Talk:Sahaja Yoga meditation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Link

I read this entire file and nowhere did I find any mention of "Sahaja Yoga". It does concern something called a "Sahaja state", which it never defines. This article never mentions "sahaja state". What's the connection? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See:

Methods: Central theme –‘Thoughtless Awareness’or ‘Sahaja State’by Sahaja Meditation

Sfacets 20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sahaja" is a term in general use. How do we know that the author is referring to this topic? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Because of where the tests were undertaken... Sfacets 22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so it is: Conducted At: INTERNATIONAL SAHAJA YOGA REASEARCH & HEALTH CENTER, MUMBAI, INDIA. My mistake. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge all this with Sahaja Yoga as there is little specific to SY meditation

This article says a lot about the beliefs surrounding the meditation, which should be on the Sahaja Yoga page, but not much about the actual meditation. What about the picture, the hand position, the candle, where should the attention be put, etc. --Simon D M 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a "practices" section that's waiting for more info. Are there any sources we can use for the details you mention? Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide, so we shouldn't tell readers how to perform the meditation, only describe it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Some of the details have now been added, maybe already enough (folks can always follow the links if they really want to know more). The practices section is already far more comprehensive than this page on the specifics of SY meditation. I have a Beliefs section ready to go which is far better written and again far more comprehensive than this page. This page adds no value beyond providing a home for the diputed charts, which could easily be linked off-site to keep everybody happy. --Simon D M 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Chakras, Kundalini, Mantras etc are all specific to SY meditation. Sfacets 09:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. I'm wondering if maybe you need to look up the word 'specific', otherwise I cannot understand how you can honestly make such a patently absurd claim. Counter-examples are too numerous too mention in full, but I list a few. Knowledge of chakras and kundalini: used to diagnose.[1] One for mantra: saying anapurna mantra over food or drink.[2] One for vibrations: supposedly used to match couples.[3] --Simon D M 12:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

All part of SY meditation. Sfacets 12:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

meditation, even SY meditation, is a distinct conept from puja, diagnosis, matching couples, eating a meal, etc. In the vain hope of proving your point you'd include anything within the definition. Looks like I'll have to waste time opening a rfc. I'll make your name prominent as the person calling for arbitration on yet another sophomorish quibble. --Simon D M 14:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Simon D M 16:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read any of the previous discussions regarding this. Sfacets 20:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you link to the relevant previous discussions? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting for the link from Sfacets, as well as any serious objection to the basic beliefs going into the main page. --Simon D M (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You can find the relevant discussions in the archived discussion pages. Sfacets 14:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This page was created Sept 2007. There are no archives for this Talk page. Here are the subjects of the relevant archive of the talk page of Sahaja Yoga (December 2006 - May 2007):

1 Shri Adi Shakti: The Kingdom Of God 2 Multiple use of source in criticism section 3 Chakras 4 Unorthodox Scientific, Medical and Health Claims 4.1 Proposals 5 Introduction to Article 6 Reaction to "What is a real YOGA" post 7 New Religious Movement 8 Expansion of 'Sahaja Yoga meditation' section 9 Sahaja Yoga practices 10 Critical websites subsection in EL section 10.1 http://sahajacult.com/ 10.2 http://www.sahajvidya.org 10.3 http://www.sahaja-yoga.org/ 10.4 http://www.newstarget.com/016026.html 11 Quotation requested 11.1 Full quotation provided 12 Why 'Official Response from Sahaja Yoga International to False Allegations' is Libelous 13 Image:Nabisimple.png 14 Mediation active? 15 External links 16 Beliefs The only relevant discussion is about Sfacets trying to add a lot of unsourced info and WBB saying he's not happy with that. Have you been sending me on another wild goose chase Sfacets or is there really some relevant discussion somewhere. If there is, I think you better link it. --Simon D M (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"To say that there was a previous discussion as grounds of preventing a new one is counter-productive." So says Sfacets.[4] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I was waiting for one of your famous "go back and get a quotation and stick it somewhere out of context to back an argument" episodes. I am not preventing new discussion, I suggested that Simon read the old discussion. Have I protected this page to prevent further discussion? No. Sfacets 22:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
So which discussion do you want him to read? There've been thousands of words written. Meantime, if he wants to discuss something it's inappropriate to deny the topic on the basis that it's already been discussed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, the spinoff wasn't to disambiguate between the two articles, but to alleviate the content load from the SY article, something neither of you are addressing. Sfacets 02:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The SY article isn't too long. There's no "issue" to address. The large chakra tables you added, which duplicate material found in the generic articles on chakras, don't help but we could find a way of condensing that info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The charts are different to any other charts found on other articles. They are also relevant to the Sahaja Yoga meditation article. Sfacets 08:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see this suggestion. The charts are actually more relevant to the beliefs of SY as a whole, rather than SY meditation in particular. However, they certainly wouldn't fit in the main article whereas they would fit in the SY meditation article. This might not be the way I personally would want to go if we were building pages from the ground up, but considering the current situation, and the strong feelings surrounding this page and the charts, we might make more progress by lettting this page stay with its charts as part of a compromise package. Here is a proposed structure for the Sahaja Yoga meditation article. --Simon D M (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

After declaring the SY meditation is a state and not a practice, Sfacets has added nothing to that effect in this article and has continued with the same shifting definitions. After months this article still offers nothing beyond the charts. There's no point creating a page and then not working on it to give it any valuable content, it's nothing but pointless disruption. --Simon D M (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Merge all this with Sahaja Yoga, little specific to SY meditation

This was previously discussed above but got bogged down. Almost 3 months after its creation, this page has only a few sentences on SY meditation, less than the main page. Beyond that, it only offers the charts that were removed from the main article. The material on SY medical studies was also moved here, but could move back. --Simon D M (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Another 3+ weeks have passed with no improvement to the page and no input to this discussion. The creator and main proponent of this page has now both retired and been blocked indefinitely. I suggest that the merger should go ahead as follows:

--Simon D M (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Simon D M (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant Info

Sahaja Yoga is described as a syncretism of different religions that "unites the essence of all religions through direct perception of the subtle, divine reality"[1]. Why do we need to include this when it already on the main page which is linked? --Simon D M 11:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See article spinouts Sfacets 11:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Have already read it. --Simon D M 11:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So what's the issue? Sfacets 11:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue should be obvious from the heading and the intro. The same quote is in both articles. It is redundant. This article does not need to describe Sahaja Yoga in total, only SY meditation in particular (not that it even does that). --Simon D M 11:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if the same qote is in both articles. You will find many articles on wikipedia with the same layout, for example Grateful dead has a subsection on 'Deadheads' that uses information found in the article on Deadheads. The section introduces the main article. Sfacets 12:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self published site

The headline of http://www.scribd.com/ is "Publish Yourself Online". Apparently all of the material is uploaded by users, essentially like Flickr or YouTube. It is certainly self-published. It's likely that the material violates copyright. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

But does it? Looking for original. Sfacets 06:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. When you find the original material on a reliable source then go ahead and add the link. But this site does not meet the standards for WP:EL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself - how can a self-published source be a copyright infringement? Sfacets 06:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If I put up on a website something copied from someone else, that's a copyright violation. Why are you restoring a self-published site with copyright violations? How many reverts are you going to make? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Sfacets 07:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's self-published, and doesn't meet WP:EL. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at my last edit, and then comment. Sfacets 07:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of critical links

Sfacets, you have claimed that this page is about SY Beliefs and Practices yet you have twice removed the 2 relevant links again:

with an edit summary saying: "you have to make up your mind then. And your website is not admissible per WP:EL". Firstly neither website is mine. Secondly, it's not for me to make my mind up what a page created by somebody else is for, it's for you to provide a consistent rationale, not one that shifts and changes from hour to hour as the need arises. Thirdly, both sites are admissible per WP:EL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon D M (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the objection to the INFORM leaflet? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
c.2000, and not as 'neutral' as it appears. Sahajhist 02:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither of those are reasons to remove the link. What objections, based in WP:EL, are there? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


Do you deny that you contribute to http://freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/ ? Or that you own a domain that redirects to this address? I have no objection for the Inform link. Sfacets 13:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that, but also I don't "own, maintain or represent" the site which is what WP:EL specifies. Why did you remove the Inform leaflet if you have no objection? If it was just a mistake, I expect you to restore it. --Simon D M (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? Because there is a court case that says otherwise. [5] puts you as a representative of the website. Sfacets 14:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I was treated as identical with the Sahaja Yoga Ex-Members Network "for the purposes of this decision", but it's not my site, never has been and it only became 'my site' in the WIPO case because I was the only ex-member willing to be the fall guy to have the domain name registered to them. I don't think I've ever even paid for the registration, I certainly haven't for the website. The site was set up by the Sahaja Yoga Ex-Members Network of which I was a member. I agreed to act as owner of the domain name, and I'm still listed as such. The Response to WIPO wasn't written by me either, I just made a few suggestions and passed on the communications from WIPO to the people handling the case. There you have full disclosure. I could make www.sahaja-yoga.org point to any site I like, it wouldn't suddenly become my site. --Simon D M (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that contributing to and supplying a domain name are pretty good indicators that you maintain the website. Sfacets 14:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the site was originally on the German tripod [6] (and that remained the case till after the WIPO case), and the fact that I don't speak German, are pretty good indicators that you are way off the mark. --Simon D M (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You maintain the website by 1) contributing to it and 2)Providing them with a domain name. Sfacets 22:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you telling me that you believe that WP:EL means that by 'maintain'? If so, please review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Simon D M (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how that applies. You have contributed to the maintenance of the website. Simple. Sfacets 08:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
By that definition, we are all maintaining Wikipedia and should not link to it. By contributing to SY funds, all Sahaja Yogis are maintaining the official sites. Your argument is simple indeed. --Simon D M (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Simon, the master of taking things out of context. Wikipedia is indeed not permissible as a source on Wikipedia. You have contributed information to the website. Links to self-published websites are frowned upon. Sfacets 12:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's put it another way. If I had contributed an article to the Journal of Financial Economics, would that mean that I could not add a link to said journal in an article on financial economics? Of course not. Your imaginative definition of 'maintain' is just one in a long list of time-wasting arguments. Please review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Simon D M (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you bookmark that link or something? You seem to be throwing it around a lot - perhaps you don't get the point. Sfacets 16:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to remain civil and consider that maybe, just maybe, you might be mistaken in your expanded definition of 'maintain'. --Simon D M (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I notice that you are still removing the link, you last edit summary saying 'rvt - discuss', but you seem to have dropped out of any attempt at meaningful discussion. Your previous edit summary suggested it was off-topic, but you are yet to finally renounce your claim that this page is the proper home for SYbeliefs. --Simon D M (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that as soon is Sfacets is free from his latest block, he's taken over from his stand-in removing relavant critical links. --Simon D M 09:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure am - if those links are not valid. Sfacets 09:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sourced information on presiding deites of chakras

Sfacets, would you please explain why you are removing the sourced material on the presiding deities of the various chakras?--Simon D M (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, thanks for the self-revert. --Simon D M (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SY vs. SY meditation

This article seems to suffer from a lack of focus. Is it about SY the organization or about a form of meditation? A form of meditation cannot have an "official site". That site may have pages about this form of meditaiton, just as other sites do, and all worthwhile pages should be considered for links. But if we're removing self-published links that aren't solely about the meditation [7][8] then we should be even-handed about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added some relevant critical links. No removal without discussion here please. --Simon D M 09:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your links have already been discussed. Sfacets 10:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct, and none of your fanciful reasons for excluding them stuck. 1st you tried to say it was my site. When you realised that was a no-go you moved to claiming that I 'maintain' the site because it has used some of my writing. When I gave the example of a person who has written an article for the Journal of Financial Economics being able to link to said journal, the discussion ended. --Simon D M 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is your site - you contribute to it. Sfacets 19:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll need more than bare assertion. Till you can come up with better rationale and/or sources, you should stop being disruptive. --Simon D M 10:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Sfacets, it seems that since you've been blocked, one of your 'old friends' has made a reappearance, and, like you, is removing the relavant links, and, like you, seems to think that merely asserting that I'm the website owner is enough to prove the case. As mentioned before, the website was originally on the German tripod and I don't even speak German. You guy(s) are just digging yourselves deeper and deeper into a hole. --Simon D M 10:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. Maybe he/she has a point. Sfacets 08:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's no good using bare assertions on a talk page as an excuse for discussion, and then repeatedly deleting relavant material. You need rationale and evidence. You are either unable or unwilling to produce it. So stop being disruptive. --Simon D M 09:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

They aren't bare assertions. You have admited to contributing to the website and providing the URL. It is questionable if you do not have access to the file manager utility for that website. Sfacets 09:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As you well know, WP:EL does not mention 'contributing'. Anything is questionable. You need better rationale and/or evidence to support your blanket deletion of critical links which is clearly based on your COI.--Simon D M 10:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You seek to add and accentuate a minority viewpoint which you express through your website. I have accepted other critical links being included in the article - since they are valid EL's - yours fails several major criteria on WP:EL. You contributed (in a major way) towards the website therefore you are a webmaster of the site. Your name appears in a WIPO case as part of the group responsible for the website. Perhaps the COI is yours, given that you refuse to listen or understand simple explanations laid out in front of you, and insist on adding your link which fails WP:EL. Sfacets 10:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If a site becomes unlinkable because a WP editor contributes to it we've got a problem with many of our links. Sfacets has indicated that he's contributed several graphic images and photographs that are used extensively on SY sites. Should we go through and remove links to those sites? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is one thing to have one's image used on websites, and another to actively contribute to the construction of a website (self-published). It is still questionable wether or not Simon is directly responsible for the sites creation. Sfacets 21:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there evidence that an editor has substantially contributed to the site in question? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
3 questions here: contributed to content, contributed to maintenance and contributed to construction. WP:EL only mentions the latter 2. The pages that Sfacets is removing the links to have nothing to do with me. Sfacets' logic would mean that if I'd written one article in the Journal of Financial Economics, I couldn't link to any other article. --Simon D M (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You definitely contributed to maintenance - both my continuously submitting content to be used and by allowing them to use your domain name. I still have doubts you didn't construct the website. Sfacets 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuously? What is your source for that? You yourself claim to have contributed content to official SY sites but you are happy to link to them. The links in question here are to the website, and other incorporated websites that are hosted in the same place, not to the domain name www.sahaja-yoga.org --Simon D M (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't contributed anything to the website. Please stop inventing things. According to the Wipo case, "While SD Montford is recorded as being the current registrant, both parties have treated SD Montford as being another name for Sahaja Yoga Ex-Members Network"[9]. Sfacets 15:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
We've been through this before. Better to write nothing than just repeat the same unconvincing arguments. --Simon D M (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you have evidence to provide showing that you are not part of the website? Sfacets 15:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
See Negative_proof. --Simon D M (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

..And no answer either. And then you go around saying I don't contribute to the discussions when clearly it is you who, once proved wrong deflects the conversation. This isn't "repeating the same unconvincing arguments" - I have provided evidence that you and the people responsible for the website are one and the same. Sfacets 16:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you really can't be bothered to lift your eyes a few inches up the page, here is what I said: I was treated as identical with the Sahaja Yoga Ex-Members Network "for the purposes of this decision", but it's not my site, never has been and it only became 'my site' in the WIPO case because I was the only ex-member willing to be the fall guy to have the domain name registered to them. I don't think I've ever even paid for the registration, I certainly haven't for the website. The site was set up by the Sahaja Yoga Ex-Members Network of which I was a member. I agreed to act as owner of the domain name, and I'm still listed as such. The Response to WIPO wasn't written by me either, I just made a few suggestions and passed on the communications from WIPO to the people handling the case. There you have full disclosure. I could make www.sahaja-yoga.org point to any site I like, it wouldn't suddenly become my site. The fact that the site was originally on the German tripod [10] (and that remained the case till after the WIPO case), and the fact that I don't speak German, are pretty good indicators that you are way off the mark. This was the point at which you started off on your fanciful interpretation of the word 'maintain' and it'll be no surprise if you circle round to it again, and again, and again ... --Simon D M (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Who cares what the domain was linked to before. The fact is now it links to a website that contains your content, not to mention links to your Yahoo groups. You even admit you were a member of the group that created the website. Sfacets 16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was a member of the informal group, but not one of the ones who created the site. Initially I only contributed text for 1 page. At that time I didn't even know how to create a website. The fact the site was hosted on a German provider matters if you really care about whether I created it or not, but I guess you don't. --Simon D M (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The site was hosted by Tripod. It being in German wouldn't hamper any attempt at creating a website by anyone even those 'technologically disadvantaged' since Tripod accounts came with WYSIWYG website creation tools. Sfacets 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You can call me a liar if it makes you feel good but you still need evidence to back up your accusations, otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time. --Simon D M (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I already have - 1) you contributed to the website, both in content and by providing a domain name. 2)You were/are part of the same group who created the website, both by your confession, and established by the WIPO document. Oh and you contradict yourself by first claiming that you have no control over the domain name, and then claiming that you can point it at whatever website you want. Sfacets 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Contribution ≠ maintenance. You are a part of SY who has created many websites you have linked to. When did I say that I have no control over the domain name? --Simon D M (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If you are tired, I would suggest sleep. I have created no SY websites, or contributed to them. You say that you don't even know who is paying the costs for the domain. This makes no sense since the registrar would send both the domain tool instructions and the account details by email. Sfacets 02:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I never said I don't know who paid. I think I might have paid the first year but not after that. It's a red herring anyway. No neutral editor has supported your wild definition of 'maintain'. I requested neutral advice on whether I 'maintain' the site in question and got it here. You are simply wrong. --Simon D M (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Per that discussion, why are you adding your links? Sfacets 11:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Same reason that you add yours. There are no neutral editors taking a regular interest other than Will. You add links to your organisation, I add links to sites by ex-members. The point is that I'm not the 'maintainer' of the site as you spuriously maintained. --Simon D M (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As a passing comment, those "freewebtown" links look to me to fail WP:EL so whoever keeps putting them in should please desist. The onuis is on the editor proposing content to gain consensus for its inclusion. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain if there is any problem with the links other than consensus? --Simon D M (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical applications

I moved the "Medical applications" applicaitons over from Sahaja Yoga. I think that it was partially copied previously, making duplicate material in the two articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've returned the material that was not specifically about SY meditation. --Simon D M (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, though I'm not sure how the cures occur if not through meditation. The hospital definitely belongs here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Because SY meditation is just a part of Sahaja Yoga and a claim made for the whole is not a claim made for the part. Also the hospital practices much more than just SY meditation. Even the hospital puts its cures down to Mataji's attention over and above the practices they perform. So it's important to be clear exactly what the claims are and what they pertain to. I've put the hospital and the associated claims under the organization section although I don't think that's ideal. --Simon D M (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I misspoke above. I meant that the hospital definitely belongs in Sahaja Yoga. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually SY is part of SY meditation, the later having been begun first. Beliefs pertaining the the meditation belong in this article. Content pertaining to the org such as clinics etc belong on the other article. Sfacets 00:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the whole SY article should be moved here, since every part of it came after the meditation was discovered or created. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As stated many times already: what came first is a red herring; no evidence has been provided that the the meditation/organisation dichotomy covers the whole of Sahaja Yoga, while evidence has been provided to the contrary; RfC was created on where the beliefs should go and the only neutral editor to wade through the red herrings and straw men commented it should be in the main article. --Simon D M (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Sfacets is contradicting himself. He removed links to ex-members' sites because they were not specifically about SY meditation. If all the rest of SY is part of meditation, how can that be true? Sfacets cannot have his cake and eat it. --Simon D M (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)