Talk:Sahaj Marg/Archive 2

message: I requote:
"So once more I say this in all humility..."
Ah! Ah! Ah!
"if you must have a Master, find a fellow who is capable of, you know, throwing you around, beating you up, cutting you to pieces."
No need to have a master for that, everybody can do it to someone else.
That sounds a bit sadomasochist.
"Remember Parushurama's father and the stern test that young boy had to make for obedience...."Kill your Mother"...."Yes"... He pulled out the sword and cut off her head. He said, "I am pleased with you my son. Ask for anything you want.""
That is insane, I am sorry to say, but it cannot be a teaching.
"He said, "I want my mother alive." And He said, "So be it." and she got up and walked off."
What an alteration of the reality to put such ideas in the mind of people.
There are no such things as deads coming back to life.
When that happens, it is because people were engaged in the process of death, but were still alive.
I see only power, and a delirium regarding death.
A delirium because human power fails to control it, except with imagination.
One who fears dead so much needs that delirium to protect himself from anxiety.
Nevertheless, everybody dies, always.
"The Guru is the Guru, is the Master, when you say of destiny, it means life and death. He must be the Master of your life as he must be the Master of your death."
Yes, and for that he has to be lovable first.
These ideas are not toxic ?
Where is love or friendliness ?
I see only tyrany and totalitarism.
Everything in this quotation is absolutism, but the wrong way.
Christian
===Dead coming to life===
>ideas in the mind of people. There are no such things as deads coming back to life. When that happens, it is because people were engaged 
Greetings to Christians, I can't help but comment. In Chistianity, Elijah raised a child back to life, Jesus rose from the Dead, Paul raised another woman (Dorcas?) who fell off a window .In Hinduism, in Autobiography of Yogi Swami Yukteswar rose from the dead.--Jondel 11:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Comments on Don's last post 

message: >ideas in the mind of people. There are no such things as deads coming back to life. When that happens, it is because people were engaged 
Greetings to Christians, I can't help but comment. In Chistianity, Elijah raised a child back to life, Jesus rose from the Dead, Paul raised another woman (Dorcas?) who fell off a window .In Hinduism, in Autobiography of Yogi Swami Yukteswar rose from the dead.--Jondel 11:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead coming to life

message: For the Sake of Concensus
I agree with you, Jondel.  Wether it is true of not what Christ did and what for, is not the point.  The point is that Christians believe it to be true and we (including Chari) should respect that.  Specially groups who claim to be "non-sectarian".  To call Christ "not wise" is not in the "live and let live" tradition of most religions and it certainly is not in the "We are all ONE" of "spirituality.  If Sahaj Marg is goint to Criticize other religions, it should be included in the Teachings section of the article as the preceptors and the abhyasis will, as obedient servants, continue this education. The "non-sectarian" claim should not be put in or it should read: Sahaj Marg claims to be "non-sectarian", but the current Guru ...etc....these are "sectarian statements" and disrespectful ones at that.  But we don't have to put that in (just to be kind).
There is also this statement in Sahaj Sandesh which is just not true and certainly shows another disrespect for the worship rituals of other religions. Sahaj Marg has no rituals or Philosophy according to Chari and other preceptors. 
Is Sahaj Marg just another Hindu sect?  they quote from the Hindu scriptures a lot....They claim to be "non-sectarian" and not a religion, but a modified Raja Yoga.  Where is the modification.  I hear more Hindu Scriptures than Sufi or Raja Yoga....the bolds are mine.  The Gita is not Sahaj Marg.
Sahaj Sandesh No.: 2005.31 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005
ABHYASI'S QUESTION:"..... why do I have to give up my existing religious practices....."
MASTER'S ANSWER: "All religious practice involve the worship of God as being outside us. It is called Bahya Upachara in Sanskrit. Spirituality puts God where HE really is - inside the human heart, and indeed at the heart of every created thing, as Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita. One cannot mix the two. In the Vedas Murthy Pooja is called the lowest form of worship. Mantra is only a way of pleasing the mind, and bhajans please the senses, while giving the illusion of being a form of worship. I trust that this will be satisfactory. If people have more questions, they should be encouraged to read the Gita slowly, and try to understand it. Love to all."
That information should be in the teachings on the Main Article. Or it should be withdrawn. (Which it won't)...So for the sake of the truth, we have to be journalistic and say it from a NPOV and I'll live with it.
Or This one: 
That is now teaching to kids a theology that really sounds like a "dogma".  Where is that in Raja Yoga.  If one has to obey the Guru in everything, it sets up our women for descrimination.  The first part can be a "sectarian" dogma.  The second part is just Wrong.  Nature is Male, female, other no gendre and all gendre.  This should also be in the teachings as it is a theology and/or a belief concerning the Nature of the Divine which is what Sahaj Marg is claiming to have a Natural Path to....Again could be done in journalistic form.  We don't have to say Chari is wrong, but teachings of this magnitude should not be "hidden".  It is a central belief.  And it shows the level of "spirituality" and "intellect" of the Master.
Q: If God is formless and without attributes, why in the numerous books of
literature in Sahaj Marg is God always referred to as "Him"?
Chariji: God is male. Nature is female.
The teaching that is the biggest part of the controversy in Sahaj Marg is the "obedience" to the Guru and the Structure of The Mission.  And when it goes to the point of this quote in Chari's Book, the Heart of the Lion, it should not be left out....How can one go from Sufi, the Guru is a Friend to what follows in the name of "spirituality" is beyond me.  
....So I repeat, the Guru is the only friend.  In fact, I have said this so often, that in the Sufi philosophy, the Guru is called Friend.  "The Friend is coming".  Because he is the only fellow who can give his life for you.  He is the only fellow, therefore, to whom you must hand over totally, a Power of Attorney....."Do with me as you think I deserve to be done with.  Kick me when I have to be kicked.  Beat me when I have to be beaten.  Curse me when I have to be cursed.  But make of me what you think I should be eventually, because only you can do it."
"So once more I say this in all humility....if you must have a Master, find a fellow who is capable of, you know, throwing you around, beating you up, cutting you to pieces.  Remember Parushurama's father and the stern test that young boy had to make for obedience...."Kill your Mother"...."Yes"...
He pulled out the sword and cut off her head.  He said, "I am pleased with you my son.  Ask for anything you want."  He said, "I want my mother alive."  And He said, "So be it."  and she got up and walked off.  The Guru is the Guru, is the Master, when you say of destiny, it means life and death.  He must be the Master of your life as he must be the Master of your death.'''''''
An encyclopedia should not hide this material and we can debate them and come to a concensus about how to put it in.  So far, everytime I put it in, someone takes it out.  Can we discuss it and someone can tell me how a "blood letting" to obey the guru (a man) is OK in Spirituality, or religion but not in Politics, justice (criminal justice), honour, or the rest of society.
Later I would like to adress the School Curriculum that is being taught at the Lalaji Memorial OMEGA School.  
4d-Don
--don 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the Sake of Concensus (contentious points

message: In fairness:
>Do you think Christ was a wise man, that he became crucified so that forever and> ever after humanity is absolved of its sins? I don’t think so. It gave you more license for>indulgence. But after all, you have been forgiven two thousand years ago for what you are >going to do today, what your children are going to do ten years hence, and so on and so forth. >I don’t think he was wise. He left no room, no incentive for human beings to change, become moral,> become spiritual. You are all happy, you see, that you had a Christ who got crucified. >None of us weep for Christ. We are happy. “God bless him,” we say, which is another blasphemy. >You need blessings, not Christ.
*Christ didn't die simply to undertake Karma, but it was God's will which is indicated in John when he said Not my will but thine be done.
*In the Discourses of Paul and in many theological teachings, the dying on the cross is interpreted as 'For by the disobedience of one man (Adam when he ate the apple) all men have perished, so by the obedience of another men shall all men gain salvation'.
Just as westerners and Christians should not criticize centuries old practises of Hindus and Yogis, Chari should not have criticized Jesus' dying on the Cross.
--Jondel 00:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christ was obeying God's will

message: Hi Jondel
Do I get you correctly?  If society's standard is to allow Gay marriages as in Canada and other countries, then Sahaj Marg and Chari would harmonize with that society?  Some Christian religions condone and some condemn gay unions.  Sahaj Marg, since Chari, has aligned itself with the fundamentalist right of North American Christian religions and calls homosexuality "un-natural".  That is not so!  Would Christ, who walked with the common people (including thieves, whores, killers, revolutionaries and every kind of lusts you can name), have called any one of them "un-natural"?  I sure hope not! If he had, we would not think so highly of him. Paul on the other hand was instrumental in the place that women have had in the church and that is not a plus on his curriculum vitae.  
In spirituality, to condemn or to pressure people to adhere to man-made dogmas or suggested lifestyles such as heterosexuality or vegetarianism so as to belong to the group is to create guilt and division and exclusivity.  One can encourage but not label as "un-natural".   
People should chose by themselves how to live and they be accepted as they are by groups who want to be called "spiritual" and not "religion".  Most religions accept killers, thieves, the lustful for power, the greedy etc...They are all called "natural".   Now in religion, the leaders can instill any rules or dogmas they wish.  It is a closed club.  The sheep can stay or leave if they don't like it.  Spirituality is an open club.  We are all spiritual if there is such a thing as a "spirit".  
As such, we are all in contact with the Divine and it exists in all of us.  The dogmas and rules are counter-productive.  Live and let live...We are all "tucked inside the ONE God where we live".
Paul never met Christ, and certainly was not as elevated as Christ.  
Keep on the Sunny Side of Life...
4d-Don
===Gay marriage and soul reality===
>marriages as in Canada and other countries, then Sahaj Marg and Chari 
:I can't exactly speak for Sahaj Marg conforming to a society permitting gay -marriage.  The point is that we recognize that we are souls and spirits stuck here in a physical body. The more you engage in desires, lusts, etc. ,the more bound you become. The reason spiritual groups exists is that they conform to a certain level of growth and evolution.  You are not addicted to cocaine, but if I was addicted to and wanted to quit I would join-up with a group that does want to quit. Easier with a group but I, individually am determined to quit whether the group quits cocaine or not. It is very good to join a group where you feel yourself growing. --Jondel 04:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sin implies punishment. Most yoga practises deal with evil samskaras by rooting them out step by step. Whether a being knows it sins or not, it suffers for sin. Intelligent societies can institutionalize crazy people but damage is done and the crime-commiter suffers whether the crime/sin is intentionally done or not. Christ nevertheless did suffer on the cross for sins. You also have to admit, people in church take it for granted that you are 'absolved for your sin'.--Jondel 05:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Condeming has a way of amplifying the sin. The focus should be removing by encouraging non-performance of the sin and growth enhanced by meditation. Sin encourages alienation from Divine nature.--Jondel 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. The trouble is we have forces inside of us dictating the way we think and live. The onus is erase these internal forces also. We must live in conformity with Divine nature both inside and out. The prophet Jeremiah (section on new covenant) said that one day there will be no need to say 'Look let us go to the temple or the hill top to find God, because one day he will write the laws on the hearts of Men'. The non-confirmity will eventually create conflict.--Jondel 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality & SRCM

message: >marriages as in Canada and other countries, then Sahaj Marg and Chari 
:I can't exactly speak for Sahaj Marg conforming to a society permitting gay -marriage.  The point is that we recognize that we are souls and spirits stuck here in a physical body. The more you engage in desires, lusts, etc. ,the more bound you become. The reason spiritual groups exists is that they conform to a certain level of growth and evolution.  You are not addicted to cocaine, but if I was addicted to and wanted to quit I would join-up with a group that does want to quit. Easier with a group but I, individually am determined to quit whether the group quits cocaine or not. It is very good to join a group where you feel yourself growing. --Jondel 04:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay marriage and soul reality

message: >In spirituality, to condemn or to pressure people to adhere to man-made dogmas or suggested lifestyles such as
:Sin implies punishment. Most yoga practises deal with evil samskaras by rooting them out step by step. Whether a being knows it sins or not, it suffers for sin. Intelligent societies can institutionalize crazy people but damage is done and the crime-commiter suffers whether the crime/sin is intentionally done or not. Christ nevertheless did suffer on the cross for sins. You also have to admit, people in church take it for granted that you are 'absolved for your sin'.--Jondel 05:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Condeming has a way of amplifying the sin. The focus should be removing by encouraging non-performance of the sin and growth enhanced by meditation. Sin encourages alienation from Divine nature.--Jondel 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sin and condemnation

message: >As such, we are all in contact with the Divine and it exists in all of us.  The dogmas and rules are counter-productive.  Live and let 
:Exactly. The trouble is we have forces inside of us dictating the way we think and live. The onus is erase these internal forces also. We must live in conformity with Divine nature both inside and out. The prophet Jeremiah (section on new covenant) said that one day there will be no need to say 'Look let us go to the temple or the hill top to find God, because one day he will write the laws on the hearts of Men'. The non-confirmity will eventually create conflict.--Jondel 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We live by our own laws not necessarily divine

message: ===From Don on Denmark speech re Catholicism===
Hi Jondel...
In case you missed the discussion, as you seem to be an abhyasi, so therfore not a NPOV, I will rephrase for you.  Maybe you can explain it to your other abhyasis.  For those interested in the previous parts of the discussion, (comments by members of other faiths) click on "history" and see past dates.....
'''
In his speech in Denmark, which I link below, these statements were made by Chari. 
Sections from the Speech in Denmark 
http://www.srcm.org/literature/recent.speeches/051101_Denmark.jsp
So you are lucky. If you were in religion, you would have to go to church and you know, tell lies in that wonderful place called the confessional. “Lord, forgive me for what I have done this week.” And there’s an equally sinful priest on the other side of the curtain saying, “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ I absolve you of your sins.” Something he has no power to do. No man on earth has power to absolve you of your sins except two people: one yourself, and one your God. In between there is nobody who can do it. That is why religion is useless, that is why religion has failed. That’s why you are all here, not in church.
In this next part of his speech, he denies Christ's wisdom and his ability to fulfill his "Messianic" duties, which is central to the Christian faith. Again he is not qualified to do so and is being "sectarian", attacking other's faith. He seems to know what Christ has done and why. And his statements are almost "dogmatic". Chari should say that "Chari is not wise" so as to be called "humble". Christ's message of love (even love the enemy), is the underpinning of western society and has survived for 2000 years. To say it has no value today, is not Christ's fault, but because of people who abuse the "love" that Christians are supposed to have and think it "not Wise"....
I am no Christ, you know, to crucify myself on the cross for all of you. Do you think Christ was a wise man, that he became crucified so that forever and ever after humanity is absolved of its sins? I don’t think so. It gave you more license for indulgence. But after all, you have been forgiven two thousand years ago for what you are going to do today, what your children are going to do ten years hence, and so on and so forth. I don’t think he was wise. He left no room, no incentive for human beings to change, become moral, become spiritual. You are all happy, you see, that you had a Christ who got crucified. None of us weep for Christ. We are happy. “God bless him,” we say, which is another blasphemy. You need blessings, not Christ.
One does not have to agree with Christianity to allow it to state and beleive what they want to, just like Sahaj Marg.  What the discussion was about is can you criticise and denigrate other religions and claim to be "non-sectarian" as Sahaj Marg does.  Your litterature states that anyone who is a Christian can be devotee of the Gurus of Sahaj Marg and keep their religious rituals and beliefs.  When one looks closer, (I have been an abhyasi under Babuji, when it was "spirituality"), one sees that Sahaj Marg is not "non-sectarian" anymore nor accepting of others as it once was.
It has become dogmatic and arrogant and does not take criticism well but criticises others.  That should be reflected in the PR material and at least in a "democratic encyclopedia".  Ignoring it will not make it go away.  There are too many people that have been affected who now want to "speak out".
Sahaj Marg whould face it and adress the problem.  There should be an apology for the above statements.  The priest can forgive sins, according to the Christians, just like Chari can erase Samskaras (imprints on the soul from past actions)
It is just about respect for other religions and "Non-sectarianism" which you claim to be.....
I was also a Catholic and have read the Catholic, the latin, the French and the King James version of the Bible.  Plus I was and still am a student of History, including the history of Christianity and the many "yogas"
As Christ would say: "Let those who have eyes, see!"
May the ONE God, Bless you...And show you respect for other religions, or faiths.
PS...Anything I add to the discussion will be taken from your material Which I have read and lived with Babuji.  Most of the contentious material will be the later material and will be from Chari. Some of the claims and dreams of Babuji for Sahaj Marg no longer seem to apply to the "modern" Sahaj Marg and should be addressed so as to be "accurate" and "honest". I rraise them for the same of discussion and for the sake of the Truth.
 
=== Don on Materialism in SRCM ===
Hi 61.230.0.229
I read your article about tradition and I agree with it.  It talks about religions all doing the same thing.  They do not claim to be anything but a religion.  Sahaj Marg claims to be "non-sectarian" and respectful (read Lalaji's Master), lalaji and Babuji) of other religions.  Under Babuji and I hear that under Lalaji, one could be a Christian and practice Sahaj Marg as it was a "spiritual" movement so did not conflict with the faith or the rituals of all and every religions.  That has changed in Sahaj Marg and as such, the PR material and the claims as to "non-sectarianism" should change.  If Chari wants Sahaj Marg to be dogmatic, critical of other religions and life styles, and "sectarian" then he can say so in your PR material.  Sahaj Marg has become a religion that is still advertising itself as a "learn to Meditate" or spiritual Group as Babuji and Lalaji wanted it to be.  That is why the schisms took place and why most of the 'spiritual" people have left and the Materialists (Brahmin) have taken over.  I do not want Sahaj Marg to disappear or to fall apart, even in its materailism, much as I don't want Christianity or Islam to fall apart.  They all have societal value.  
I just want God to be beyond the control of small "materialist" and self serving groups.  Just say who you really are and who and what you really believe and serve.  In spirituality, you should accept me because I am a "spirit" and I have lived my spirituality from as long as I can remember (6 or 7 years old).  Whenever I checked out a group, it was to find the "spirit" in it.  That's what I want to see in Sahaj Marg.  Where is the "spirituality"?  I could see it in Babuji, and I read about it in Lalaji, and it sounded accurate.  In Sahaj Marg now, it sounds wrong.  It sounds like a religion, and a theocratic religion at that where the leader has all the power: political, financial and spiritual.   
An Example: In Canada, the Board of Directors of SRCM Canada is 7 "foreigners" and 4 Canadians.  We are not "obedient" enough I guess....
God, the SPIRIT is ONE and is ALL....IT belongs to everyone and everything.
God Bless you all
Don...
===To Don===
Don,
Go to this page. It has the written statement that Christ criticized the practice of ancient 
jews. Now tell me, Was christ wrong ? Was he 'sectarian' because he criticized the practice
followed by others ? Answer this first. Don't start the statements abt 'truth'. We have heard enough of it from you.
http://askelm.com/doctrine/d020502.htm
We are all quite impressed - you are well read. But read what is written below and apply some logic and think if they intend to attack any faith.
If you want a NPOV even these statements about christ by Master must be put on the website.
Not for nothing Christ said, "Love thy neighbor as thy self." And my neighbour is not just one who is sitting next to me, but everybody is my neighbour, including trees, animals, birds, insects. If you say, "I love my wife," it may not be a lie. But you cannot love your wife and not love everybody else. This light cannot shine only for you. The sun is universal. Air, light, water-God gave to everybody. Essentials of life are free. Love is an essentiality. We cannot live without love. We cannot have been born without love. And if we die without love, that would be a terrible death, a death in isolation, in misery, in hopelessness
There is something that we are lacking in offering to the local people, the American population, for whose sake the Mission exists here. Of course, it exists to serve the Indians, too, but it is not an Indian Mission. But, it is a Mission which was started in India. Its guru is not an Indian guru, he happens to have been born in India, and therefore he is an Indian. And the system is not an Indian system, though it is based on the ancient yogic systems. These are accidents of birth, nationality and geography. You know like Christ is not only for Jerusalem, and Mohammad, may His name be blessed, is not only for Saudi Arabia or Jeddah or wherever. They are all personalities recognized as universal, whose philosophies, whose teachings are for all mankind, for those who are willing to accept them, as is the case with the Buddha, too, so also with my Master.
From these statements there should be no doubts that SM has respect for all faiths.
===From Don to Jondel===
Hi Jondel...
To adress your points...
1. Sin according to the Christianity is an act or a thought that goes against Gods laws as given to his prophets and saints.  Some claim that sin is an "un-natural" act so they falsely include homosexuality, and not sex-for-fun, as a sin, since they see it as an un-natural act (even Sahaj Marg and Chari).  We now know from research that 450 species of animals practice homosexuality, so it should not be called "un-natural" and should be placed in the same category as "sex-for-fun" or a waste of time but not something to be excluded from a group for.  Certainly not a "spiritual" group as homosexuals are also a "spirit" so can practice "spirituality" in a "non-sectarian" spiritual group much as "sex-for-fun" or back-scratching adherents.
Back to sin.  One has to be "conscious" to sin.  Mentally deficient persons and animals do not sin.  There is also a legal defense in most countries of "temporary insanity" (including Post menstrual syndrom).  There are also mitigating circumstances that make an action a sin or not.  Self defense is one.  And defense of the country is another. (Some (Quakers, Shakers, etc..), debate that one).
You seem to know what samskaras are and so do I and so do most people.  I see it as the Law of Cause and effect.  Every action causes a reaction.  So attacking another person will bring an attack on you.  Attacking another's religion is the same.  Some Gurus claim to be able to erase Samskaras.  Some priests claim to be able to forgive sins.  They both are not liars.  I respect them both.  There is a "therapeutic" value to both and they make the disciples "feel good" or renewed and "lighter".  So they have a societal value.
2.  Can,t deny that...Religion has got dogmas and tenets and many exterior rituals...Spirituality, (relationship with the spirit) should not have dogmas nor rituals.  Spirit is dynamic.  Spirituality should be dynamic.  Spirituality is not a "pill" or a "feel good" mechanism as "spiritualism" (mediums and seances and chanelling)   It is a Interior or exterior relationship with the Spirit, not the material.  A group that is spiritual, will spend most of its time in the spirit not in the Material (fund-raising, building structures, educating, etc...).  
3.  No comment
4. Lalaji used many systems including mantras and Personalized his meditation to the disciple.  He was a Sufi disciple of a wise Muslin (sufi) Master.  The "one system fit all", of Sahaj Marg for mass consumption and marketing is where much of the problem lies as the abhyasis are getting "sensations" and "feel good" techniques, but long term, they do not grow.  Notice the schisms and what the "rebels" apparently act like when they leave.  It does not sound like they were very spiritual after a long time in Sahaj Marg.
5. I agree.  "Two on a heart" is an old parlour game that one can try.  Sit and transmit to a friend and you can make a "feel good" or therapeutic effect.  You might still have an undesireable  long-term effect as you are also transmitting your "emotions" to another person.  The preceptor, much like the "sinful priest" in Chari's analogy, is transmitting his/her energy and I see a "densing" effect that is not obvious but long term, it is isolating, and divisive and not healthy as is creates a dependency, much like a drug.
6.  This quote is from the Sahaj Marg Material...Much of the statement about other religions is false and show a "sectarian" and not elevated point of view (even in Sanskrit..I could say it in latin and french and it would still be false).  God is not a HE as Chari states...At least a HE/SHE/IT.  Or a Spirit, like we are.  That is just logic or theology, which Chari is not very versed in, having spent his life in Business and Engineering.
Sahaj Sandesh No.: 2005.31 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005
ABHYASI'S QUESTION:"..... why do I have to give up my existing religious practices....."
MASTER'S ANSWER: "All religious practice involve the worship of God as being outside us. It is called Bahya Upachara in Sanskrit. Spirituality puts God where HE really is - inside the human heart, and indeed at the heart of every created thing, as Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita. One cannot mix the two. In the Vedas Murthy Pooja is called the lowest form of worship. Mantra is only a way of pleasing the mind, and bhajans please the senses, while giving the illusion of being a form of worship. I trust that this will be satisfactory. If people have more questions, they should be encouraged to read the Gita slowly, and try to understand it. Love to all."
this is all from your material and other religious (Christian mostly) material I have read over my life-long journey in the spirit.  
God Bless you and make you wiser that the Leaders....Neither a Leader of Follower be
 
Don...
ArchiveMay30
I've archived the discussions.
Please try to achieve NPOV.--Jondel 12:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don on Chari's Speech in Denmark re Catholicism

message: Hi Jondel...
To adress your points...
1. Sin according to the Christianity is an act or a thought that goes against Gods laws as given to his prophets and saints.  Some claim that sin is an "un-natural" act so they falsely include homosexuality, and not sex-for-fun, as a sin, since they see it as an un-natural act (even Sahaj Marg and Chari).  We now know from research that 450 species of animals practice homosexuality, so it should not be called "un-natural" and should be placed in the same category as "sex-for-fun" or a waste of time but not something to be excluded from a group for.  Certainly not a "spiritual" group as homosexuals are also a "spirit" so can practice "spirituality" in a "non-sectarian" spiritual group much as "sex-for-fun" or back-scratching adherents.
Back to sin.  One has to be "conscious" to sin.  Mentally deficient persons and animals do not sin.  There is also a legal defense in most countries of "temporary insanity" (including Post menstrual syndrom).  There are also mitigating circumstances that make an action a sin or not.  Self defense is one.  And defense of the country is another. (Some (Quakers, Shakers, etc..), debate that one).
You seem to know what samskaras are and so do I and so do most people.  I see it as the Law of Cause and effect.  Every action causes a reaction.  So attacking another person will bring an attack on you.  Attacking another's religion is the same.  Some Gurus claim to be able to erase Samskaras.  Some priests claim to be able to forgive sins.  They both are not liars.  I respect them both.  There is a "therapeutic" value to both and they make the disciples "feel good" or renewed and "lighter".  So they have a societal value.
2.  Can,t deny that...Religion has got dogmas and tenets and many exterior rituals...Spirituality, (relationship with the spirit) should not have dogmas nor rituals.  Spirit is dynamic.  Spirituality should be dynamic.  Spirituality is not a "pill" or a "feel good" mechanism as "spiritualism" (mediums and seances and chanelling)   It is a Interior or exterior relationship with the Spirit, not the material.  A group that is spiritual, will spend most of its time in the spirit not in the Material (fund-raising, building structures, educating, etc...).  
3.  No comment
4. Lalaji used many systems including mantras and Personalized his meditation to the disciple.  He was a Sufi disciple of a wise Muslin (sufi) Master.  The "one system fit all", of Sahaj Marg for mass consumption and marketing is where much of the problem lies as the abhyasis are getting "sensations" and "feel good" techniques, but long term, they do not grow.  Notice the schisms and what the "rebels" apparently act like when they leave.  It does not sound like they were very spiritual after a long time in Sahaj Marg.
5. I agree.  "Two on a heart" is an old parlour game that one can try.  Sit and transmit to a friend and you can make a "feel good" or therapeutic effect.  You might still have an undesireable  long-term effect as you are also transmitting your "emotions" to another person.  The preceptor, much like the "sinful priest" in Chari's analogy, is transmitting his/her energy and I see a "densing" effect that is not obvious but long term, it is isolating, and divisive and not healthy as is creates a dependency, much like a drug.
6.  This quote is from the Sahaj Marg Material...Much of the statement about other religions is false and show a "sectarian" and not elevated point of view (even in Sanskrit..I could say it in latin and french and it would still be false).  God is not a HE as Chari states...At least a HE/SHE/IT.  Or a Spirit, like we are.  That is just logic or theology, which Chari is not very versed in, having spent his life in Business and Engineering.
Sahaj Sandesh No.: 2005.31 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005
ABHYASI'S QUESTION:"..... why do I have to give up my existing religious practices....."
MASTER'S ANSWER: "All religious practice involve the worship of God as being outside us. It is called Bahya Upachara in Sanskrit. Spirituality puts God where HE really is - inside the human heart, and indeed at the heart of every created thing, as Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita. One cannot mix the two. In the Vedas Murthy Pooja is called the lowest form of worship. Mantra is only a way of pleasing the mind, and bhajans please the senses, while giving the illusion of being a form of worship. I trust that this will be satisfactory. If people have more questions, they should be encouraged to read the Gita slowly, and try to understand it. Love to all."
this is all from your material and other religious (Christian mostly) material I have read over my life-long journey in the spirit.  
God Bless you and make you wiser that the Leaders....Neither a Leader of Follower be
 
Don...
ArchiveMay30
I've archived the discussions.
Please try to achieve NPOV.--Jondel 12:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Don to Jondel

message: Hope you can make sense of this...It's been a long time....
Pater noster qui es in cealis. Vel Pater de cealis, Deus.  In principio erat verbum, vel sententia, vel LOGOS (Sanctus Johannes, apostolicum et in Greco)  In secundo, Deus est creatorem caeli et terrae.  ;-))
Petite et accipietis; quaerite et invenietis; pulsate et aperietur vobis; quaesumus, da nobis petentibus divinissimi tui amoris affectum, ut te toto corde, ore et opere diligamus et a tua numquam laude cessemus.
Ego tuum congruo….
Deus det nobis suam pacem.
4d-Don…
=== John 's reply (Latin)===
Amazing! My pathetic translation:Our father who art in heaven. Or Father of heaven, God. In the beginning was the workd or feeling? or LOGOS(word) Saint John , apostle and in greek. In the second, God is creator of heaven and earth. Petite: I ask ....and never cease to praise you.  There is a whole latin wikipedia which I 'm sure you already know.--Jondel 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. Very little with Julius Ceaser(Gallia es omnis divisa in partes tres. Quarum unum incolunt Belgae, aliam in lingua ipsorum, Celtae, nos Galica appelantur) or something like that.--Jondel 04:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Don to Jondel (In Latin) 

message: Amazing! My pathetic translation:Our father who art in heaven. Or Father of heaven, God. In the beginning was the workd or feeling? or LOGOS(word) Saint John , apostle and in greek. In the second, God is creator of heaven and earth. Petite: I ask ....and never cease to praise you.  There is a whole latin wikipedia which I 'm sure you already know.--Jondel 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John 's reply (Latin)

message: Hi John...
LOL...Not quite all of it but some is OK.....Here is my "maybe pathetic" translation (some from memory and some using the on-line dictionnaries....
Our father who art in heaven. (that is correct, from the prayer..I could have recited it all but I'm sure you can too...being catholic)...In the beginning was the Word or meaning (logic) or the LOGOS (the meaning of the word "logos" in philosophy is Logic, as defined by sound using words)....In the second etc...that is OK....The rest is:  Ask and you shall receive, (or petition and you will accept, seek and you shall find,(or query and you shall find)  knock and it shall be opened unto you; (or make a pulse and an aperture will open for you) mercifully attend to our supplications, and grant us the gift of Your divine charity, that we may ever love You with our whole heart and with all our words and deeds, and may we never cease from praising You.
I agree with you...
May God grant (or give...My name is Donatus as in the verb do, das, dat, etc...) us his peace...
My Grammar could be off and my choice of word could be "questionnable"...I will check the Wikipedia dictionnary...thanks....
Have you gone through the Julius Ceasar material yet???or is that still part of the curriculum?
Nice chatting to you in latin...;-)..This is great...I'm impressed with your knowledge...
4d-don...
:Thank you very much. Very little with Julius Ceaser(Gallia es omnis divisa in partes tres. Quarum unum incolunt Belgae, aliam in lingua ipsorum, Celtae, nos Galica appelantur) or something like that.--Jondel 04:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don's Translation (In Latin) 

message: Don,
Quo Vadis?
I am very happy about 2. and 5. Meditation is good!
>You seem to know what samskaras are and so do I and so do most people. I see it as the Law of Cause and effect. Every action causes a
>In case you missed the discussion, as you seem to be an abhyasi, so therfore not a NPOV, 
>I will rephrase for you. Maybe you can explain
11. Your assuming too many things. I appologize for missing out. I will try to review. But the discussions are too verbose.You are assuming to many things. I am not an abhyasi, but I am planning to get into more yoga. I was raised a Catholic and live in Tokyo. Ask any Sahaj marg and they don't any John Martinez (thats me)as an abhyasi. I am supposed to attend but haven't  (out of pure laziness!).
12. Samskara is not the law of cause and effect. You 're talking about karma(cause and effect). Samskara is tendencies and the spiritual-mental impressions that create them. The tendency to be lazy, lust, anger, etc especially the samskara that makes you incarnate again.(not samsara, another yoga-buddhist concept)
>Neither be leader nor follower
13. You are right. Everyone has to tread their own trail. Sahaj Marg, Yoga, Gurus etc are only there to guide. 'You'  have to take the step a-lone.
14.
>confessional. “Lord, forgive me for what I have done this week.” And there’s an equally sinful priest on the other side of the curtain saying,
No one is perfect.   He is probably wrong to criticize another religion. But I don't know the context.
15. You know latin ? Interesting, I 'm trying very hard to study the language.
Pater noster in qui is in caelis. In principio Deos creavit terram et coelim. Sic enim dilexit Deus mundum ut Filium suum unigenitum daret ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam. Whatever.Mihi nomen Jondelinensi est! 
--Jondel 07:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Jondel to Don

message: I would just like to comment:
>Maybe if we get someone from the Catholic Church to comment on this, you will
>know what they think of the confession. Chari claims to "erase samskaras" >(which is about the same thing). If the priest can't take away sins, then >neither can Chari erase Samskaras as he
1)Samskara (for me) are tendencies and the mental impressions that they are based on . Sin is sin, they are different. (Does the word sin need to be explained?) samskaras is <U>not</u> about the same thing. --Jondel 12:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Samskara is different from Sin

message: Hey Clark.
I think you are just loonely!  You must have a need for human contact.  I will not reject you or ignore you (as some would).  And I will not manipulate you or try and get you to obey me either.
My information is all from Chari and the Sahaj Marg litterature (fair use), and will be "encyclopedic".  I agree that this is not a "soapbox", a "pedestal" or a PR site for Sahaj Marg or Chari also.  I do not have anyone on a pedestal that I am trying to please or obey.  I can be fair and balanced.  If I fail, then remind me.  I certainly will remind you also.  
I would not write my autobiography and quote from myself and preach humility and spirituality at the same time.  That would be too "obvious" and demand a "rebuttal".  If I see that, I will rebut also but with a "quote" if it is out there and if I find it.  Books have to be "accepted" as credible, not just "published". Publishing a book and quoting from it does not constitute "credibility".  We have to reach a concensus on the information presented.  We can use the "journalistic" style of attributing non-concensual statements by adding "claim" or "quoted as saying" etc...That is acceptable in an encyclopedia including Wikipedia.   
Keep on the Sunny Side of Life...I am....And I will be here for a long time...Matter is short lived (measured in time units), mind is infinite and spirit is eternal. (Just an opinion as a disobedient joke) I am having fun.  Chari allows that I hope!
Fly Freely with both wings....
--don 15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted to version with NPOV and cleanup tags.  Also removed "Open Letter" as this is obviously 'soapbox' material. -- MightyWarrior 10:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality/Cleanup 

message: Um, Don ... hey bud, thanks but I didn't write the message ↓below↓ you react to ↑above↑  To make it E-Z for you, I restored the original tagline of that post and even added the link in the sub-head.  Write what you will in your blogs, but Wikipedia cannot by hijacked by any one person.  This website, for me, is a fascinating experiment for the human community.  It is a new thing, an open-ended, dynamic, and ultimately, one hopes, a fair and truthful 'encyclopedia.  So please take the trouble to check carefully sources and contexts so that what you say here or whom you address is accurate.  I say this to myself, too, Don.
Wikipedepia articles, and even these discussion pages, sre not the place for sloppiness, nor slander, nor this endless ad hominum "bait-and-debate" flame-wars many love to indulge. Normally I do not engage in such exchanges at all. But here I have made an exception, only because I feel Wikipedia is that important, both in concept and in impact. Now I'll return to Silence and let the famous Last Word belong to you, or to anyone who feels the need.  Even now I'll leave you not with my own words, Don, but those of others: Kindly heed those words below, written by them (not me) and addressed (you did get this part right) to Y - O - U ... but maybe everything here is wrong.
(Hm. My post and the link was rubbed out even before I finished the polish re-write!)
Anyway, as Babuji Maharaj used to say, "Read and enjoy. Do and become" ... I'm out! -- Sakha 18:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Who'' wrote ''what?'' Click tab [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sahaj_marg&oldid=63202782 History] 

message: Hey Don.
When editing this article, please keep in mind the following two things:
Wikipedia is NOT a publisher of original thought 
and also
Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox
However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
As such, there is no room for original thought or research.  Also, opinions you may have about a subject, no matter how "right" they feel are probably violations of WP:NPOV.
thanks -Seidenstud 13:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted to version with NPOV and cleanup tags.  Also removed "Open Letter" as this is obviously 'soapbox' material. -- MightyWarrior 10:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post by 202.39.223.4 

message: ... with apologies for bending Yeats, to Elodie, 4-d Don, Michael, and Christian ~
I have been reading your blogs with interest. When I discovered  a reference to a Sahaj Sandesh report I wrote and to my old blog (now closed to the public) in Elodie's, I decided to drop a note to thank you all.  I'm also supposed to be working on some books, and the frank and heartfelt discussion on these blogs finally gives me, lazy fellow that I am, impetus and inspiration.
To me, such outspoken honesty deserves sincere and serious consideration!  And it is my humble hope that 14 years of recording verbatim conversations with Chariji can address many of the concerns, hurt, indignation, and frankly misconceptions I have read.  I suppose there are now have over 200 hours taped of what now seems to be a single vast conversation, one in which we have discussed seemingly everything under the sun and maybe a few things over the sun as well!
The Masters have always insisted that abhyasis think for themselves, and that the REAL "master" is to be found within. Especially for Westerners, there is much to say about the ancient guru-disciple tradition, beyond what I could write in Yoga International or in The Sahaj Marg Companion. Even though I supposedly "knew" this stuff, I too once got frustrated with the 3-M's: the Mission and what I thought were the foibles of my fellow abhyasis -- what group of humans is without these things? -- and doubts about the Master and Method? (But more on this later, perhaps.)   For these and other, personal reasons of my own, in 1997 I left the Mission.  My idea was to try to see originally, to get some perspective.  Master kindly referred to this hiatus as a sabbatical but at the time I felt I would never return, since my temperament tends toward the solitary. This was also a problem for me during my days in a Soto Zen community, where everything is done as a group, Japanese-style.  I stayed alone to think over some of the same issues brought up in your blogs. I resigned as board member of SRCM-USA and as preceptor. I kept in touch with Chariji by email, and went to pay my respects when he visited the States in August, 2003.  I was making rather awkward small-talk about the ashram at Manappakkam when once again, he invited me to visit a new ashram at a place called Satkhol:  "You have seen the South Pole already, Clark.  Now you must see the North Pole!"  I knew what he meant.  He smiled mischievously:  "If it will help I will make it a command!"
So in November 2003, after seven years away, I was back in India, as Chariji says, back "with the lion in his own den." In Haridwar in a room crowded with about 200 abhyasis I was playing my comfortable role as journalist, trying to get my new video camera rolling, and you could see that Master was in a mood to talk.  Waving off other questions, he looked at me and said, "Well?"  As usual I had no questions prepared and not a thing in my head, so to stall for time, I asked Chariji if I could ask him anything, even questions some that were present might consider rude or impertinent.  He smiled and laughed the high giggling laugh, one of his three laughs, the kind when he is surprised and delighted: "Of course.  Please do!"  I immediately asked him about his successor, if he knew now who it was, and off we went!
I can say that our conversations and correspondence have been "no-holds-barred" -- about building fancy ashrams, about the parampara or lineage, including Lalaji's Sufi guru (I also corresponded and later met R.K. Gupta in Delhi and recorded an interview with him) but the wonders of those five weeks at Satkhol and later in Chennai were extra special.  In Haridwar, after I'd turned off the camera (I was to discover that these moments often happened when no camera or tape recorder was going) Master said something that went right to my core. the conversation got around to why people leave the Mission, and I said that I didn't know about others, but in my case, it was because of the emphasis on buildings and the politics and that I had tried to depart with respect and --
"Excuse me for soundling like a therapist, Clark," Chariji said, "but those are not the reasons you left."  And I felt a crackling in the air, and the hairs on the nape of my neck tingling.  The old man was transmitting something somehow in his words, just as I felt the very first time I met him in 1992 and asked him my first question.
He continued, and I have to tell you that these words went right into my heart: "You left because you have a poor self-image and you were afraid to let yourself be loved!" 
So with Chariji I never hesitated to ask the kinds of questions a child would ask, or even an enemy -- for enemies are considered valuable gurus to true sadhaks.  From the very beginning I always had the feeling that the conversations were meant to be shared, and lately Master has made this fact very clear: "Much of what we just talked about has never been written," he told me after another typically impromptu session last January in Rudrapur.  He looked at me and said, "So you better get busy, Clark.  You are always recording, recording, and never producing!"  Yikes. I don't know how long it will take me to finish the book(s) or video(s) about Chariji and Sahaj Marg but it better not be too long!
BTW, did yall ever hear the one about the famous asura or demon Ravanna, the sworn enemy of Lord Rama? Seems Ravanna got liberated BEFORE most of Lord Rama's devotees! Chariji told me this was because in Ravanna's passion, he was in a very intense state of constant remembrance of Lord Rama -- and the central law of raja yoga that we become that which we think in our hearts.
"I suppose, then, it's important to hate the right people?" I said.
"Yes," Master replied. "Bhakti is comparatively easy -- many can love half-heartedly. But who can hate with constancy and intensity of a Ravanna?"
For all of us, Elodie, Don, Michael, Christian, and if I may include myself, are still thinking of a Master (even if you do not consider Chariji to be one, you are nonetheless thinking of what a Master should be, yes?).  Maybe not often, but you think about this enough and with enough intensity to cause you to make blogs about the Master, the Mission, and the Method.  The hierarchy of the Masters of Sahaj Marg and all Masters teach the obvious, that we are all masters.  What is it that we can claim that belongs to us?  "No, God, you are not allowed into MY private hell, my secret shame!"  Nonsense.  Not just our virtues, our faith, our charity come from God.  Even our "vices," our suspicions, our doubts, our fears belong to God.  The difference between us and the greatest Avatars?  Babuji Maharaj put it simply: we have more coverings.
I like to remind myself daily: Why did I get born -- and why am I still here?  What's my mission?  Questions like these help me sort though what is important and what is not important.  Lots of times these questions turn upside-down my notions of what is "good" or desireable and what is "bad."
It's good we meditate on the supposition of light -- who can argue with that?  So let's lighten up.  Live a lot, love a lot -- and for God's sake (and our own, and for everybody else's sake, too) laugh a lot (and especially if we can laugh at ourselves) Simple stuff.  Pause.  Catch your breath and lower the threshold of your attention.  Feel yourself widen out like a circle on water, lay back and learn! Joy, cheerfulness, ease, an abiding sense of gratitude -- these are sure signs we're back in close contact with Reality.
And so to end this meditation, let us say together with the Looney Tunes,  Th- th- th-That's all, folks!    Meanwhile, stay tuned...  Sakha 22:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogging Toward Bethlehem to be Born ... 

message: :Okay, Mr. Don, I will talk directly without referring to Yeats "Slouching Toward Bethlehem" (read that poem again!) or Chariji's hint in the story about the demon from the Ramayana Ravanna, which you missed entirely, or the comment from Pliny the Elder, or the purusha/prakriti reference like yin-yang, yab-yum, which you perversely ignored or wholly failed to grasp, along with other niceties and subtleties which just do not work with your ilk.  So I'll just talk straight, like the simple Southern redneck I am -- just you and me, one Bozo to another!  Like you, I am not afraid to fight the good fight -- to a point.  Unlike you according to your description, I have other things to do and a real life outside the Internet and Wikipedia. But can we agree to listen and remain open, and (the horror!) fess up when we discover we are wrong?  Deal?
>Where are the philosophers, and the theologists in Sahaj Marg? Or yeah! They were fired because they could think! and were free!! Now all we have are techies, engineers, materialists, and psy's  (the doctors and the patients)...
:Hey, you know me?  Anything about me?  Just because you personally have an ax or two to grind, which others don't, does this mean you have the right to demean anyone who himself may think independently and arrive at another Way than yours?  I've tried to be as transparent as possible and, unlike you, have given my full name and provided an email address in my User talk -- I have hidden nothing.  So kindly try to avoid insulting anyone who does not share your POV.  You can brand me and anyone else who does not reject Chariji as mere pawns of what you dismiss as the PR machine of SRCM but the fact is I still think for myself and take responsibility for my choices.  To refer back to Yeats, the center just won't hold here, my friend!  Babuji and Chariji both affirm they want lions, not sheep, and that precious few disciples of merit come -- indeed, as Babuji said, "it is more difficult to find a worthy disciple than a worthy Master!"
>Right Clark? And you will have a 'no holds barred' interview with Chari?...yeah...Right!! Change your meds. You will write what Chari wants you to write...Not the truth....You will try to hide the truth..."
:Change your meds?  Please stop this nastiness and chill, Don.  These ad hominum attacks on my integrity, indeed on anyone who does not share your  agenda, can do nothing to serve your attempt to represent yourself in this forum as a responsible, reasonable, "NPOV" critic!  The strident tone, rant, taunt me and others like this and you will defeat your own purpose.
:You see how these "discussions" can quickly devolve into debates that generate only heat, not light.  This has already happened here.  The game being played is this: one person doggedly keeps trying to be "right," baiting-and-debating (to re-coin my phrase) and so prove all others "wrong."  Truth becomes secondary to ego and pride.  The only solution is a moratorium of silence, to allow the storm to subside over time.
:About the your retort on my referring to many 'no holds barred' interviews with Chari?...yeah...Right!!... well, you or anyone has been invited to email me about this in private.   Please see my User talk page - I have chosen, unlike you, to activate the [Email this user] link.  The "private," is necessary for the time being because there are currently books in progress that cannot be pre-published, but I can assure you I could back up what I said earlier about asking my Master every hard question here and more over the years.  As I said above, if we could speak directly, in a friendly manner, I may provide to you in private, if you agree, some examples -- though some things recorded months or years ago must await publication first.
>yet another "pseudo" religious zealot with yet another "perfect Master (business) plan" and yet another "Master Song" from yet another "Master RACE"
:Don, calm down.  Please ... this borders on insult, were it not so patently silly.
>Reaching the Divine through meditation with a Master (which many spiritual traditions do not agree with...ie Christianity....God is democratic [from below, added]
:WHAT???  "God is democratic?"  Where did you get this notion???  Nothing in the Bible or any sacred text I know of declares the the Impersonal Absolute, the Infinite, the I AM THAT I AM of Exodus to have any attributes at the highest, formless stage, and certainly not that the Source is "democratic"!  Let's guess that God might be omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, Love, etc, etc -- but democratic?  Please.  God to date has never asked my vote on any of His/Her acts of Nature!
:I have practiced Christianity intensely, since I was born by an accident of geography into a Christian society.  I still respect and love this path.  I've taken the trouble to read the Bible front to back and memorized huge hocks of text, I've studied Vedic and Buddhist texts.  Later on, as a religion major at Vanderbilt, I also studied and still later practiced Zen for a spell.  Fourteen years ago I began the practice of Sahaj Marg, and have studied all published works, many not published, and as noted, have been fortunate enough to have recorded many hours of conversations with Chariji.  So regarding "democracy," let me speak from this background:
:Beyond acknowledging everyones free choice to reject the path or follow it, and the emphasis that each person who chooses to obey the guru must think for himself and accept responsibility for his choices, Sahaj Marg, like Christianity, is clearly NOT a democracy -- nor is monastic Buddhism. SRCM and Sahaj Marg have never made any claims to be a democracy, but follow the ancient Master-Disciple tradition that form the core of many Ways, including Christianity.  In fact, as my books and articles try to make clear (have you read them?) the Gospels are a disquisition on the Master-Disciple tradition!  The disciples of Christ did not vote on what Jesus would be allowed to say and do -- they were always free to leave, of course.  As for your other incorrect notion about Christianity, specifcally the Reaching the Divine through meditation with a Master (which many spiritual traditions do not agree with...ie Christianity), see John 14.6, where Jesus says: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  No one comes to the Father except through me."  There are scores of other references.
>No more hiding!!!!
:I completely agree.  Chariji's public teachings should be open to all the public, and not be hidden, nor should my qualifications to speak authoritatively and my biases, as a contributor here, nor should DON's own background and views, as the current controlling influence here, be hidden.  So I have added your own blog to the list of "Blogs of dissociated, questioning and/or ex-abhyasis" your own blog, since you should not want to hide your very pointed conclusions about Sahaj Marg.  Wikipedia Admin Jondel also gently requested you to try to be a little more NPOV and moved a portion which includes your more strident retorts.  You may be in danger of moving from POV not to NPOV (Neutral Point of View) but what Wikipedians jokingly call MPOV (Megalomaniac Point of View). Re-read (or read) the tips Jondel left you -- I did! Neither I nor anyone -- including even you, Don -- has OWNERSHIP of any article here, though you seem to have made this campaign your personal mission.  You changed my title to "Questions and Answers" inserted "by Clark Powell," then reverted my arrangement to place the section (again) to the bottom part of the page, and added another and redundant NPOV emblem: 
:Okay.  I'll let things cool for a while, and consider additions or edits to the article, which eventually must come.  That one testy, partially-informed ex-abhyasi who clearly has specific and personal grudges  is okay and understandable, air it's fine to air those questions here.  But for one person, particularly one who has a pre-conceived agenda, to bully and dominating discussion pages and articles so that his views are disproportionately magnified simply by being unchallenged on a high-traffic site like Wikipedia - well, this, to me, deserves an answer from others who have access to information you do not have.   Silence in certain instances implies consent. I might even take you up on your number 2:
>2.  Maybe there are no pages to Chari because no one wants to write one.
:Hm. If this page were to be written, then we could collectively re-order everything under Master(s), Mission, and Method, all cross-linked.  Since these are unique, interrelated aspects of the system (like body, mind, soul or Father, Son, Holy Spirit, or cloud, water, ice, etc) the English version articles have grown to a point that such a clarification or classification may now be useful.
>Preach to Chari....He is the problem....Not Sahaj Marg...[below]
:At last -- good news! I'm very happy you see and at last clearly express an understanding of the related-distinction between the Master and the Method (Sahaj Marg).  So what do you of making this distinction in Wikipedia, as above?  See this proposal, which I feel should take place only after a few weeks, if at all. 
After the straight talk, another olive branch?  Don, I really am an open, friendly, and fairly intelligent guy. And I was not kidding when I said I was glad these questions were being asked.  Though I am not happy that there seems to be little sincerity or fairness behind the posed NPOV, since you seem to have already closed your mind and set your conclusions in concrete.  There is so much you do NOT know and further, do not even realize you don't know.  Be silent, seek within, and the ONE will reveal in your chosen form, the ishtadeva that best suits you.
At the Ultimate level the ancient Veda formulation says, Truth is indeed ONE, Don, though paths are many.  Sahaj Marg is merely one of those many paths.  As "Joshua" suggested, and I agree and have written so, Sahaj Marg is not for everyone.  We do not proselytize, though you seem to think so, but neither is Sahaj Marg an exclusive club, open only to an elite group.  It is here that Sahaj Marg under Chariji has become more truly democratic, for Dr KCV and others argued to Babuji that immoral or unworthy individuals should not be admitted.  All that is required is a sound mind and a willingness to practice.  "The greatest enemies of Christ," wrote Kierkegaard, "are Christians."  Just so, judging a path or a school by the advancement of each and every student is foolish -- we go to school not because we are already saints and masters, but because we are "sinners" or in need of evolution.
Me, I may have a long way to go - as this lengthy response might illustate! To conclude, then, with six honest words: Everything written here could be wrong!
-- Sakha 02:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Straight-Up -- [[User:4d-don|Don]]