Talk:Mata Amritanandamayi/Archive 1

message: The page does not mention the very huge list of charitable activities undertaken by the Mata Amritanandamayi Math with the Tsunami rekief work being the major one. I would like to provide the details if required. www.amritapuri.org and www.amma.org give the details.
::A link to those sites is at the bottom of the articles. Please restrict yourself to reliable sources as defined on Wikipedia if you want to add further details. Perhaps it would be better to add it to the organisation's article rather than the individual.Hornplease 07:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charitable Activities 

message: It is rather surprising to read the comment that the essay in the current form is too negative. The essay contains six to seven paragraphs of pure propaganda about the so called charitable acitivies of 'Amma' and her institutions. And it just has a single paragraph on the criticism levelled by skeptics and many social activists who find it, justifiably, uneasy to accept her/her devotees claims about her miraculous powers.
>> These are not 'so-called' charitable activities. They are on a massive (multi-million-dollar) scale and their existance and scale are easily verified by following the links in the main article, many of which are independent mainstream media accounts.
Regarding charitable activities this is the normal practice of many a godman who amasses wealth by hook or by crook and then spends a fraction of his/her wealth for the so-called 'charitable' activities.
In fact the essay requires much more information about their critics.
=== Citing People from the Dheevarar community ===
Mata amritanandamayi belongs to the Arayan (Dheevaran) community. And I know of a lot of stories of amritanandamayi as told by the local community. How  do I incorporate these informations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabidphage (talk • contribs) 
* Wikipedia:Verifiability contains discussion about the extent to which we can incorporate unpublished sources. The primary issue is verifiability, so there's not a lot of leeway except for the most basic and uncontroversial assertions. --Dystopos 14:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much propaganda 

message: Mata amritanandamayi belongs to the Arayan (Dheevaran) community. And I know of a lot of stories of amritanandamayi as told by the local community. How  do I incorporate these informations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabidphage (talk • contribs) 
* Wikipedia:Verifiability contains discussion about the extent to which we can incorporate unpublished sources. The primary issue is verifiability, so there's not a lot of leeway except for the most basic and uncontroversial assertions. --Dystopos 14:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing People from the Dheevarar community 

message: Everyone is entitled to own opinion and have the freewill to epxress it, but I would imagine one would do little bit more homework before trying to argue agaist a person who is revered by millions all over the world, has won 2002 UN Gandhi-King awad (previous winner were Nelson Mandela and Koffi Annan etc)!!?
Could IndianSceptic or who ever is contributing to the anti-Amma information prove slightly more credible news sources at external link than references to random personal blogs and public message threads, please? 
Also, I would like to bring this to the attention of the moderators, that the allegation made here are very serious (suspecious deaths etc) and it hurts the feelings of ordinary people around the world who wholeheartedly dedicated their time and efforts to help poor and needy in any way possible. The fact that the critisism is not being back up with a credible source is more than pitiful! Could someone impartial look at this page or even lock it please?
Thank you!
15:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sceptics at work 

message: Can you please update the page with links to rather respected sources, instead of personal webpages or public discussion forums, where anyone is free to write anything? I am worried about wikipedia's reputation giving credibility to otherwise-dishonest sources or pages. Thank you!
14:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  SKollur: Critical links 

message: Who ever removed the references to various charity projects executed by the Asram, can please post some sort of explanation for that please? What ever is our individual opinion about the Amma and Asram, trying to edit away known facts that are accurate is just as bad as lying! Mods please note! Thank you!
* The references to the charity projects are not deleted. One of the users created a new page Mata Amritanandamayi Math and shifted those information to that page. Yet another user shifted the information about the murders in the ashram to the page of Sreeni Pattathanam.
MANOJTV 10:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charity projects 

message: The "mysterious deaths" pointed to by Sreeni Pattathanam sound an awful lot like similar assertions made about Bill Clinton by Pat Robertson et. al.  Absent any legal findings, it is not appropriate to enumerate such rumors on an encyclopedic page.  I've deleted them but otherwise retained the "controversy" section.
** I agree with deletion of the information related to the alleged deaths in the Ashram as it is already enumerated in Sreeni Pattathanam page. But to say that it is not suitable for encyclopedia may not be correct especially in the context of  the awful lot of propaganda material stuffed in the article. Moreover, it is to be pointed out here that the authorities of Ashram has not so far filed a single case agaist the author, eventhough they tried to harass him using the pliant government machinery. And the book, so far available in Malayalam only, is a compilation of articles/reports appeard in a number of dailies published from Kerala. Indianskeptic 12:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy / Sreeni Pattathanam 

message: The article Mata_Amritanandamayi_Math informs that Ammachi® is a registered trademark of Mata Amritanandamayi Center.  Amrithanandamayi's official website www.amma.org also claims the same thing. See the(current list)
This is surprising. Ammachi is a word used by a very large section of Malayalies to address their natural/biological mother.  It is not a new term coined by the authorities of Mata_Amritanandamayi_Math.  What right this sect has to appropriate this term? Will somebody challange this nonsense in court?MANOJTV 08:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect; the picture is of Mata Amritanandamayi (Amma) from some years ago. Jim Butler 03:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Ammachi'' - a trademark!? 

message: I have changed the attribution Amma from the Main article, to Amrithanandamayi. Amrithanandamayi is Amma for her devotees. For many others, who refer this encyclopedia for information, she is Amrithanandamayi. For instance I can write an article on Jesus Christ. But it is unfair to atrribute him Lord in the article. Please use well known names, official names or first names.
Manjithkaini 15:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Amma to Amrithanandamayi 

message: This article needs to be cleaned up to cater to a wider audience.
Things like the bhajan and Dharshanssection for example. - (Does the fact that she can sing deserve an entire section?)
Also this article is still very POV, containing (as mentionned above) a large amount of propaganda which is superfluous to the article.
A few things can be changed to clean up and properly organise this article.
*The Miracle section should be renamed something in the nature of "purported miracles"
*The Contraversy section and Criticism section should be merged
*The external link section should be separated into critical and non-critical subsections
*The inner circle section should either be moved, or merged in with another section, the intro for eg.
Please comment on these propositions
Sfacets 11:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the sentence about Measles , as AFAIK measles is a contagious respiratory infection (caused by a virus) spread through air. So no hugging is actually necessary for getting infection.Bharatveer 04:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Feel free to include this in the article however is considered best.
http://www.amritapuri.org/amma/whois.php
"In the past 33 years, Amma has physically embraced more than 24 million people."
http://www.amritapuri.org/amma/master.php
"In 1995, Amma addressed the Interfaith Celebration in honour of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. "
http://www.amritapuri.org/amma/un95/un95.php
"In 1995, Amma was invited to speak at the United Nations Conference on Visions for the 21st Century, timed to coincide with the 50th Anniversary Summit of the United Nations."
Hope this helps. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more specific sources 

message: sfacets, The fact about measles is not OR. And this is not the first time you are trying to remove this sentence .Bharatveer 06:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of 6 Nov 2006 none of the links work.  Removed paragraph pending finding sources.  Seemed like a pretty speculative link, but if it's documentable, sure, put it in.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 20:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I see that now The Hindu link is working.  Reworded and made proper refs.  Still, as I said in edit summary, seems a tempest in a teapot -- where is any suggestion or evidence of negligence of Amma a/o her group?  If that question can't be answered satisfactorily, why is this under "Criticisms", and why is it notable at all, given that viruses spread all the time via people traveling a/o gathering in groups?  Tagging with Template:Content pending resolution.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 09:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measles - not OR 

message: Edit summary here accidentally got truncated.  Meant to say: "restore Devanagari, fwiw (Amma's formal name being Sanskrit, though her native language is Malayalam)".  Can't find a guideline under WP:MOS indicating whether it's appropriate to cite both, so am erring on the side of inclusion for now.  First sentence in current version begins:
:Mātā Amritanandamayī Devi (Devanagiri: माता अमृतानन्‍दमयी), Malayalam: മാതാ അമൃതാനന്ദമയി), also known by her followers as...."
thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include name in Devanagari? 

message: I removed the reference to Paul Zacharia because it appears this information is based on a non-published email that has been circulated on the internet in what critics allege were "threats" located on this page. As one can see, these are not "threats". They are reactions from devotees who were hurt by what they perceived as hateful propaganda by Zacharia. They did not threaten him whatsoever. They simply asked other devotees to write to the newspaper to defend Amma.
Those who add this critical, unsourced material have the burden of providing reputable and reliable sources (as per WP:RS) to back up his/her comments. Otherwise, these comments can be removed at any time by any editor. SSS108 talk-email 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please link to the statement that indicates that that email was the source of the supposed threat? Otherwise the Hindu  will have to be put in. Hornplease 05:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that his allegations of the link to the Parivar at any rate, should not have been removed. See .Hornplease 05:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Material 

message: THere was a NPOV tag on this at some point. THe article is not sufficiently improved in terms of balance to warrant the tag coming off. Hornplease 10:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not remove the tag. It's clearly unbalanced and thus violates neutrality; the first para itself has sentences like "From these humble beginnings she began her journey on the path to "universal motherhood", which took her to the United Nations General Assembly, where she addressed the world.", which are clearly non-neutral. Hornplease 11:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the tag needs to stay, and applies to more than just on section of the article. Sfacets 11:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UserHornplease, what is non-neutral about that sentence??-Bharatveer 13:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bharatveer, it's the tone. I would replace it with "in the course of her successful ministry, she has had the honour of addressing the UN General Assembly, and .....(something else)." Hornplease 09:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced npov tag with tone tag.-Bharatveer 09:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a possible change; but the template merely indicates informality, whereas the problem is one where the tone is clearly admiring and not neutral. Is there another alternative? Otherwise NPOV is what it'll have to be.Hornplease 10:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's been no reply, I'm putting in an 'unblanced' tag. Hornplease 08:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but you fatally misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. If you read the article on Mahatma Gandhi, for example, most editors have striven to keep as neutral a tone as possible and avoid sounding admiring. This article would indeed tarnish WP's reputation if it were taken as representative, but not in the way you mean. Regardless of the lady's worth as a person, the article must be seen to sound as neutral as possible, in a manner in which this doesnt. Pending your inderstanding of this, I restore the tag. Hornplease 09:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinserting tag 

message: Should the Matruvani article be merged into this one? Sagsaw 04:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: in favour Teardrop onthefire 10:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: in favour Madmedea 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request 

message: Mention should be made of the radioactive black sands issue under controversies. 
Mata Amritanandamayi's ashram is located in the black sands area of Kerala, which has the highest natural radiation of any densely populated area in the world. While middle class Indians avoid the area due to the high levels of radiation in the sands, foreign visitors (including visitors to the ashram) are often unaware of the area's radiation hazard. . The ashram still uses the radioactive black sands in construction and even in a memorial to tsunami victims. . Some devotees teach that it is Matha Amritanadamayi's sankalpa that people don't become sick from the radiation on the beaches. [www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/ammachi/376959-re-radiation-grace.html]. Scientists are skeptical of these claims. --Dseer 23:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem including this under NPOV, but the sourcing has to be brought up to speed with VER and OR.  The Vanderbilt.edu usegroup post, though undoubtedly factually true, doesn't meet WP:RS.  The audarya-fellowship.com post about devotees' beliefs is likewise from a BBS, also doesn't meet WP:RS (and at the moment redirects to another forum's index page).  What is also needed is a good source stating that the black sand at Amritapuri is the radioactive kind.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 06:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sfacets, this is hardly "original research", nor was it defamatory, and at most you should have asked for was citations rather than reverting, since it was first proposed on and the sources were listed on the talk page. The highly radioactive nature of the blacks sands on the beaches of Kerala and unusual genetic mutations seen in the local population is scientifically valid and well established and has been a controversial issue in India for some time, for example . But rather than simply state that the radiation is a proven issue, and that scientists believe the high level of radiation at Amritapuri is a concern, the belief that there is a spiritual protective factor is a legitimate religious belief and should be included too for NPOV. The organization is aware of the controversy regarding the sands and it has been a topic of discussion. I question why an isolated outbreak of measles that has not been attributed to those closest to Mata Amritanandamayi and is simply due to too many not being immunized implying some sort of negligence on the part of that NRM is a more significant controversy than an ashram located in a known area of unusual radioactivity which uses the sands in ways that could increase the risk. --Dseer 20:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dseer, even if something is true, WP requires a certain standard of sourcing.  See Wp:rs#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet:  "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking."  What WP requires is what's called a "V RS", a verifiable, reliable source.  That is what is needed to include "the belief that there is a spiritual protective factor" against radiation, and that "the organization is aware of the issue".  This is the sort of thing a journalist might have reported on, and we could use it in that case, but otherwise it's what WP calls original research.  I'm not saying your point isn't true or important, just that WP itself requires "verifiability, not truth".  It cuts both ways, and it's just what we have to work with.  best, Jim Butler(talk) 22:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim, I can certainly work with that logic and I believe you are interested in NPOV. That does not justify Sfacets actions in non-collaboratively reverting all of what I put rather than requesting citations, which seems to be repetitive pattern for that editor, given that I first laid out the basic paragraph with references in talk and there was no comment before I changed the article. What I wrote does not meet the criteria for immediate deletion, it is not defamatory, was submitted for discussion with sources, and overall is readily verifiable. Collectively, these edits by this editor here seem to show a pattern of one standard for claims about their own NRM, Sahaja Yoga, where all criticism is so vigorously disputed that that editor is currently in mediation over excluding even relatively neutral sites, and another for competing NRMs like this one, where an outbreak of measles at an event is claimed to be a notable issue and yet where scientific facts like radioactive sand are deleted. There is no scientific dispute that the black sands are highly radioactive, or that genetic mutations in the local population have been noted. In this case I am familiar with what you state above regarding WP:RS, but believe you are taking a more rigid view of WP:RS in this specific instance than required. I would say that the "vanderbilt edu" material falls under a rare exception to the general rule about such sources ('should' is not absolute, and Wikipedia allows for such rare exceptions where it improves the article) due to the fact that the name of the person is known and verifiable, since they are using an official US federal government [www.dhhs.state.nh.us] email address under a valid name, and with expertise in the subject to distribute a published AP article to others on a distribution with expertise in the field radiation safety, further proven by the link to http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html at the bottom, and it is credible and verifiable as such because there are severe penalties for federal employees misrepresenting their agency or misusing their position, all of which gives way more credibility and peer review than the norm, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the statements in the article represent the AP artice as it was published and the majority of expert scientific position. However, besides that debatable point where we may not totally agree, there are so many easily identifiable sources, i.e., , , , , , , , , , , etc., which independently and collectively confirm what I wrote except for the one statement, added for NPOV and to express a religous belief, that: "Some devotees teach that it is Mata Amritanadamayi's sankalpa that people don't become sick from the radiation on the beaches", which has been said in discussion sites where the question was raised, but not in an official article I can find. If editors are going to dispute that one statement, I'm sure I can find an official statement to the effect that the NRM teaches and believes that Mata Amritanadamayi protects her sincere devotees from harm, and put that in its place. However, I must point out that Mata Amritanadamayi in her book specifically cautions devotees from assuming that because she can do things like heal lepers by touch through special siddhis, that ordinarly devotees are protected if they emulate her. In short, what I expect here is collaborative editing to arrive at an NPOV, and my issue at this point is with the other editor. The measles incident may be recent enough to get some attention but is probably not notable enough over time to put in the article, IMO. A better case could be made for the notability of criticism directed at some of the cultic aspects of that NRM, such as that described at ,, or .--Dseer 00:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought about this, and I think that the best place for this information would be the article on Kerala or something related, e.g. an article on the coastal areas of Kerala.  More at bottom of page.  best, Jim Butler(talk) 06:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Sands 

message: User:Silentyogi has been attempting to insert unreferenced POV, despite continued warnings. Because I don't want to transgress the 3RR (and because maybe the user genuinly doesn't understand) I will not get into an edit war, but the information addd by this user is not valid. Sfacets 10:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These insertions are unacceptable fluff based on assertions by the group. I've read the biography but that doesn't make it a fact. --Dseer 05:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Item #1 under WP:SELFPUB is relevant.  Of course much of the material deleted in this edit is unencyclopedic, but I'm not sure all of it is.  It's not unduly self-serving to say that according to Amma, some childhood experiences instilled in her a sense of compassion.  If we don't quote the hagiographical material written by her disciples, perhaps a quote from Amma herself would be ok in this context.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly have no objection to sourced, encyclopedic material that summarizes her religious experiences, the ordeals she went through and development of compassion, as she describes it. Some of the sourced quotes from her biography  are relevant and could be used. A statement like "According to her biography ... etc. using these quotes would suffice, since that is a soured and accurate assertion.--Dseer 18:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, you're exactly right on how to frame it ("according to...").  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 21:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silentyogi 

message: Amritapuri is a very small stub, it may be a good idea to either expand it or merge it into this article Sfacets 06:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a merge with (and redirect to) Mata Amritanandamayi Math would be better, given WP:BLP?  Thanks Sfacets for your work on the merging.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I agree with this reversion.  What's the matter with Template:hinduism small?  (What religion should she be categorized as instead? Shintoism maybe?)  Or the Maya Warrier quote, which is as representative of a sig POV as the critical stuff?  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags and quote 

message: I removed a link to an online petition against Mata Amritanandamayi as I felt that it was a promotion
of the petition.
I am still not very comfortable with the tone of the rest of the article. As an encyclopedia, I feel that 
an article should not take sides. I do not know how to re-edit it at this time, will probably visit it at a later time
The whole movement has spawned a whole load of bunkum spouting foriegn dollar searching fake gurus in southern India. You ought to mention the effect such fake sadhus have on societies that are gullible enough to be taken by a row of neo-hippie foriegners waiting for "darshan". This article needs more clarity, skeptic voices, a list of copy-cat sadhus and saints, and what to do when you spot bunkum like this. For those interested, south indian TV channels now chronicle the lives of such fake sadhus. The trick here is to amass enough wealth and connections to muzzle the press fast enough. (www.kairali.tv),(www.sunnetwork.com)
Its good to profile people, but bad when skeptic voices are actively filtered out.
This comment doesn't seem to relate to Amma at all. You talk about 'fake gurus', but provide no evidence that she is one. If there other 'fake gurus' about whom you have useful information, please edit their profiles instead.
I am very confused as to why the Criticisms immediately get edited out of this article. There are several major criticisms, including a recent beatings incident, mysterious deaths at her ashram, the LAX Hilton boycott and others. These are major issues that have been discussed and addressed on other websites.  I have noticed that whenever these criticisms get posted, they are immediately deleted. It has been suggested that this Wikipedia entry is monitored by the devotees of Mata Amritanandamayi in order to keep a clean image. This is unfair reporting of information and a monopolization of the Wikipedia service for political reasons. The criticism section should be updated appropriately. Every time someone posts something critical, it vanishes within seconds. What can be done about this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValiMP (talk • contribs) 07:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have observed that. The article tone is like that in the website of the person and her organisations. That does not suit Wikipedia. I have been updating the article section with some widely known controversies too. I also observed that there are people who want to keep out anything that criticises the person or her organisations. That is bad. For such purposes, they can use their own websites but not Wikipedia. I even observed that there are newly created IDs that make edits only on this page. That is not healthy as well. Wikipedia must stay neutral and must contain the maximum information on BLPs. -- SreejithInfo (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Links 

message: The real trouble with this article is that it says nothing about the theology of a religious figure. There are many religious organizations founded relatively recently in America, and others, founded in the Middle East centuries or millenia ago, which could fill a dozen or a thousand screens with descriptions of their philanthropic, essentially secular activities. But seen from the outside, by a neutral Wikipedia visitor, the questions remain the same. Who are these people? Why do they themselves purport to do what they do? Why do they choose these activities, and these locations, and these recipients? Why do they almost always strongly reject other rather similar acts and targets? Do they think that the world is real? Created? Monitored? Manipulated? Permanent? Improvable? Corrupt? Doomed? How did the subject of a biographical article attain supreme prominence? Who says so? Who is qualified to monitor or remove that person? And then what is supposed to happen to the world?
I propose that such questions could be made into a standard outline for any article about a supreme organizational religious figure, or a uniquely self-appointed religious figure, or any combination of those factors. Benchmark: a typical article on the Papacy, or the Mormon Presidency, or the Dalai Lama, would immediately, lucidly, and self-consistently contain answers. Should then a travelling Hindu or a televised Christian be exempt?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.1.30 (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too vacuous. 

message: Regarding my revert, other possible wording could be "she is widely recognized as a humanitarian".  But even that seems unduly weak since she uncontroversially meets the definition of "humanitarian"; the BBC source established that she is widely respected by virtue of the numerous awards she has received.  Anyway, if the wording I've reverted to goes further than editoral consensus would like, the "widely recognized as..." wording seems like a good compromise. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 04:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead: "widely respected humanitarian"

message: user:rabid, Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil

message: maybe the wikilink should go to Atman?
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.69.185 (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely it should, specifically to Atman_(Hinduism).  Done, as a pipelink. --Jim Butler (t) 08:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotation

message: Trimmed out some links, added . Cirt (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I want to quote it elsewhere, that's why I need a printed source. Can somebody please tell me?
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.220.221 (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation no.2 

message: According to the autobiographical video of Ammachi, River of Love (Mystic Fire Dec 1999, Directed by Michael Tobias,) Ammachi suffered numerous seizures during her childhood which were witnessed by her family and teachers.  When asked about them Amma explained that she was experiencing a blissful state. 32.178.221.103 (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Childhood Seizures 

message: *Create a world filled with Cooperation, Love, Truth and Justice
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.220.243 (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: --   88.75.220.243 (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put it best? 

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D4XPyorcQo A tribute to Sugunacchan, Amma's Father 
:--88.75.82.74 (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amma's Father 

message: Substituted at 15:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment