Aum tried to build nuclear weapons is probably either dead or not talking. The same criticism of "lack of evidence" was used to shield Joseph "Uncle Joe" Stalin, who nobody could 'prove' ever knew about Kirov's assassination or the other monstrosities in the Soviet Union. It was his standard ploy. Also poison was never found in the Jonestown (Jim Jones) massacre. And there are those who would argue that since no single document signed by Hitler outlining the "Final Solution" was ever found, perhaps the Nazi death camps were a rogue operation. We could go on (Iran/Contra affair and Reagan comes to mind). By contrast, your analogy about WMD and Iraq is not apropos, IMO, since there are swarms of reporters in Iraq who have proved that indeed no weapons exist to date, as opposed to inside Aum, where we have to go by circumstantial evidence. Ask yourself: what was Aum doing describing uranium and buying a uranium mine? Perhaps they were planning a picnic? Or wanted to resell the uranium at a profit (actually a good investment, now that oil is more expensive--nuclear is coming back!). No, they were trying to build a A-bomb, found that too difficult, and settled on a nerve gas bomb. But let's not upset the zanies that might be their fans--I don't need some cultist tracking me down, which, given their technical expertise, they could probably do.

http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/programs/stia/students/vol.02/chiricom.htm

Aum undertook extensive operations to secure a sizeable uranium supply. In 1993, the group's Minister of Construction began making frequent trips to Australia in search of a suitable mining site. In his notebook, he devoted ten pages to descriptions of the quality of the uranium at various properties. With the help of electrodes, laptops and other testing equipment, Aum finally decided on Banjawarn, a 500,000-acre sheep farm remotely located 375 miles northeast of Perth. The group purchased the property for $400,000 along with eight mining leases for $4,700 each. Aum later requested a ship and 44-gallon drums in order to export the uranium presumably back to Japan to attempt enrichment. On 28 May 1993, Australian observers noted a seismic explosion that sent shockwaves through the area for hundreds of miles.10 Witnesses in the vicinity of the Aum property reported a bright blush flash at the time of the explosion. The event was explained as a meteor impact but no crater was found in the area.

I've heard that the shockwave could have corresponded with either a meteor impact, or a small nuclear explosion. This needs to be looked into further, and at least the possibility that Aum may have detonated a nuclear weapon in the Australian Outback should at least be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.154.33 (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frontispiece

I suggest removing the Crime Library link. Reason: this article is written in a journalistic style, not academic. It is does not have much facts in it, but it is extremely biased. To add some balance, I suggest putting a link to some book or article by some scholar.

Also: no need to repeat twice in one paragraph that Asahara was sentenced to death, this is excessive.ExitControl

I restored the link to the Crime Library. Is another source of information, and even if it is a "journalistic article" it contains a bibliography that readers can refer to. We do not need to eliminate it, but to add more links with different viewpoints.



Aum Shinrikyo (Japanese: オウム真理教) ("The True Doctrine of Aum") is the former name of a controversial Buddhist religious group based in Japan. The group gained notoriety when its founder and a number of senior members were convicted of masterminding the 1995 poison gas attack on a Tokyo subway.

Well, it gained notoriety in Japan somewhere around 1989, when its members ran for municipal elections (they lost). The negative image comes from these times. International notoriety it gained in 1995, right after the attack. Convictions came years later. I will try to rephrase this.
Added: Buddhist, controversial. As to 'Buddhist', I think it is important to state this. It is also a controversial group: labeled 'foreign terrorist group' by the State Dept in the US, was not disbanded in Japan; public image is very bad, but the documentary by Mori gets the Berlin Festival award etc. Also: Aum Shinrikyo better translates as 'Aum. The teaching of truth', though the "true doctrine" is technically accurate.

(ExitControl)

Frankly, I'm not sure why it is important to state this. Whether or not Aum is legitimately Buddhist is a controversial topic. For comparison, we don't begin the articles on Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses by saying, "they are Christians". - Nat Krause 09:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have very limited knowledge about these two groups. But they are not very knew, are relatively large and more or less known, so probably it is not necessary to point to their connections with Christianity.

[edit] ASrk and Unification

Can someone verify the cult's connection to the Unification Church? -- Zoe

Re: connection to Unification Church. To the best of my knowledge, there is no connection of Aum Shinrikyo to the UC, apart from the fact that some of Aum followers may have had some previous experience with it (UC is quite active in Japan). (ExitControl)

[edit] Translation of Aum

I highly doubt the translation of "aum" as powers of destruction and creation in the universe. In Hinduism it is the perfect syllable that allows one to concentrate in meditation. If no one can provide a cide for this definition, I'll remove the phrase. Kricxjo 10:44, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

ExitControl The quote is from Aum books, that's how Shoko Asahara explained the meaning. I suggest restoring to the original state as I see no sense to say smth like 'aum defines such and such, but others say this is a Hindu syllable'. I erred, sorry: not 'in the universe', but 'of the universe'.

[edit] Critique from June

The above article seems to be based on the book by David Kaplan, criticized by some scholars of new religions for lack of factual evidence in many of his assertions. For lack of time I will not be able to improve the article in the nearest future, but would like to point out at some incostincencies.

Firstly, terms like 'terrorist cult' are criticized by scholars of new religious movements, who advocate more neutral labels, such as 'new religous movement' (NRM). The said scholars, of which Prof. Massimo Introvigne could be a good example, are labeled 'cult apologists' as a result (among their misdeeds are critique of 'anti-cultists' and references to human rights abuses committed by the parties oposing 'the cults').

'Activities' fiels needs improvement, it is strange that only crimes are listed. AUM Shinrikyo, to my knowledge, was heavily involved in religious activities. For example, AUM was the first religios group in Japan to translate the ancient Buddhist sutras from Pali to modern Japanese (the said sutras, which are a core teachings of Buddhism, came to Japan from China in distorted and abbreviated form and obviously cannot be understood by modern Japanese for they are written in Ancient Chinese). Shoko Asahara himself met with H.H. Dalai Lama (though there is controversy over the meeting), was awarding the Buddhist holy relics by the minister in Sri-Lanka (he financially supported the Sri-Lankan Buddhist Sangha and lectured there on several occasions), has met with the King of Bhutan, etc etc.

'Teaching' field does not appear to be based on serious research. Despite the popular belief, AUM's teaching is based on original Buddhist Sutras (texts), which were not yet translated in full even to English (but were translated to Japanese by AUM, together with some important Tibetan sutras). This is clear from the court materials of Shoko Asahara's trial (available in Japanese, I have read some of the transcripts related to the subject). Besides the original Buddhist sutras, AUM's teaching also incorporates some Yogic concepts (Hinduism), as well as Taoist concepts. It can't be said that Christian doctrines are incorporated, though they were mentioned in some of the sermons by Shoko Asahara. In other words, it is not a mixture of something. It is Modern Japanese Buddhism, if we look at the facts and follow the author's logic that can be named 'a mixture' (i.e. abbreviated mixture of Chinese Buddhism with native Japanese Shinto tradition). Full collection of AUM teachings is about 7 bookshelves, there is a special 'system' of learning it, when basic teachings are learned first and more profound things, based on the elementary classes, are studied later.

The references to Christianity should be understood in context: they are present only in sermons related to the future, i.e. so-called prophecies. Shoko Asahara has never said anything like 'America will start Armageddon by attacking Japan'. But he warned against Japan joining the coalition forces lead by America in attacking some 'small asian country' (note for Americans: Afghanistan is located at the Asian continent). Though the victory against this poor country would seem simple, he warned, it will result in long and dangerous war with Islamic world and will likely bring destruction to Japan as a result. Not saying a word about war between Japan and America, he said that 'the third world war will be fought between the Cristian and Islamic world'. He said that in 1994, 1995.

Armageddon stands for a city located somewhere in the Middle East (Meggido), the common meaning (i.e. 'the final war' etc.) has little relevance to AUM's usage of this world. Therefore the 'mission of AUM' with regard to anticipated wars is to stop the wars (see the book 'Mahayana Sutra' by Shoko Asahara for reference) by means of religious activity.

I would like not to comment on crimes and incidents for lack of data. The 'residual Russian branch' was established about 1993 (several branches, in fact). They ceased to exist in 1995 by court ruling that found that 'AUM religious practices damages human health' (other new religions were attacked as well by Russian courts: Scientology, Jehowwah's Witnesses, various Christian communities with foreign headquarters, Krishna's Consciousness etc., to varying success). Fumihiro Joyu was the head of Russian branches (summoned to Japan immediately after the incidents), currently head of Aleph, AUM's successor.

I hope that the article's author will forgive me for this remark, but the article seems not to be based on any direct research, including reading anything written by Shoko Asahara. This is explained by lack of primary data translated into English and abundance of books written by some dishonest academics, full of distortions, factual errors and fantasies. I am in real doubt that the United States of America has not a single researcher capable of studying the AUM (supposedly the Anti-US terrorist group) and produced anything realistic and fact-based. Probably there is real deficiency in professionals (Note: I am talking about the scholars, not this article's authour who merely bases his text on their 'researches'), which is really dangerous in view of modern events. Or the general public has no access to real research, for reasons I can only guess.

None. [1]

Hello, anonymous reader, I tend to believe that your criticism is correct although I have not checked it and can not check it. Scholarship on new religious movements is often of very bad quality. Wikipedia is allows no original research so there is nothing we can do. You sound like someone who is knowledgeable to publish some scholarly research about Aum Shinrikyo. Then we can improve the article. Andries 22:01, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I believe that the problem is not with whether the research was performed by academics, rather with availability of information on new religions and quality of this research. I myself will try to improve the article somewhat step by step, when time allows. I see that other community members reworked my text, which is good. But I see several gross mistakes right now. Example: Aum was not 'disbanded' in 1995, it has never been disbanded. Japanese Diet (Parliament) failed to pass the law to disband the group, although the Public Safety Comittee (Japanese CIA) advocated strongly, please see the CESNUR newspaper article collection for reference. I suggest deleting the 'crime library' external link for such lame statements, jointly with material pulled from the 'library'.
we know where afghanistan is, you douchebag apologist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.44 (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Note about 'cult-bashers'

It also seems important to note that there are groups usually called 'cult-bashers' that collect and later distribute the smear material on religious groups they call 'cults'. Example of such group: Cult Awareness Network. Besides smearing the 'cults' these entities label the scholars suspected in 'sympathising the cults' in being 'cult sympathisers' and smear them as well (usually so-called 'character assassination' is involved, when scholar is accused being a bad citized, drug addict etc.). I would very much like these people to keep their research to themselves and not produce it here, but given the nature of open source this is not always feasible. 'Cult-bashers' is a separate problem for scholars in itself, as they tend to provide information that look legitimate and to attack sholars focused more on research than activism.

[edit] Comments on the "During its most successful period" passage

Another difficulty is how to classify the doctrine. There always are a lot of PhDs that offer their expert opinion on what Aum's doctrine is (i.e. 'a mixture of..'), usually not bothering to read even the several books that were translated into English (the full collection is several bookshelves in Japanese). Let me comment the following passage:
During its most successful period, Aum Shinrikyo was a new religious group (did it ceased to be new or religios since then?), often described as a cult (true, but a repetition), centered on the charismatic leader Shoko Asahara (debatable and not very informative). Asahara's teachings (incorrect label, Asahara did not write the Pali Canon, so we cannot say the Canon is his teachings) combined elements of Buddhism and Hinduism (simplistic and not accurate) as well as millenarian Christianity (wrong), including yoga (yoga was already mentioned - Hinduism, why repeat), meditation (meditation is a technique, not a religion), and Qi Gong breathing exercises (Qi Gong is not 'breathing excercise', it's static postures, there are also moves, there are some breathing rules, similar to 'kata' in Karate. Qi Gong is part of Taoism, which was mentioned in my edition of the article) Central to the group's teachings was that the apocalypse is near (popular belief, but wrong. Central to the teachings are original buddhist sutras, the Pali Canon). The name "Aum Shinrikyo" derived from the Hindu mantra "Aum", followed by a Japanese word meaning "supreme truth" (true). /// Note: not much factual data, many lame passages, a lot seems to be said just to make the group seem weirder.
I am writing this comment to outline problems that are hard to avoid when dealing with the subject and to find consensus on how to improve the article. In other worlds, I think that stuff like doctrine is better discuss here and then make amendments.

[edit] Description of crimes

Same to crimes. Does it makes any sense to describe the sufferings of victims at such lenghth (almost a half of the text)? Will we post the detailed report on how exactly Mr Clinton had sex with that Ms Levinsky on Clinton's article (half of the text)? I suggest just to state who was killed.
'On October 31, 1989, a lawyer working against Aum Shinrikyo, Tsutsumi Sakamoto, successfully persuaded Shoko Asahara to submit to a blood test to test for the "special power" that the leader claimed was present throughout his body. He found no sign of anything unusual. To prevent the disclosure of this outcome' /// The blood test and 'special power' is simplistic and untrue. Tsutsumi Sakamoto, to my knowledge was a lawyer who tried something like mega-lawsuit Japanese-style against Aum and was very active in that. Monks in Aum severe ties with families, so their relatives (such as fathers, mothers etc.), with help of Sakamoto, sought 'compensation' (money) for the fact that they cannot live with them as they used to (moral damage) and funds they were receiving when relatives supported them financially (financial damage). Sakamoto was their lawyer, who received percentage of the sums. Of course, Sakamoto probably also tried to 'expose Aum' as lawyers do, but Aum was 'exposed' many thousand times before by almost every major newspaper or TV station in Japan. Compensations could make Aum bankrupt. So this is the facts, but I suggest deleting everything except the fact that Sakamoto was murdered and what Sakamoto did shortly before the murder. Otherwise, we could safely try not only describe Mr Clinton's affair in naturalistic details, but also write on reasons Ms Levinsky was so attractive to him in length.

[edit] Pali Canon

There appear to be some factual inaccuracy about Aleph being the first to publish the complete Japanese translation of Pali Cannons. The title of the translation was done way before. Here is the title in Japanese "南伝大蔵経". It is usually in 60 to 80 volumes. FWBOarticle 06:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is really interesting and I did not know that. I will check. Is that possible that this translation relies on Chinese texts as its source? Otherwise I don't see the reason for Aum to invest such enormous efforts in traslation.
By the way, the website www.accesstoinsight.com says that the Pali Canon has been published in English, "except for a few obscure books". It does not say whether those books have been translated and just not published. - Nat Krause 09:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
True, I also checked a couple of links, also found that "almost all" was translated. Well, if so much has been translated anyway, it's not probably not very important if Aum became translation pioneer. So I suggest just adding info that Aum did its own translations, efforts are enormous.ExitControl

[edit] Please sign edits

Please make sign your edits on the talk page otherwise it is difficult to following the discussion. Signed Andries 21:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Further comments on the "During its most successful period" passage

I restored the deleted paragraph. Some comments:

During its most successful period, Aum Shinrikyo was a new religious group (did it ceased to be new or religios since then?)

No, it is still religious and still fairly new. But it is important to note that it is part of the phenomenon of post-WWII Japanese religious groups.

, often described as a cult (true, but a repetition),

How is that a repitition, given that it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article?

I thought it was mentioned, sorry. Can we add a separate chapter about how Aum is often described (a doomesday cult, a dangerous sect, terrorist group etc.)? I suggest someting like 'Relations with Japanese society'. Cult is not a neutral label, so I suggest to refer to Aum as to a 'group' or 'organization'. (there is controversy over labels among academics, many prefer labeling new religins 'NRMs' - new religiuos movements, otherwise there is some apparent bias). Post-WWII religions phenomena is important and related indeed and I suggest adding more under a separate title.
If you want to add that as a chapter, sure, go ahead and write it. But I think that noting that people think they are a cult is one of the most salient facts about Aum. If we say "described as a cult", I think that will actually put the group in a more favorable light for some people, because 90% of the people who start reading this article will come into with the idea "Aum Shinrikyo? That's that demmed terrorist cult!" so, when they read "described as", maybe they will get the idea that was is described is not necessarily so. - Nat Krause 09:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
True, but don't you think it would make sense just to state the facts. If it is describe as 'cult', then we can say so below in the article. Actually, I added a passage about this (in the 'doctrine'), please check. If we write about Dalai Lama, for example, and note that he is a religious leader, we wouldn't immediately say how Chinese government labels him, though we could add something below about how his activities are regarded in China "by some". - ExitControl
centered on the charismatic leader Shoko Asahara (debatable and not very informative).

How can it be not very informative to mention the founder, leader, and primary teacher of the group during it's most successful period?

I believe in structure, so let's just state who is a founder (Asahara), briefly outline his biography, and not mention this again thruout the text where not absolutely necessary. I suggest adding a part specifically about the founder and put it there.
I have nothing against structure, either, but I'm not sure why we should try to avoid mentioning Shoko Asahara in this article. His influence seems to have been predominant. - Nat Krause 09:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
True, but there is no need to avoid mentioning. He is mentioned in 'doctrine' (books he authored, his views on vehicles) and below in 'Activities' (though briefly), also in 'incidents'. I think it probably makes sense to expand the 'activities' field, adding things that Asahara directed. As to more biographical info, I suggest putting it to a separate article.ExitControl
Asahara's teachings (incorrect label, Asahara did not write the Pali Canon, so we cannot say the Canon is his teachings)

The text is not referring to the Pali Canon, it is referring to Asahara.

It said that Asahara's teachings are such and such. Asahara's own text is perhaps 30% of Aleph's doctrine, other 70% Asahara did not write though they are part of a doctrine. So, instead of saying 'Asahara's teachings' we need to say 'Aum's doctrine', of which Asahara's lectures are a part, but not the only part. That's because we talk about religious doctrine of Aum as a whole.
I disagree with this wording. If you teach Buddhism, then Buddhism becomes your teaching, if you teach fishing, then how to fish becomes your teaching. If the Pali Canon is just available, with people learning about it on their own, without anyone's guidance, then Asahara can't really be said to be a teacher of it, and it can't really be said to constitute part of Aum's doctrine. - Nat Krause 09:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There is no contradiction here. Asahara himself said that what he teaches is 'buddhism' and he wrote comments to the Canon. Sutras are studied together with comments, i.e. under his guidance and then are supposed to practiced, also with his guidance. So, we may say that 'Asahara teaches Buddhism' (meaning that he is a Budhist teacher), but if we talk about doctrine, it is founded on Pali Canon. I find it difficult to follow your logic. If you doubt whether he is qualified to teach Buddhism, that's another topic as we then need to establish an autority to recognize his teachings as Buddhist or non-Buddhist.

ExitControl

combined elements of Buddhism and Hinduism (simplistic and not accurate)

A casual look at Aleph's website indicates that it is quite accurate.

Aleph's site is very brief anyway. The statement is true, but I would still change the wording, so that it don't give an impression that Aum combines almost every world religion: Buddhism is a core, there is some Yoga and Taoism, basically that's it. Connections to Christianity are peripheral. The group therefore is a Buddhist one.
We should probably say that Aum started with a base of Buddhism, added a fair amount of Hinduism and Taoism, and then had minor influences from other religions. - Nat Krause 09:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, in fact Aum started from Yoga. But it already has it already, doesn't it? Well, a lot can be said about how Aum developed and its doctrine evolved. Only the article would become a novel then. I suggest to probably make a separate article on Aum's religious doctrine and practices (not organization) and then present all this, including traditional academic points of view like yours.
as well as millenarian Christianity (wrong), including yoga (yoga was already mentioned - Hinduism, why repeat), meditation (meditation is a technique, not a religion),

The article does not claim that meditation is a religion, but it is certainly something that Asahara taught.

Sure. But I still suggest to differentiate between the 'doctrine' (essentially a collection of books) and religious practices (meditations, chanting, ceremonies etc). Let us add another section, I suggest "religious practices" and put meditations there.
Feel free to work on this, but I'm not sure how well the new version would flow, information-wise. - Nat Krause 09:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Probably it makes sense do make a separate article on Aum as religion (as opposed to organization). What you think? I added a paragraph on practices and ranks, but it looks somewhat bulky now.ExitControl
Central to the group's teachings was that the apocalypse is near (popular belief, but wrong. Central to the teachings are original buddhist sutras, the Pali Canon)

I took out the claim that the apocalypse was central.

[edit] Ex-members

Also, I took out the line about the "ex-members" not being members of the successor group, Aleph, on the basis of anonymous above's statement "Aum was not 'disbanded' in 1995, it has never been disbanded," i.e. Aleph is not a successor group, it is the same group. - Nat Krause 08:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Technically these 'ex-members' are not members of the 'same group'. To my knowledge, they were members of Aum Shinrikyo, but did not join or were not permitted to join the successor organization, Aleph. As these people cannot be a member of a group that no longer exist (although existed previously), I suggest calling them 'ex-members' anyway. There are also Aum members who were not involved in any crimes, but did not join Aleph for some reason, Aleph calls them 'ex-members' too. (ExitControl).
We should make up our minds one way or the other on whether Aleph is the same organization as Aum Shinrikyo or a different group that was formed to replace it. If it is the same group, then existing members would have to be expelled, rather than simply not allowed to join. - Nat Krause 09:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not expelled, they were not allowed to join Aleph (expelled) or they themselves did not join for some reason. Aleph is Aum Shinrikyo that has changed its name and policies. I am not sure whether they asked members to confirm membership or re-join, but this is probable. Do you see any point in this membership issue? It is believed that the move is an attempt to soften the social tensions: new name, peaceful logo (pigeon), compensation fund etc. We may add that.

[edit] Comments on the "Aleph claims to base its doctrine" passage

Aleph claims to base its doctrine on the ancient Buddhist Pali Canon, although they also venerate the Hindu god Shiva. Along with the Pali Canon, Aleph uses other religious texts, including a number of Tibetan Buddhist sutras and Hindu yogic sutras, and Taoist scriptures.

I will rewrite this part. It reads as if Aum claims it is Buddhist, while in fact it's not as it venerates some non-Buddhist deity. In fact, Aum's Shiva is not a Hindu Shiva, these are different deities. Aum's Shiva (they call it 'the Great Lord Shiva' to not confuse with Hindu Shiva) is supreme to the three Hindu deities, including that Shiva. That's actually a common mistake on part of scholars. See Massimo Introvigne, he bothered to study the doctrine. (ExitControl)
I'm not familiar with any other Buddhist groups that worship any god called Shiva, or any personified god at all on the same level as the Buddha. So I'm not sure how it is relevant whether or not this Shiva is supremier than the Hindu version.
Lord Shiva=Samantabhadra=Kuntu-Zangpo=Adi-Buddha. Adi-Buddha means 'the first Buddha', 'the first savior'. That's why I think it is relevant to know that since Lord Shiva is another name to Adi-Buddha, Aum's Lord Shiva ("The Great Lord Shiva") is not Hindu Shiva. Adi-Buddha is central deity in Nyingmapa. I wouldn't like to speculate on levels and personification, though. Buddhas and Boddhisattvas are not exactly gods, to be precise. (ExitControl)
By the way, it appears that, just as Massimo Introvigne criticizes the anti-cult movement as propaganda, he in turn is criticized by the anti-cult and countercult people as a serial propagandist and his organization is charged with distorting the facts. So it's hard for someone on the outside to know which to take as a credible source. The fact Introvigne and his associates apparently have had ties to the Scientologist Cult Awareness Network doesn't reflect well on them. - Nat Krause 09:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sure. I even remember reading somewhere that Introvigne worships Satan (really). But I thought Cult Awareness Network is an anti-cult group? Anyway, he maintains the page with newspaper articles. He is not a big expert on Aum, to my knowledge. Introvigne is not the only one criticizing the cult-bashing movement, so we need to admit that there is either a debate going on among scholars or some sinister Satanic plot by some corrupted cult-sympathizers to promote cults and distort the scientific truth :-) (ExitControl)
"But I thought Cult Awareness Network is an anti-cult group?" Please read article to clear up the confusion. 67.113.3.186 22:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crimes again

I believe that we should restore the in-depth paragraph about the Sakamoto deaths, though I'll put it in a new article. WhisperToMe 19:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No objections. (ExitControl)

[edit] Page move

(shoot, I forgot to continuing discussing this page. we hadn't really settled some stuff) I do want to say that I am opposed to the page move. Aum Shinrikyo is by far the most commonly known name for this group. Arguably, Aleph should have its own separate page. But there should definitely be a page for Aum. - Nat Krause 06:40, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, we need to consider it. I wouldn't like to have information duplicated and if we are to start a separate Aleph page, 90% of its info will be pulled from Aum Shinrikyo page anyway. Probably we could split the history to "Aum" phase and "Aleph" phase? That's because doctrine and other things didn't change (except for a couple of books that were removed). - ExitControl
I really dispute whether they can be called a Buddhist group at all. The Aum Shinrikyo page should probably just redirect to Aleph. Exploding Boy 15:59, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
I have my doubts too. Aleph/Aum Shinrikyo sounds very syncretistic and should be forward to e.g. Aleph (religious group).Andries 16:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, I partially third those opinions, but I don't see the point of not having the article at Aum Shinrikyo in the first place. A lot of this article is about the group's history before the name change. - Nat Krause 16:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree, especially given that most people know them as Aum, and they are still referred to as such in the Japanese media. Exploding Boy 16:28, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Didn't check the page for some time. Well, my opinion is that currently it is texhnically accurate (as there is no such legal body as Aum Shinrikyo). But I am also sure that outside Japan few would know it changed name. So probably a redirect would be OK. But I am against a split into 2 separate articles, makes no sense. - ExitControl
For me, its either a split or a move to Aum Shinrikyo. WhisperToMe 00:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is it ok for me to move this page back to Aum Shinrikyo now? WhisperToMe 02:38, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Done. - Nat Krause 04:58, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Removed the Apologetics Index Weblog again (previously it was removed by Gary D). Reason: it is almost identical (examples of exceptions below) to CESNUR's collection of newspaper articles, a link to which we already have.

Also removed the Apologetics Index link as well. This is an "online Christian ministry" aiming to "provide Christians with information on cults and sects", i.e. a Christian anti-cult website (it also has a specific section on "Aum apologists", as well as on "cult sympathysers" in general). Since there is no evidence that any staff member of this group has ever met Aum members alive and since all the links listed by the AI are available elsewhere, I suggest inserting direct links.

The following two articles are present at CESNUR, but not AI:

[edit] Religious News Blog and compensations fund

As regards the recent changes (which involved links to Religious News Blog, previously removed 3 times from "see also" section), I will try to incorporate additions, but not incorrect info. Let me comment on the following passage:

"[v]ictims of the March 1995 sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway and other crimes committed by the AUM Shinrikyo cult urged the government Wednesday to act swiftly and comprehensively on the issue of compensation, which remains unresolved after nine years." The report pointed out that AUM had been "ordered to pay compensation to its victims. However, the cult is apparently short of funds, while those directly involved in the crimes do not have the capacity to pay." (Kyodo News Service)

In fact, Aum Shinrikyo paid everything it could and was declared bankrupt as a result (that is why "the cult" is "short of funds", because it does not exist anymore). A new successor organization has been established, under name Aleph and it can not be "ordered" to pay any debts of Aum Shinrikyo, obviously. However, Aleph *voluntarily* established a compensations fund to pay compensations to victims. There were reports in the media pointing to insufficient *government* support to victims, including medical and financial, but this has nothing to do with "acting swiftly" with "the cult", because it has already being paid fully and the new organization is not responsible for any outstanding debts(see above). Therefore, as this passage is misleading, I will remove it.

[edit] Apologetics Index: Under Surveiilance Passage

Replaced links to Apologetincs Index (a countercult website maintained by an "online Christian ministry") - over 6 total, some repeating - with direct links to sources.

[edit] Miscellaneous minor edits

Removed the sentence on nuclear weapons development and attempts to acquite uranium (lack of credible evidence). To the best of my knowledge, suspicions and theories regarding attempts to buy uranium in Africa and extract in Australia were not confirmed.

Changed around some wording. Under Activities, "It had been founded by" becomes "Founded by". "young elite universities graduates" becomes "young graduates from elite universities". Gaius Octavius Atellus

[edit] Moved from page: Nuclear capability?

At 11:03 p.m. local time on May 28, 1993, seismic monitors detected a massive disturbance in the Great Victoria Desert in Western Australia. Truckers and prospectors reported seeing a bright flash, followed by the sound of an explosion. The disturbance produced seismic results 170 times more powerful than any mining explosion ever recorded. It is suspected that Aum Shinrikyo was involved, and that they may have detonated a nuclear weapon, since a) they had bought 500,000 acres of land in the area concerned, b) they were later known to be mining uranium, and c) they had recently recruited two nuclear engineers from the former Soviet Union. If this is the case, Aum Shinrikyo is the first non-governmental organisation in history to detonate a nuclear weapon.

This response is from The Straight Dope: Did the Aum Shinrikyo cult detonate an atom bomb in Australia?:

Nicely put, but of course we can't leave it at that. On further investigation, it appears that the Aum Shinrikyo connection was publicized through the efforts of one Harry Mason, an Australian mining geologist and sometime UFO investigator. Having heard about the 1993 event a couple years after the fact, Mason interviewed every observer he could find within a 300-kilometer radius of Banjawarn. Several reported seeing a large fireball streak across the sky and disappear beyond the horizon, followed by a near-blinding burst of light accompanied by a loud blast, a massive seismic ground wave, and a huge red flare that shot into the sky. This in turn was followed by "a deep red-orange coloured hemisphere of opaque light" that hovered above the apparent explosion site for hours, then suddenly disappeared; another fireball an hour after the first one; and possibly a third one still later (or earlier--the observers didn't remember). Numerous other fireballs have supposedly been spotted in western Australia in the years before and since.
Mason wrote up a report describing all this and pointing out the Aum Shinrikyo link. His report found its way into the hands of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations headed by U.S. senator Sam Nunn, which asked Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), a university research consortium based in Washington, D.C., to look into the possibility that the cultists had somehow detonated an atom bomb. On the basis of the sketchy seismic data available, IRIS concluded that an explosion was unlikely and found that "the observations are consistent with a meteorite scenario," notwithstanding the lack of a crater or other physical evidence.

There we go: one crackpot convinced a couple of people to look into it, who decided that it was just a meteor. – ClockworkSoul 13:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Amazingly, but this "nuclear testing/uranium enrichment" story made its way to all the scholarly books on Aum, as well as numerous articles and reports (which says something about their credibility). We better check thing like this up before posting, no matter how authoritative the source may seem at first (think US State Dept and the like...)
Isn't it still worth mentioning in the article that Aum mines uranium and recruits nuclear specialists? Personally I find that frightening whether or not they tested a bomb already! - Cathal
Sure, but there are no information that Aum sought nuclear scientists more than 60-yeas-old grandmas as potential recruits. It may be said that Aum had unusually high percentage of top university graduates, that is because Shoko Asahara personally agitated during the lecture tours. Not sure if they somehow preferred nuclear scientists.

ExitControl

[edit] Passage on doctrine removed

Other beliefs include the yogic practice of shaktipat, which is the direct transmission of spiritual energy, or mingling of spiritual bodies on the subtle plane, between guru and student. This is a belief of guru-based yoga systems, where the guru has divine or semi-divine status. Aum also had a number of beliefs from the modern world, such as the belief the practicality of death-ray type weapons written about by Nikola Tesla (see Senate Hearing reference), and influence by Isaac Asimov's Foundation series of novels as a model for Aum, "depicting as it does an elite group of spiritually evolved scientists forced to go underground during an age of barbarism so as to prepare themselves for the moment ... when they will emerge to rebuild civilization" (Lifton, p258). Also, experience of the science fiction movies that grew out of Japan's cultural response to the Hiroshima - Nagasaki bombings was a commonality within the group.

Reasons for removal: Yes, Aum/Aleph previously had the shaktipat tradition and yes, it is OK to say that it came from Indian Yoga tradition. What the author wanted to imply saying specifically about the divine status of a guru is unclear. As to everything else, the author seems to misunderstand the information completely. Asimov, Tesla and everything else mentioned in the passage ware mentioned in publications used as means to attract the Japan’s potential followers who are very interested in politics and everything high-tech and para-normal (this is apparent judging on where and for what audience the material was published), and these publications did not constitute the doctrine of the group, that is clear. Yes, references to Tesla or Asimov did appear in Shoko Asahara’s speeches to disciples and thus later published, but judging on the context they did not play the assumed role (i.e. these are not beliefs at all).

It seems that the passage in question originated from the book by Robert J. Lifton. Left the reference to the said book in 'further readings'.

ExitControl

Hi ExitControl, I just reverted, but you where adding the above at the same moment , so I hadn't seen your comments before I did. I would have responded to them first if I had. (Please sign your comments with 4 tildes, that way the date will be automatically included; makes it easier to keep track of things.) I think our dispute is about offical doctrines versus beliefs. My point is that the group (that is , the people in the group) has common beliefs that are not part of the official doctrine, but those beliefs do influence what the group does and what happens. As for shatkipat, the belief is that the guru must be at some advanced level for the process to occur; some groups hold to guru to be at the divine (hishest) level. In the case of AumSR, the group definitely projected the idea that the guru was at some rare high level. For instance, the photo of S.A.. levitating in their book. Numerous other ways they convey the idea that S.A. is special, and thus capable of spiritual miracles like shaktipat. As for Asimov and Tesla beliefs, you are right I guess that they are not part of the OFFICIAL DOCTRINE, but they are part of the belief structure of the group members, as you admit. Those beliefs will still have their effect on the believers, regardless of whether they are official dogma. It is this background of beliefs that the paragraph attempst to convey. GangofOne 00:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Yes, you basically understand correctly. The shaktipat was indeed one of the core elements during certain period of time (I wouldn't call it a belief though). As to other things: to be precise, information on Tesla, x-ray weapons, articles on Asimov's Foundation series etc. was published in magazines aimed for outside observers interested in Aum and vice versa, to interest those who are not interested in Aum the religion in the slightest, but keep some interest in these unusual subjects i.e. it was used as part of recruitment efforts. As such, followers were actually discouraged from reading them, let alone thinking they are somehow part of the doctrine (that would be nonsense). The author who "documented" something you are referring to (I believe it was R.J.Lifton) probably misunderstood. If you maintain that this information is important, let us include it, but with proper explanations, otherwise Aum will just look weird and irrational. Please share you opinion. Back to shaktipat: yes, you're right when you say that a guru must be perceived as some higher being in traditions with shaktipat practice (Kundalini-yoga, Tibetan tradition) and while this point is not unique to Aum, that's 100% correct. Divine status of the founder is among the reasons the Japan's PSIA still maintains Aleph remains a threat. I will get back to it later and try to rephrase the passage, will leave as it is for a while. The matter is related to wording alone basically. ExitControl

[edit] Added: info on Aleph'2005

Information on reformers and fundamentalists, although scarce, has appeared at least several times in Japanese press starting the summer of 2005, so I condider it worth mentioning. The extent of disagreements is unclear, so I chose not to speculate this time.

[edit] Aum Shinrikyo vs. Aleph

I'm wondering about the naming present in the article. There are significant differences between the names Aum Shinrikyo and Aleph, or so it seems to me. Referring to the group as Aleph throughout the articule blurs the distinctions between Aum Shinrikyo as the old group, and Aleph as the new group. Therefore I propose that instances of the name Aleph be changed to Aum Shinrikyo, and a new section should be created, dealing with the activities of the group after it changed its name to Aleph. Gaius Octavius Atellus

Thank you. As the most active contributor I thought about this several times, but other editors then insisted on mixing the two articles - one on Aum and other on Aleph into one - reasons being to avoid confusion and (I suspect) preventing the reader from reading the material on mostly peaceful Aleph from background info on its predecessor Aum which is far more violent. I then chose not to argue to avoid edit wars. IMO the best way to deal with this is chronologically arranging information, so that the link was still apparent but changes that took place with time were clear as well. If you have any ideas on how to accomplish this, please write suggestions here or edit the article text. I would vote for 2 linked separate articles, one dealing with Aum and the other with more recent Aleph, but I do agree that this might confuse the reader.ExitControl
There's also a gross mistake - pre-1995 is 100% not Aleph, it's Aum Shinrikyo. Will adhust the name in accordance with this to avoid reader's confusion. ExitControl

This is ABSOLUTELY essential. At present, the names are totally muddled-up throughout the article. The Aleph name is from 2000, according to the article. A clear distinction between the two names is especially important given the controversy surrounding the question of how much Aleph has in common with Aum. John Lunney 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained addition

Shogo Amakusa, leader of the renegade Christians in the Christian Arc of the anime Rurouni Kenshin, is likely based on Shoko Asahara.

Author of this, please elaborate on the meaning of this passage, what exactly in Mr Amagusa was based on Asahara? the character in that anime movie resembles him or something else? I will try to investigate and if found relevant enough, rephrase. Otherwise will remove. This perhaps makes sense to leave as Aum affair influenced the popular culture... but frankly religious theme is recent animes are so closely attached to Japanese version of reality that I remember a few more movies where I could find similarities... It would be great if you could provide some more examples or materials on this 'cultura;' aspects, especially J-Pop and anime mass cultureExitControl

[edit] March 21 edits

Removed various additions such as this one:

"Although Aum/Aleph often use terminology appropriated from Sanskrit and Tibetan Buddhist doctrine, they attribute meanings to these terms which are shorn of their original contexts and often bear little resemblance to the original doctrines"

I believe we may say that "some critics say or believe" this. Didn't rephrase because most similar additions attempt to picture the group worse it already was while the information itself is of doubtful quality or isn't an information at all (rather author's opinion). Another good example is expanding the 'doctrine' part with sentences sayings that 'Asahara' is an assumed name and he is currently in prison (it is already stated where it should). Lastly, if someone has so much time and determination as to replace 'argued' to 'unfoundently claimed', please think about others (namely me) who has to go thru each sentence and clean it up not to destroy the valuable imput of others who made contributions later :-) If I spoiled your term paper this way, what would you say to me? :-) Couldn't you find a less destructive way to express your POV?

[edit] Popular culture references

Can somebody explain why Takeshi Kitano's film Zatoichi is listed among popular culture references? I feel this is totally out of place here. Or am I wrong?213.172.246.57 22:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, i agree, the blind swordsman genre has been around for a lot longer than Aum Shinrikyo and has nothing to do with it. I'm going to remove it.... 18:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SHAMELESS MARKETING OF KAPLAN's BOOK

Removed the following:

Various authorities have cited non-Buddhist influences also, but the accuracy of these inferences about the internal philosophy of the group as distinct from its public statements has been questioned. For example, in an article about the influence that Isaac Asimov's The Foundation Series may have had on the Arabic Al-Qaeda and other organizations, the UK The Guardian newspaper wrote on 24 August 2002, "'Aum's bible was, believe it or not, the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov,' says David Kaplan, author of The Cult at the End of the World [ISBN 0517705435], a book on the sect, or 'guild' as it styled itself." [1]

Reason: a left-wing British paper article discussing 'hints', 'clues' and 'possibilities' as wild as 2-nd wing of Aum members working undercover in Japan's best nuclear facilities. While this might be an intellectually stimulating material, significance of it is doubtful. Asimov's novel is mentioned in the text already; as well as Kaplan's book; links that the author of this edit seems to perceive as justification for inclusion of this passage already present in the article text (except to the Guardian Unlimited). David Kaplan clearly has a lot to say, but I am not sure it is OK to quote his ideas when not a trace of hard facts support them. Not worth a standalone link to the article IMO.
You're welcome to your opinion here, but (1) the citation to a recognized authority and book author is valid, (2) the text notes that the matter concerns a disputed inference, and (3) the credibility of The Guardian, although it is a generally accepted journalistic source even if you don't like it, is irrelevant. It's up to Kaplan to defend his ideas, not anyone else, but it is the responsibility of Wikipedia to note them. The prior reference to Asimov in the article is not specific and is not being duplicated by the Kaplan quote, since one talks about Asimov being cited in Aum's own public relations material and the other talks about Asimov having been an influence on the ideas within Aum itself, and that is significant because of Aum's interest in publishing its own sci-fi and fantasy material. If nothing else, you really should become a registered user on Wikipedia and sign your edits and comments rather than leaving them anonymous.
Zigamorph 18:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Zigamorph, let me be extremely straightforward to make my reasons for removal very clear: while Wikipedia has its rules to make the experience as productive and conflict-free as possible, we need to excercise common sense and not to fight over technicalities. All of your arguments are valid, there's not debate. But I could easily find 10-20 valid referenced quoted by a recognized authorities pulled from generally accepted sources and then spam the articles YOU contributed to saying that it is up to the author to defend the ideas. Pointless. ----ExitControl
Then please do. We need more references in most articles. --Constantine Evans 17:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
In case it isn't easy to follow enough: it's great to have references, but the article has referenced a lot already, including works of Kaplan David. Since this no doubt interesting article deserves a link at 'see also' section AT MOST I'll put it there; corresponding addition to the 'doctrine' text I will delete. i.e. STOP MARKETING DAVID KAPLAN. Thanks. --ExitControl

[edit] Links

Does anyone know of any websites which deal with the beliefs of the group, prefferably non-biased? What was their website, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find an archived version. And, where is most of the doctrine section sourced from? --Daniel Tanevski talk 13:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting, clarity, and rewording for neutrality

I saw the notice for copyediting on the to-do list, and having studied Aum in Japan, I couldn't resist trying my hand. Mostly I'm trying to edit- cut repetitive statements (such as when the group changed its name to Aleph- this was mentioned in both the first and second paragraphs with very little change), smoothing over grammar and editing mistakes, etc. Though while reading it over, I've been noticing some parts which are not really neutral, such as this sentence - "The 'true religion' in his view shouldn't only offer the path but to be actually able to lead to the final destination - Final Realization. On this path, a multitude of small enlightenments elevate the consciousness of a practitioner to a higher level, this making him smarter and better person."

Thanks a lot, improvements good and visible. However I will clear out all these 'supposedly', 'claimed', 'borrow', 'mixed' et cetera. I don't undertand how we can make the sentence quoted above 'really neutral' and why we need to do it. Actually very funny, please think: this is Asahara's theory, this was properly attributed, all this very clear, there is NO NEED to include 'supposedly' or something to 'make it neutral' because there is no need to make ANYTHING neutral. Was it properly attributed? Yes. Did it correctly express what Asahara said? Yes. No problems then.

I made a few small edits, both to clarify the language and to put the beliefs in more neutral terms. "The 'true religion' in his view shouldn't only offer the path but should also lead to the final destination (what the religion terms 'Final Realization'). According to Aum, this path entails a multitude of small enlightenments that elevate the consciousness of a practitioner to a higher level, thus making him or her a more intelligent and 'better' person."

Thanks, I am currently working on this as well. As to the quoted passage - ? What is wrong with it? Not great in literary sense maybe, but I didn't realize how this is not neutral. This is "according to Aum" - hopefully it is clear so no changes needed. Clearing out multiple minor changes is a tedious task...

Also, I really don't understand this statement - "He also translated much of traditional Buddhist terminology to modern Japanese and later changed the wording to make the terms easier to understand, pointing to Shakyamuni who chose Pali instead of Sanskrit in order to make sermons accessible for ordinary population, who couldn't understand the language of ancient Indian educated elite." Does this mean Asahara is mimicking somebody who performed a similar translation, or is this something else? It seems a bit clunky to me. LilTigre 22:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Very simple; Asahara tried to make the terminology as easy to get as realistically possible, here is what I attempted to say. He avoided using Sanskrit or Pali terms where not necessary and instead used modern Japanese words to express the meaning attributed to Sanskrit or Pali terms, here is what he did. This it like saying 'the firm' instead of 'kaisya' - same meaning, but English word is easier to use than Japanese, except of course Japanese is your native language.

Hi, I am also doing a copy-edit of the article and found a few problems listed below. Other than that the article reads fine in terms of grammar and spelling, so I have removed the copy-edit tag. JenLouise 06:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Fumihiro Joyu also performed a shaktipat-like ceremony in the beginning of XXI century. Which century does this mean? Obviously not the 21st century (the present century). Could someone who knows fix this please?

-Around 2001 I think, so yes, this century, anyone please feel free to rephrase. - [ExitControl|ExitControl]

  • Science fiction novels by Isaac Asimov "depicting as it does an elite group of spiritually evolved scientists forced to go underground during an age of barbarism so as to prepare themselves for the moment ... when they will emerge to rebuild civilization" were referenced as widely as basic Buddhist ideas to impress the shrewd and picky educated Japanese not attracted to boring, purely traditional sermons. (Lifton, p258). "referenced as widely as basic Buddhist ideas" does not make sense and the reference is not consistent. Is the reference for the quote? If so it should go as <ref>Lifton, p258</ref> at the close of the quote.

-Done.

[edit] Cleanup tag

I can see that a ton of work has gone into this article and that the hard work is ongoing.

I am placing a CLEANUP tag at the top of the article to see if we can't rope an editor in who isn't so close to the material so that they might tune-up a few things we've been missing (like the fact that Asahara isn't "introduced" in the beginning, rather he is simply referred to in the text.)

If anyone who is actively working on the article objects to the CLEANUP tag, go ahead and delete it. Otherwise, let's leave it on for awhile and see what happens --AStanhope 16:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear

Shortly after his arrest, Asahara abandoned the post of organization's leader and since then has maintained silence, refusing to communicate even to lawyers and family members. Many believe the trials failed to establish truth behind the events.

The second sentence is unclear. Many who? Many Aum members? Many Japanese? Many people in this world? Many cats? What? It also needs a cite of course if it asserts many something believe something Nil Einne 13:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

- This actually is a common theme in most of Aum-related news articles in Japanese media since 1995 i.e. that since Asahara did not speak and Murai was murdered, a lot of strange developments of that period remain unexplained. Two of Aharara's attorneys, including Yosihiro Yasuda published books detailing these unexplained events and the manner in which the trials were conducted (in Japanese, recently partly translated into Russian by I suppose some Russian former members).

[edit] Terrorist organisation

Overseas presence
Aum Shinrikyo has had several overseas branches: a Sri Lanka branch, small branches in New York City, United States and Bonn, Germany. The group also had several centers in Moscow, Russia.
International opposition
The EU has designated Aum Shinrikyo as a terrorist organisation. United States maintain Aum on its list of foreign terrorist groups as well.

Is it really possible for a 'terrorist organisation' to maintain branches in Germany and US? Nil Einne 13:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • They weren't designated as terrorists until after the 1995 attacks. Phonemonkey 07:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aum apologists? Not quite

Aum Shinrikyo is one of the most notorious terrorist groups in the world. This article is heavily slanted in favor of the group, and tries divert attention from their terrorist activities.

  • Regardless of whether what you say is true or not, Aum Shinrikyo is still at its core a religious group, as are many so-called "terrorist" groups. If you wish to add that some people see them as a terrorist group, that's fine. However, calling them a terrorist group is an opinion, not a fact. Reverted. HoCkEy PUCK 02:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The EU, Canada and the U.S. consider them a terrorist group. They know their stuff. - 219.194.176.98 12:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • And Iranian Ayatollahs consider U.S. the Satan. Not an argument at all. Besides, the definition of a 'terrorist group' is a problem in itself. There was a numerically small number of people involved in crimes (20 at max), it would be strange to consider the whole group criminals. The list of terrorist groups serves political aims and political decisions are a different thing. Actually, it's not even worthy of debate, so self-evident it seems. We obviously can't rely on US State Dept on information what is religion, same for Canada and EU.

Perhaps a few things can be settled by checking if the translations made from pali qualify , wether he translated the whole matter, or an already translated and or an obscure part. Most significant is he reworded what he translated, well so did he reword opportunistic? Did he after that and perhaps without including *his* original(..) translation pose his product as the one and only true/best interpretation of these pali sutras? My overall guess is he made quitte some sense, but otoh involves populist elements or techniques. I can however also interprete it in a more contempory context, personally i think it is better to settle these discussions informingly then to hide away the questions, because then the questions , (who would really not all be behind such a tricky thing as a sarin attack eg., get more creepy). I notice we can expect the whole spectrum of opinions about the value of his translation but assume at least the japanese can that way cope better with the impact of his thinking on their society.(on a sidenote you might think of aum as a political person , that felt repressed, at least in 1995) 80.57.242.54 05:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me give you an example of translation to demonstrate how it differs from traditional one. In Tibetan tradition there is a word 'Kamadhatu' which means 'dhatu of Kama' and 'kama' means 'passion' or 'desire' and 'dhatu' means 'the world'. Therefore, Kamadhatu translates as 'the world of desires'. This is how translations were performed and I just did for you what Asahara did for Buddhist sutras translated by Aum. Technically speaking it was not him who conducted the translation (as Asahara is blind and not familiar with those languages). In Japanese traditional Buddhism there is also a problem of undertanding since the terms are in old Chinese and Japanese simply don't know the meanings of the hierogliphs. Chinese scriptures were translated from sanskrit and pali. So Aum tried to use the most old copy it could find (and conducted expeditions to obtain the texts) as it would be more accurate. Translated terminology was then used in all the sutras for consistency and Asahara also used it in his separate sermons on Buddhist dharma. This way the learning process was facilitated considerably. As to what he 'added' for interpretation: as you can see, the resulting text was the most accurate translation into modern Japanese. Asahara indeed added his comments to many sutras, i.e. while reading the book you first read a portion of a sutra and then Asahara's comments, then again the sutra and again Asahara's comments. Conclusion: no, he did not alter anything in the sutras and yes, he added comments to them. ExitControl

I feel that the current picture on the main article (the cult of doom picture) does not accurately depict the views of Aum Shinrikyo. Perhaps someone could find a more neutral picture?

Russian page has this: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%91%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%90%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0
As a completely neutral observer I would weigh in by saying that I thought the article was rather even handed and, if anything a bit slanted against this group. I did see the organization's website and found a great deal of information refuting the charges by the Japanese government regarding this case. I think perhaps someone could add a bit of counterballance to this article regarding the 1996 Tokyo Subway incident. Finally, as far as the US and EU "knowing their stuff" there has been much dispute about this. Remember that it the CIA and other agencies also tried to justify the invasion of Iraq by claiming that that nation possessed weapons of mass destruction. Piercetp 02:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitic Remarks ?

I am not sure about the point of this paragraph. For one thing, I fail to see how the quoted paragraph is anti-semitic (it seems to me that Jews are considered positively), and why this particular point of ideology should be pointed. If it was in the middle of a discution concerning the "end of time" vision of Aum Shinrikyo, why not. But I don't know why their opinion on Jews has to be highlighted this way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.226.53.99 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Breakup

FNN reported that the leader of the Aum Shinrikyo cult filed papers with the government office in charge of monitoring religious cults saying that he has left Aum Shinrikyo and started a new group. A heading on the English version of the FNN website (www.FNN-News.com) now says that "The new leader of the Aum Shinrikyo cult suggested in an interview with FNN that the group might be headed for a further breakup." I have no interest in the cult, and don't know anything about it, so I'll leave it to another editor to add this news to the article. --70.142.55.71 13:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] so why did they want to kill people?

I'd like to see some sort of explanation for why they murdered so many people. how did they justify it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.44 (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

The thing is there is no 'explanation' to why those 15 people were murdered. This remains a mystery, although according to the media that was to create some panic and then overthrow the government, but there is not explanation on how that was supposed to be done. Sarin gas attack in subway created a huge shock, but only several people have died. And the members had no idea at all about anything like this, so it came as a shock to them also. Perhaps there was some reason for such an extraordiary act but I don't know what it is. To read about how saring attack victims themselves were influenced psychologically by the attack please read Haruki Murakami's excellent book, Underground.

The cult was killing people in an attempt to start a civil war in Japan, during which they could seize Japan's nuclear weapons and begin an apocalyptic war with the USA, the cult members believed that as they were "enlightened" (or at least following some one who was), they would emerge from the apocalypse as god-like "super humans". Shadoom 01:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is highly unlikely. To start with, it is unclear how this civil war was supposed to start i.e. who will be fighting whom and with what weapon. As to starting a war on the US, this is totally unrealistic. Actually, AUM has produced weapons (one rifle), but this is not enough to start any war. Asahara has talked about policics a lot from 1993 to 2005 and said many things like 'if US to declare war on Japan, Japan is going to be defeated very fast', but this may be interpret wery widely and he certainly never said that AUM is going to seize political power or attack the US. He also said many things about 'AUM mission' and the Apocalipse, but again this could have many meanings and certainly it is unlikely that it was implied that AUM was planning to start a civil war or even military conflict with the United States. I believed he used examples clear enough to ordinary Japanese (such as possibility of war with the US) in order to persuade the followers to practice the religion more seriously. In the relevant lectures freightening predictions are always followed by advertizement of religious practice, like 'but for AUM followers this doesn't matter, since we could create the plasma shields in our bodies' and future plasma weapons will do no harm. He also said during the lecture tours at Japan's universities that AUM plans to build a huge underwater shelter where AUM followers could hide from the 'final battle' of Armageddon. He was saying that he is 'so 100% sure that the Armageddon will take place that he sets his reputation in religion at stake'.
Shoko Asahara actually said many, many things. He once said that by 1997 Japan will be reminiscent of wartime era Japan with nonfunctioning economy and miserable live ('you wont recognize our beloved Japan if you live to that days'). Again, the only choice is religion, don't wait, anything else will not help, you couldn't use your money when the cash machine doesn't dispence cash and if you have cash you can't buy goods when they are scarce and if you made a career it will mean nothing. And so forth, and so forth. Don't waste your time, become a monk now. These passages from his speeches are usually explained that Asahara agitates for war or seizing the power, but if you look in the source it is quite easy to see that he actually advertizes the religion this way. If you look in his less political sermons, he uses the same method saying about how love feels great, but sooner or later your lover gets old and dies and you suffer and this is fundamental suffering called 'death' and the only way to overcome it is to attain 'enlightenment'.

According to a Library of Congress report on the Sociology and psychology of terrorism: "Aum Shinrikyo is a group whose delusional leader is genuinely paranoid about the United States and is known to have plotted to assassinate Japan’s emperor. Shoko Asahara’s cult is already on record for having made an assassination threat against President Clinton." ----> Shouldn't this information be added to the article? Thinkgood (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contacted North Korea? No proof

Replaced the following:

"Right-wing groups also are reported to dislike Aleph due to Aum's previous attempt to contact North Korea to acquire the weapons they eventually acquired from Russia". [3]

There are many allegations and ideas regarding many things, but as in many of such cases there is absolutely no proof that any Aum member contacted North Korea with anything, there is also no proof that any weapons were acquired from whatever source, including Russia the country. Besides, the page linked does not deal with any weapons matters at all.

As to Japan's right wing protesters, they dislike many things that they consider foreign to Japan's traditional values - America for defeating Japan in WWII and U.S. bases in Okinawa, Russian embassy for not giving back Kuril islands, Koreans for taking low-profile Jobs etc, Chinese for this and that etcetera. Their standard technique of 'peaceful protest' incudes a sort of audio-terrorism, when high-decibel noise is produced from powerful loudspeakers (this is considered legal in Japan). As regards to Aum, these protestations are understandably very unpleasant to Aum's neighbors and obviously the landlords.

As to North Korea. Couple of years ago, a lay Aum follower fled to North Korea where she sought political asylum. This way she tried to get rid of harassment by PSIA, the security service whose main duty is 'to monitor Aum Shinrikyo' which it believes 'remain a serious threat' (before Aum-related incidents there were plans to disband the Agency). The agency tried to convince the woman to spy on Aum from within and threatened with some consequences in case she refuses. The woman has lived in Pyongyang's hotel and finally decided to return back. In her words, secret service agents, now North Korean, were constantly keeping eye on her and basic necessities to which she got used in Japan (such as lipstick) were impossible to obtain. All this story came up in quite idiotic manner when she returned, but initially it was reported by the papers that her trip to North Korea was somehow a grim plot by Aum to establish contact with 'evil regime'. Conclusion: read carefully and double cross-check. ExitControl

[edit] Meaning of "Shinrikyo"

The current intro paragraph has a pretty lengthy explanation of the name "Shinrikyo", separating and giving multiple meanings of each word. As far as I can tell, though, Shinri simply means "Truth" (though literally True Doctrine, it does correspond with the western concept of Truth and is often used to translate it), and kyo means religion (or religious teaching to be precise). Granted, the precise wording of the name may have more esoteric meaning within their teachings but is it really necesssary to have such a convoluted explanation in the intro?Uly 05:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes made. Uly 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaningless passage removed

"An American woman, Bridget Melbane, who many believed to be affiliated with the group, was extradited back to Japan after committing several crimes in the US involving stalking and harassment. Her affiliation as of December 19, 2006 could not be verified."

Since the affiliation of that woman 'could not be verified' I suppose we shouldn't put this information into the article? Actually in Japan there was a larger-scale incident where Aum affiliation was suggested by the media: the Boeing 747 hijacking in Hakodate. It later became apparent that the hijacker had no connection whatsoever with Aum and never had, but at the time usual headline read like this: 'member of the outlawed Aum sect (never outlawed) hijacks a Japanese Boeing 747 with 365 passengers on board at the airport in northern Hakodate (correct), demanding the release of the sect's jailed leader (again, never demanded)'.

[edit] Bad article

such a long article, with so little relevant information. Why are they a doomsday cult? what was the rational for it? why hasten the end? why bring down the goverment?

beseides, I realyl belive that this article shoudl be using either "Aum shinrikyo" or "Aleph" as the group's name instaed of "Aum", which means something else totally. --Procrastinating@talk2me 16:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)