Talk:Sahaj Marg/Archive 6

message: NPOV in the starting section has been added, pls discuss about the dispute section so that we can either remove it or let it be there..
:While the contents are apparently sourced and the results of the work of many editors, it is currently in poor shape. There are many obvious issues that are relatively superficial, such as organization, grammar, referencing,and formatting. More substantial issues appear to be an unbalanced approach, a non-neutral tone, and verification. I'm not going to take this on immediately by myself - it's too big a job. Let's see if we can get some more editors involved in this. -Will Beback 07:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Hi Willbeback
I enclose some quotes from the Sahaj Marg "official" litterature... the Stanford site is a "student " organization"  and as such they can say anything...  these quotes from the Masters are the "CREDO and the TENETS or "Maxims" as below in the Teachings section in the article.  Chari states that Sahaj Marg has "no philosophy".  Credo is latin for "belief".  When you read this, you have to "believe it" to try it, so this is a credo and a "ritual" or series of tenets (also beliefs) that one "adheres" to to belong in good standing in this group, just like any religion, and practice their rituals of "sittings" and repetitions of prayers or "endoctrination" of the adherents " slavery to his or her desires".  This practice is ridiculed by Vivekananda, Ramakrishna and others. 
For those who don't read the Sahaj Marg Material, and they are many in SRCMtm, here is something that you can either defend as "spirituality" or "cloning" or "mind control" or "brain-washing" depending on how far you are into the group...
From Salient Features of Sahaj Marg Series 2
Maxim 2
Now for the form of prayer which may ensure the greatest good to everyone. I may say that one should be brought to the same state of mind which is usually developed at the time of prayer. The feeling that he as a true servant approaches the great Master in the humble capacity of an insignificant beggar must be engrossed upon his mind. He may put up everything before his Master, resigning himself completely to His will. In other words he may assume his real form after surrendering everything to the Master. He should withdraw himself from all sides and turn completely towards Him losing all worldly charms. The remembrance of everything should merge into the remembrance of One -- the Ultimate, resounding all through in every particle of his being. This may be known as complete annihilation of self. If one develops in this state, in my view he should be considered as an embodiment of prayer. Every thought of his will be synonymous with that of the Master. He will never turn towards anything that is against the Divine will. His mind will always be directed towards that which is the Master's command.''
And there are those who claim that Sahaj Marg is not "Religion"...or "cult of a Person" who claims to represent the ONE or the ULTIMATE!
and then there is this in the same book...
He has now become the Master of one's life in all it's aspects of existence. He becomes the father, the mother, the son, the teacher, the doctor, in fact, there is no role that He does not play in the abhyasi's life. He has taken total charge of the abhyasi. So we see that only our surrendering to Him can bring about a state where He can take total charge of us!	
Analysing this further we find, surprisingly, that a great and unimaginable freedom is now confered on the abhyasi. It is the freedom from freedom itself. It is the freedom of invulnerability. We may even say that it is the freedom of invincibility. We are no longer answerable for our actions. We merely obey. The person who issues the orders, the Master, assumes complete responsibility for anything we do.
Nah! Sahaj Marg is not a Religion, or a cult...It's SPIRITUALism
What about this one from the same book... How do we Surrender?
So long as you do a thing and know that you are doing it, it is not the right course and you are away from the level of surrender, because the feeling of ego is also there. Surrender is free from any conscious idea of ego. Everything there goes on in an automatic way according to the need of the moment without any previous or after thought.
The easiest and surest means to achieve this end (Absolute State) is to surrender yourself to the Master in true sense and become a ‘Living Dead’ yourself. So long as you do a thing and know that you are doing it, it is not the right course and you are away from the level of surrender, because the feeling of ego is also there. Surrender is free from any conscious idea of ego. Everything there goes on in an automatic way according to the need of the moment without any previous or after thought.
The easiest and surest means to achieve this end (Absolute State) is to surrender yourself to the great Master in true sense and become a ‘Living Dead’ yourself.
To continue with this group, do you not have to believe that the deceased Babuji is "chanelling messages" to a French Lady and sold at "donation" $250.00 as Whispers from The Brighter World?  There is a "credo" that to belong to this group, you have to believe their "sales" pitch and the "pitch" is the "credo" that the "target" is made to believe, and/or swallow. (hook,line and sinker) 
IS THAT type of "OBEDIENCE" not a CREDO?  Chari himself states that OBEDIENCE is more important than MEDITATION!  Maybe someone can find that quote somewhere!!
don --don 23:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not for us to decide whether or not this group is a cult. We can report what others have said about it and what it says about itself but we can't make independent determinations based on our own viewpoints or criteria. The "Generic Cult Philosophy" and other material which seeks to make a case about its purported brainwashing or cultic behaviors should be removed or re-written with a neutral point of view. I'd also add that the extensive "teachings" material should be summarized more effectively. Large numbers of long quotes are not helpful to readers. Let's just boil it down to the main points. If necessary the details about teachings can be split off into a separate article, but even then they'd need to be shortened and summarized. -Will Beback  ·:·  01:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we should certainly provide links to the Master's words, we don't need to include them here, except for a few snippets to give a feeling for the style. We write articles on all kinds of religions, beliefs, and philosophies without extensively quoting their key documents. While we need to report that the subject has been called a "cult" by reliable sources, that's still just one viewpoint. Let's bring in some more editors and see if we can get more insight here. -Will Beback  ·:·  08:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does this qualify a group as "cult"?

message: One example of NPOV can be demonstrated here, "spiritual group" is one POV, whereas "not a spiritual group" is another POV, hence "claiming to be a spiritual group" will be a NPOV, doing PR on wiki is also a non-negotiable aspect, hence facts should be provided as is, any modification to information makes that a "mis-information" which is not the intend of wiki for sure.
Welcome your comments about "claiming spirituality" so that it can modified.
--122.163.44.237 07:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:Words to avoid#Claim. -Will Beback  ·:·  07:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: ===Comments by involved parties===
===Comments by uninvolved parties===
Umm Sethie has read over the article and concurs that it needs some help!
First off he is moving the cult section to the controvery section. Sethie has never seen an article which starts with the controversy section. He thinks NPOV dictates first and foremost a neutral description of what it is before presenting it's dirty laundry.
He is also removing the phrase "generic cult philosophy." Not only does it not make sense to him, it reaks of a POV push. 
Next Sethie is removing a lot of the repetitive "cult" labels. It is alledged to be a cult. That point is made clear. Repeating that point over and over, for Sethie is a POV push. 
Next, blogs are not WP:RS Sethie will remove all blog refferences and add a fact tage. 
There are many other changes, for example, most of the wiki links are set up wrongly and Sethie will pause here. Sethie 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Sethie. -Will Beback  ·:·  21:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: Umm Sethie has read over the article and concurs that it needs some help!
First off he is moving the cult section to the controvery section. Sethie has never seen an article which starts with the controversy section. He thinks NPOV dictates first and foremost a neutral description of what it is before presenting it's dirty laundry.
He is also removing the phrase "generic cult philosophy." Not only does it not make sense to him, it reaks of a POV push. 
Next Sethie is removing a lot of the repetitive "cult" labels. It is alledged to be a cult. That point is made clear. Repeating that point over and over, for Sethie is a POV push. 
Next, blogs are not WP:RS Sethie will remove all blog refferences and add a fact tage. 
There are many other changes, for example, most of the wiki links are set up wrongly and Sethie will pause here. Sethie 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Sethie. -Will Beback  ·:·  21:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by uninvolved parties

message: A lot of this page is set up improperly in terms of wiki links.
For example:
Sahaj Marg (Natural Path) is a system claimed by the SRCM to be training in spirituality, offered by Shri Ram Chandra Mission. It has been listed as a "cult", by government
Shri Ram Chandra Mission and cult are set up correctly here . If words show up in all blue, they link to something within wikipedia, as these two do
However: 
The stated goal of the Sahaj Marg practice is complete oneness with the leader who represents higher self of the members. It must be pointed out that, according to SRCM (California), this higher self is represented by Mr Chari, who according to California-based Chari Group, is the sole representative of God, or the Ultimate on this earth. Hence it can be concluded that Sahaj Marg is complete oneness with Mr Chari (The leader of an organization) 
Is set up incorrectly, since the Chari Group is not a wikipedia article. To comply with wikipedia formatting, it should read:
The stated goal of the Sahaj Marg practice is complete oneness with the leader who represents higher self of the members. It must be pointed out that, according to SRCM (California), this higher self is represented by Mr Chari, who according to California-based Chari Group[], is the sole representative of God, or the Ultimate on this earth. Hence it can be concluded that Sahaj Marg is complete oneness with Mr Chari (The leader of an organization)
or it should read:
The stated goal of the Sahaj Marg practice is complete oneness with the leader who represents higher self of the members. It must be pointed out that, according to SRCM (California), this higher self is represented by Mr Chari, who according to California-based Chari Grouphttp://sahajmarg.org/welcome/masters/moreonmasters.html/#more]], is the sole representative of God, or the Ultimate on this earth. Hence it can be concluded that Sahaj Marg is complete oneness with Mr Chari (The leader of an organization)
Sethie's request is that the major author/authors for this page go back through and change all the links so they are formatted like  other wiki articles. Sethie 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to whomever wrote/did/edited most of this page

message: WP:VER say that " The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it," and "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." 
Per wiki guidelines if you material that is tagged with a  tag does not get a reliable source added to, the material can be removed.
As for the blogs, wikipedia is clear, WP:SPS says blogs are not considered reliable sources unless published by an expert in the field. 
Sethie wishes to be polite and offer a chance for the material to be properly sourced. 
"acts and testimonials have been provided, only way to provide facts is testimonials of those who lost their family life" Sethie does not dispute that testimonials have been provided. He disputes that they have been provided within a credible, wikipedia-usuable source.
Sethie 21:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sethie has given a correct summary of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on sourcing. Blogs may not be used as 3rd-party sources. Unsourced material may be removed. -<B> ·:·</B> Will Beback  ·:·  21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sethie is impressed with the creativity of your response, and that is just not how things work on wikipedia.Sethie 15:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion of Shashwat's edits

message: Sethie has reverted Shashwat's work on the intro for the following reasons:
~None of the ref links works
~Two fo the ref links are invisble, do to bad formatting
~Sahaj Marg (Natural Path) is a concept claimed to be spiritual, offered by Shri Ram Chandra Mission. -This sentence does not make sense, "concept claimed to be spiritual" just doesn't make sense to Sethie
~ Reported as mind controlling cult by government agencies - This sentence is an incomplete sentence.
~ Sethie sees "mind controlling cult" is too much of a pov push for an intro sentence. Sethie 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion of Shashwat's work on the intro

message: If any parties involved in editing would chime in, here: [] Sethie would appreciate it. Sethie 22:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Sahaj Marg Philosophy

message: Hi Sethie, Shashwat
Here is the current appeal that is pending and the "site with the documents and the "charges" by the SRCM (Shahjahanpur) and they legal advisor.
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/ac661900p.txt
Statement by legal advisor of SRCM (shahjahanpur)re forgery and murder:
http://www.srcmshahjahanpur.org.in/who_can_be.html
Documents including a letter from Founder accusing the "disciple" of wrongdoing, minutes of meetings, letter of succession of both parties etc...:
http://www.srcmshahjahanpur.org.in/facts.html
I feel that this info (court case and documents and legal statements)  would be better in the Shri Ram Chandra Mission article, and are there now,  but we will have to wait for the Supreme Court of India to make a judgement before finalizing all the articles.  It will remain confused as both "contestants" are editing and making "contradictory" statements about one another.
For now, I really don't care where the "teachings" section is entered temporarily, but I think that as Sahaj marg is the "practice" or the system,  and that Chari has stated that Sahaj Marg has no philosophy, until the Supreme Court of India decides who we are entering this article about makes all the difference, as one group is "evangelical" and not guided by philosophy and one is guided by the written philosophy in the printed material and is not trying to grow the business by proselytizing.  So for now, it does not matter where it goes but later we should "consolidate" the Practice as the Product and the Society as the legal entity as it is this legal entity (under Chari) that has had the "difficulties" and controversies around Europe and now North America.  The cult accusation and  status is almost all since Chari came on the scene and started buying castles in Europe.  It was only in 1990's that he registered the SRCMtm in California.  We can't tell without the legal documents which is which and who controls what. That also affects what teachings we are talking about, Chari's or Babuji's.  This is all in the Shri Ram Chandra Mission Article.
 
Sorry to be so confusing...This is confusing and then there is the Sufi LINEAGE that took us over a year to figure out with the help of our Sufi brothers.  
4d-don--don 03:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Court case in Supreme Court of India

message: The philsoophy paragraph looks like total OR, WP:NOR to Sethie. Knowhere in the one citation that is listed does it say anything even remotely like what the article says.
Sethie will wait a week and if no proper citations are found for the ideas contained in this paragraph, he will re-write it.Sethie 16:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ) Fun, fun, fun.
In the hear and now Sethie is concerned merely with the fact that the section looks like OR and cites sources that don't say what they citation says. So step one he is looking at is just getting some bare, simple accuracy.
As for the multiple organizations, etc. Which ever way the court case goes, in Sethie's view, a neutral article would describe both, including the court ruling.Sethie 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The philosophy paragraph

message: Blogs are not WP:RS. Myself and Will (an admin) have told you this, multiple times. Yet, you have put them back in again Shashwat. [] Please stop doing this.  
The policy on blogs is clear. Please take your concerns about the policy to: []. Also it might be helpful for you to post there, so you can get some feedback from other editors, not just Will and Sethie. Sethie 07:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop with blogs

message: I have edited master and leadership section to give a clear picture about the current situation, case is still before SCoI and till matter is not resolved, Chari cannot be protrayed as current guru, nor Navneet can be presented as authentic president of the group. hence this section needs some discussion and more edits are required so as to present the current situation properly.
--Shashwat pandey 12:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Master and leadership

message: The group claims that those who join the group seek to achieve a state which is referred as living dead,[]. a state in which according to the group’s philosophy, one can reach this state. Sahaj Marg says that by giving up attachment to the worldly object’s like family spouse children’s society etc and replacing that attachment with the divine, one can attain this state of living dead, which has been described by the members as a state of freedom and happiness. []
Quote from Sahaj Marg material
Master's most important teaching is that to 'give up' creates strain and enormous tensions. So we are not required to 'give up' but to create an attachment to higher values and purposes, when automatically and naturally the unnecessary things of life drop off. That is, detachment has to be created by developing attachment in a different direction. When we attach ourselves to the Divine, the world falls off. We are no longer part of it, though of it. We are in it, living in it. This may be the condition of 'the living dead' that Master refers to. We are alive while we are really dead to this existence.. [] 
:Removal of vivikananda,violates WP:NOR, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that bui lds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." You need to find a scholar or reputable source which says the two contradict.
:Removed Rick Ross, it violates WP:NOR, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that bui lds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." The araticle does not make the link to Sahaj Marg, you are.
:Removed Raja yoga comparison, it violates WP:NOR, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that bui lds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." No source is provided for the contradition.
:Removed "will be converted." Sethie has asked you 8+ times to find a source which uses this language. Thus far you have not. 
:removed "by renunciation." The group does not ask for renunciation, but a shift in values.
:added in an actual report by an actual member
:removed "which is represented by leader." No source says the leader "represents" divinity. This is a complicated concept, which will be/is being handled in the philosophy section.
:removed repeitive sentence, we can then connect the first and 2nd paragraph
:removed initial quote. You use that quote twice. Sticking it there, all by itself feels like a POV-push to Sethie.
:Most of what you wrote is OR, howver Sethie believes it is a good first step. 
:Sashwat. It seems like you have a lot of concern about this living dead concept (which may be well-founded! who knows?) However if you want any negative or critical material (which includes the idea of it being contradictory) about it in this article, you MUST find sources which express that material. Thus far, you haven't  Sethie 22:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At a certain point, it might be handy! Thanks. Sethie 03:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial Response

message: Sethie was wondering if this would not be better placed in the SRCM article, with a short summary in this one? Any feedback appreciated. Sethie 05:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the move, if you'd like to do a short summary here on the Sahaj Marg page, that would be great. Sethie 04:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Master and leadership section

message: Newspaper reports about the same have been provided now, which confirms the stand of those individuals who have been forced to get divorced, and are prevented from seeing their children's by the group. I hope this as per wiki is sufficient, if not, discussion is open.
--Shashwat pandey 08:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Forced Divorce

message: Shashwat, I'm glad that you agree with the etiquette comments shared by other posters. Let's be respectful to each other's opinion when we disagree. Also, it is not necessary to have concepts "proven," as you said, for them to be valid for that person. Your viewpoint is valid for you, but others' opinions are equally valid for them. The concept of "living dead" would be difficult to prove, but that does not mean that it is not a valid part of the practice. 
Benjamin zanetha@yahoo.com
:Pls go through wiki policy, as what can be included and what not, pls read links provided at top of this page, kindly understand this is not a discussion about any group, but contents of the article.
Here i am providing your a list of blogs where u can discuss topics that you want to discuss, it will be nice if you can create a user page, or an wiki ID so that we can talk on your page.
* Inner Circle of SRCM-Eng   
* Poxy SRCM
* The Desperate abhyasi web-site- Fr & Eng   
* Le Shri Ram Chandra Mission Verolee-Fr   
* SRCM=Danger Fr
* Le Sahaj Marg a Detruit Ma Famille
* Une analyse anthropologique
* Power to Speak 
 
Go through these blogs and discuss your POV there. 
--Shashwat pandey 12:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Benjamin

message: Some clarity about obedience section is placed, here is the section which is provided as refrence
Now, the best one—of course the one who serves the Master is the best, because you are always close; you learn something. Meditation is best next. And Mission—after all, what is a Mission? It’s an organisation. So we have to be equally devoted. First, love the Master. Then meditate, do cleaning, because he says you should do it. I don’t personally believe that meditation can lead us to the goal because, according to the spiritual history of India, there have been people who have meditated thousands of years and they didn’t make it. I asked Babuji. He said, “Yes you are right.” I said, “Then why do you prescribe meditation, cleaning, you know—all of these things?” He said, “Obedience. To create obedience in people.” 
So love must be there; obedience must be there. And this obedience comes not because of fear but because of love. That is the secret of love in spirituality, you see. Love because of love, not because of fear. And because of that love, you obey. When Master says, “Sit,” you sit. When he says, “Get up. You go and look after the kitchen. I am going to give satsangh,” you should not say, “Oh, I came for satsangh; He is sending me to the kitchen. I did not come from Europe to help in the kitchen.” Obedience 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shashwat pandey (talk • contribs).
Hi all...
Who belongs to that last "unsigned" message?  
What about the "Philosophy" section?  Should I begin to edit it?  Or will someone else?
About the cult templates...before the inclusion of the "cult" templates, there was a series of "yoga" templates at the bottom of the article.  That was not accurate also and it was WIKI to remove it.  Thank you Shashwat.  SRCM claims to be a "Raja Yoga", but a claim does not make it so.    
The templates gave their POV "credibility".
However, that being said, a government committe placing a group on a cult list does not necessarily make that group a cult also.  Committees make mistakes.  So to add the "cult" statement by the government committees, to the article and reference it, is WIKI...To template the article with a "cult" brand is a POV (as it was for SRCMtm), as we are making that decision based on the "possible" accuracy of the POV of others (we don't know).  One can state that the POV of others is "neutral" and at "arm's length", but that is debateable as even members of a neutral committee have "non-neutral" members with non-neutral POV's and sometimes, the "non-neutral" members out-number the "neutral" members on the committee.  
So if we simply remove the Yoga Template (wrongly placed there by the Chari faction-POV) and the "religion" templates (POV) and the "Cult" templates (POV) then we will be NEUTRAL (NPOV) and readers will be able to decide for themselves if the group is a cult or not based on the content of the info and not on the "templates" which act as an "influence" on the reader.  It would be like putting the "war" template on the section called "rifles" or "explosives".  It is true that rifles and explosives are used in war, but it is not a "neutral" inclusion and is only one POV, the editors (and mine...lol  ;-))  Let us support and stand on the accuracy of our content, and not advertise our POV with templates.
Just because the Cults (and SRCMtm) do not respect WIKI and use questionable methods, does not mean that to disrespect WIKI on the "other side" is any better.  Two wrongs do not make a "RIGHT".
This is just my POV... I will live with the concensus...I can see both sides of the argument.  If anyone checks out other groups, see if other templates are inserted under "religions", or other topics.  If WIKI accepts it, then I will change my mind.  I don't think it does even if some other groups "contravene" this WIKI NPOV policy.  
To add "links" to sites that help readers decide if a group is a cult or not is "fair use" in my mind (POV), as the "cult brand" has been made by apparently "neutral" committees. 
Don--don 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: obedience section

message: Shashwat, WP:V clearly states "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." 
Sethie has challenged the idea that Chari claims to be the "sole" representative. You need to provide a source which states this, not say, "This is going in until you show a source that says otherwise."Sethie 16:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great find Don. Sethie will sit with how we can accurately use the citation. Sethie 15:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Link from SMRTI was questioned by sethie, as it was not independent and nutral, hence a cult watch group page was provided which say's that Chari is "personafication of God".--Shashwat pandey 01:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Sethie was challenging only the idea of "sole" representative of God. Sethie 15:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of "sole" from representative

message: Please don't add anymore quotes. Most of them that are in the article now along with new ones will be eventually chopped.
They might fit in great here [], but this wikipedia, an encyclopedia, [] Sethie 06:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI on quotes

message: Dear Sethie,
I’ve delved deeply into the question of whether or not Sahaj Marg is a cult, searching evidence-based websites worldwide.  
The evidence clearly shows that there is no reasonable basis for labeling Sahaj Marg a cult.  
Please note that the only “evidence” used to label Sahaj Marg a cult in this Wikipedia page is from France.  In order to evaluate if this claim is valid, it is necessary to examine explain the historical and political context within which claims were made, detailed below.  
I.  First, the term used in the French citations is “sect,” not cult.  And, according to a 2006 report from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, 
	-- "The French word secte has a negative connotation and includes groups such as cults, but also certain new religious movements or communities of belief. Secte cannot be translated by the English word ‘sect,’ which has a different meaning." (p. 22) 
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement
Shri Ram Chandra Mission is referred to as a sect in France (not a cult).  No where else does the Shri Ram Chandra Mission appear on any governmental sect or cult list.  Therefore, all references to “cult” should be excised.
II.  Second, the infamous 1995 list of sects in France, which is used as the main basis for claiming the Shri Ram Chandra Mission as a cult on this Wikipedia site, has been internationally vilified as illegitimate and as a gross attack on fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of thought, belief, and religion.  Specifically,
	-- A 2006 United Nations Commission on Human Rights report condemned the 1995 sect list, finding, "In particular, the establishment of a list, as well as the awareness-raising policies that were carried out, raised serious concerns in terms of freedom of religion or belief." 
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement
	-- This same UN report found that the groups named "had not been informed in advance that they would be placed on the list or given the opportunity to participate in a hearing. They were also not provided with the reasons justifying their inclusion on the list." 
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement
	-- Even French scholars were critical of the sect list, as reported in this 2003 scholarly paper by a University of Charles De Gaulle professor: "’Sects in France’ was handed over to the government on 22 December 1995. It is useless to question again the methodology used for that enquiry. It was largely criticised and discredited by numerous foreign and French researchers.” http://www.cesnur.org/2003/vil2003_dericquebourg.htm 
	-- The Prime Minister of France published a circulaire in 2005 saying the 1995 list was not pertinent and that the focus instead should be on illegal or immoral behaviors.  http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=PRMX0508471C
This 1995 French anti-sect list has been universally condemned and the French government has distanced itself from the list, it therefore is not a reasonable source of evidence for claiming the Shri Ram Chandra Group to be a cult.  
III.  France’s anti-sect activities have continued to receive strong international condemnation over the past dozen years, up to the present:
	-- "A number of human rights organisations and states have criticised the French government's position, especially at the Implementation Meetings on Human Dimension Issues of the OSCE [Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe] in 1998, 1999 and 2000….in the sect issue, France is practising cultural protectionism..." http://www.willyfautre.org/publications/2002/heidelberg.pdf
	-- The 2006 UN Commission for Human Rights report concluded that, "The debate on this matter and the different measures that were taken at the governmental and parliamentary level in the second part of the 1990s undermined the right to freedom of religion or belief and raised serious concerns about religious intolerance." 
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement
	-- After the French National Assembly voted for an anti-sect motion, “a number of personalities in European institutions raised their voices against the law.  On October 6, 2000, Mr. McNamara, a British socialist, submitted a proposal signed by 14 members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which 11 socialists, to express their concern as regards this law...On April 26, 2001, 50 members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) signed Declaration nr 321 whereby they expressed their concern as regards this law and demanded the vote suspension..."
http://www.willyfautre.org/publications/2002/heidelberg.pdf
	-- "Anti-sect policies in France and Belgium have triggered an up to now unknown wave of discrimination and intolerance against non-conventional religious and belief groups.  They also contravene with the obligations to freedom of religion and belief that are enshrined in international and European treaties and covenants to which these countries are committed....”  [please note that Shri Ram Chandra Mission does not appear on the Belgium sect/cult list] http://www.willyfautre.org/publications/2002/heidelberg.pdf
	-- "This research note presents the results of a study of the current ongoing persecution of religious minorities in France...In each case, France’s powerful anticult organization, the Association of Defense of Families and the Individual (ADFI) had exacerbated and publicized – if not actually concocted – the conflict...”  http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/palmer.htm
	-- Further, even today, the government has “created no mechanism for checking the accuracy of the statements made about sects by these groups” [MILS or MIVILUDES] http://www.willyfautre.org/publications/2002/heidelberg.pdf
	-- Even today, the United Nations special representative continues to find "unlawful discrimination" against those groups appearing on the 1995 sect list. 
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement
 
IV.  The issue of religious suppression in France has been deemed so serious by the international community that it prompted an independent inquiry in 2006 by the United Nations Commission for Human Rights (
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement).  This independent inquiry concluded that:
	-- The UNCHR is "of the opinion that the policy and measures that have been adopted by the French authorities have provoked situations where the right to freedom of religion or belief of members of these groups has been unduly limited. Moreover, the public condemnation of some of these groups, as well as the stigmatization of their members, has led to certain forms of discrimination, in particular vis-a-vis their children." (p. 20)
V.  Because of the international furor over the treatment of any non-mainstream religious or spiritual groups in France:
	-- the organization that created the list (MILS) dissolved in the early 2000s, and scrapped any plans to do new lists or update old lists 
http://www.cesnur.org/2003/vil2003_dericquebourg.htm
	-- this organization has now been replaced by a new one, called MIVILUDES, which is designed to track sectarian deviations (illegal or immoral behavior) and not groups 
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement
	-- “…The MIVILUDES targets sectarian deviances and not sects…that it rather targets groups that have a criminal behaviour…The decree instituting the MIVILUDES was challenged in court…” http://www.cesnur.org/2003/vil2003_dericquebourg.htm 
	-- However, the 2006 United Nations independent representative expressed concern that MIVILUDES may become more hard-line regarding sects and engage in further suppression and discrimination, and should still be watched with caution. 
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/19/PDF/G0611719.pdf?OpenElement
VI.  Popular opinion toward sects sect in France may be turning, according to this report on the Center for Studies on New Religions website (which is a "network of independent but related organizations of scholars in various countries, devoted to promote scholarly research in the field of new religious consciousness, to spread reliable and responsible information..." (http://www.cesnur.org/about.htm#ing):
	-- "During all this year, the media has stopped stupidly reproducing the press files handed over to them by ADFI, CCMM and the MILS but now, they have begun to publish the arguments for and against almost systematically. A certain weariness towards anti-sect extremism can be noticed in the newspaper offices. Journalists do not believe in it any more, even if they are encouraged to blow up the issue. In private, some admit they solicit other viewpoints when the editor in chief has turned his back (true!)." http://www.cesnur.org/2003/vil2003_dericquebourg.htm 
CONCLUSION (based on evidence above):  
-	The Shri Ram Chandra Mission appeared on the 1995 French sect list, which was universally condemned and later abandoned by the French government.  
-	Current French anti-sect reports also have been universally criticized as suppressing fundamental human rights and being inaccurate representatives of true cults.  
-	The Shri Ram Chandra Mission does not appear on any governmental cult lists (not even in France, it appeared on the 1995 sect list).
-	Therefore, there are no legitimate claims for a header titled “Cult Allegations,” as currently appears in the Wikipedia site.  
The quotations listed on the “Teachings…” and “Cult Allegations” headers on this Wikipedia page are selectively chosen quotations meant to promote an anti-Sahaj Marg or Shri Ram Chandra agenda.  As I said before, we could search the Bible or Koran and find similar quotations (as well as former disgruntled members) to justify all sorts of labels, including obedience and mind control and views on homosexuality, and so forth.
Wikipedia is an information source, not a place to selectively present the beliefs of a spiritual group or one’s arguments with that spiritual group (otherwise, the page on Catholicism would be stock full of distortions and complaints by former disgruntled members!). 
Thanks,
Renee
--Renee 17:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cult Question 

message: Hi Folks,
The ONLY reference to SRCM in reference # 30 is this: “The Shri Ram Chandra Mission targets children of followers in the guise of play and recreational activities: “You will come to the ashram to see the Master and participate with your parents in a spiritual manner.” P. 81, http://www.miviludes.org/IMG/pdf/Report_MIVILUDES_2003.pdf
With regard to reference # 31, first, this ‘article’ was published in what is 
a “newspaper” equivalent to “Star” (e.g., “three-headed baby born on New York subway”) or “National Enquirer” (e.g., “Paris Hilton falls in love with jailer”) in the United States.  Not a reliable evidence source.  See Wikipedia’s own description of the publication, “Ekstra Bladet [ˈɛg̊sd̥(ʁ)ɐˌb̥læð̪ˀð̪̩(d̥)] is a Danish tabloid newspaper focusing on sensationalist stories….”  
The only reference to SRCM in reference #31 is that some independent member of Sahaj Marg, acting as a free person, sells some sort of water filter contraption.  The author of this piece tries to insinuate that SRCM is not a legitimate spiritual organization (by outlining it’s practices/beliefs), but then acknowledges that SRCM is viewed as a legitimate spiritual organization in Denmark and is afforded the same rights and privileges in Denmark as other legitimate spiritual groups (i.e., “according to the law on the taxes, §8A…”) .  Further, one official of SRCM is interviewed (see interview with Steen Bruun in this article, near the bottom), and he points out that that people are free thinkers and actors and their work has nothing to do with Sahaj Marg. 
	There is absolutely no linking of this water item to anything endorsed by SRCM.  It is merely an individual running his own business just like some members of Judaism sell Kabbalah bracelets, and some members of the Catholic church sell special candles linked to saints for protection, and so forth.  
	This “article” is full of personal opinions (along the lines of, “ain’t this awful that this spiritual organization accepts donations and gets tax exemptions," though the article also points out that this is the case for any legitimate spiritual organization in Denmark).
	This site proves that members are free to have independence of thoughts, beliefs, and actions. 
 
	This site proves that Denmark views Sahaj Marg as a legitimate spiritual practice that is afforded the same rights and privileges as other spiritual practices in Denmark.   
	The Catholic or Lutheran or Methodist churches could all have exactly the same type of article written against them in inflammatory language like this.
The reference at the end of this document is the same as #30 above.  Again, no evidence that SRCM is a cult.  
Citation #29 is just someone’s personal website/blog of their interpretation of SRCM, events, and its beliefs.  It is not evidence at all.
Thanks,
Renee
--Renee 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind Control References 

message: Dear Sethie,
With reference to the last paragraph in this section, i.e., 
“This process, in Sahaj Marg, has been alleged to be similar to hypnosis....[citation needed]”
There is absolutely no evidence that transmission is in any way similar to hypnosis.  “Transmission is defined as the utilization of divine energy for transformation of a human being” (http://www.sahajmarg.org/welcome/sahajmarg.html).  
This divine energy, sometimes called prana is a common concept in Indian spiritual traditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prana).
When outlandish and unsupported claims like this are made (based on someone's personal opinion), how does one go about getting them stricken from the article without going back and forth on a daily basis?
Thanks, 
Renee --Renee 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Section on Transmission under Mind Control 

message: Refrence for dates are provided at the end of the para, kindly see the link given, it clearly stat's
1. The Complaint alleges that SRC registered the trade or service mark "Sahaj Marg" with the United States patent and Trademark Office of the United States Department of Commerce effective July 29, 1997. A copy of the registration is attached to the Complaint. SRC further alleges that it, on October 12, 1999, filed for further registration of the trade or service mark "Sahaj Marg". The term Sahaj Marg is stated to mean "natural path" in India. SRC also asserts that it has registered several other trade or service marks for such names as Shri Ram Chandra Mission.
Also regarding date if registration of Indian group it say's
5. Indeed, the evidence submitted by Shri Ram establishes that Shri Ram has a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and has not acted in bad faith. For example, a Certificate of Registration of Societies dated Locknow, India 21 July 1945 evidences that the Shri Ram Chandra Mission, as opposed to SRC which is a California corporation, was formed in India on or prior to that date. The "Aims and Objectives" of Shri Ram are stated, in a copy of its Rules and Constitution dated 2 July 1945, to include: to encourage the down-hearted and promote amongst them the easier methods, practicable to them, for the attainment of social and moral aims of life, based on the principles of spirituality, translated as "Sahaj Marg". A similar use of Sahaj Marg appears in a copy of Shri Ram’s minutes of a meeting of disciples and beneficiaries held at Shahjahanpur on June 10, 1945.
This should clarify all doubts regarding date of registration of trade mark, if California based group is the one which is actual SRCM then what is the need to re-register tarde marg ? can spirituality be offered by registering trade marks ? --Shashwat pandey 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refrence for date of registration of trade mark

message: Here is the direct quote that I paraphrased....The tone is not mine but is the tone of the quote...The other addition is from SRCM Shahjahanpur.  Could you make it WIKI, according to you... and then could you remove the template....It was brought up and included as one editor (still here) indicated that Raja Yoga, which SRCM claims to be, has a "no donation" should be accepted guidelines...   
"If you think that it is your Mission, it is your Master, it is His plant, therefore, it is yours, then there is no sacrifice, there is no giving. You are only watering your own plant. Who should you credit for it?" "To think that my Master depends on my donation could very possibly be a sin. Masters exist in a dimension where money does not play a part. Whenever he makes us donate something, he does so to lighten our burdens. Our contribution to our Master's work is perhaps of the same proportion as the squirrel's contribution to Lord Rama's work."
Appreciate your assistance...
Don--don 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Sfacets

message: Registering a Society, is not the same as registering a "trade mark".  SRCM was registered as a non-profit society but the trade mark was not as far as I know...The reference does not indicate that.  I would remove it if there are no other "references" to a registering of a trade mark of "Sahaj Marg" having been registered in India in 1945-46.  I find it odd that the words Natural Path was even registered but if it was, the the registration date is what is needed here.
Don --don 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Shashwat

message: Raja Yoga is yoga of mind and Sahaj Marg is a heart based approach.. these two claims don't really fit in the same article. :( what is the view of other editor's about this aspect ? --Einstein 22 18:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your fact request are not appropiate! I agree with the essence with which you have requested the same, as claims made by the leader are false, baseless and demonstrates the lack of knowledge and understanding of religion by the leader of the group, BUT in the context, it is represented what the leader is saying, and this is what is explained here, and they have been refrenced!! there is no refrence where Gita say's two cannot be mixed, on the contrarory, Gita prapogates the concept of non-dual (Adwaitya) there is no second and hence question of mixing the TWO does not even arise. Same holds true with idol worshiping, nowhere it is stated that it is worst form of worship!! but this is what the leader say's and this is what is stated here. They cannot be cited in the essence you wish them to be as the claims are false. but here we simply re-produce what the group (leader) say's.--Shashwat pandey 05:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Raja Yoga and Sahaj Marg

message: ::ISRC does not use Sahaj Marg, it uses PAM (Pranahuti aided meditation). For them there is no need for a living master, contrary to Sahaj Marg of California, where not only a living, but a MALE master is must for spiritual growth of its member's. Where as Sahaj Marg of Shahjahanpur also contradicts Sahaj Marg of California, in same reference. There is no need for a living master. and this page perfectly balance's Sahaj Marg of both faction. it is clearly stated in the page that California Sahaj Marg needs a living Male Leader, whereas Indian Sahaj Marg does not need any living Leader. a page about Sahaj Marg needs to reflect all these aspects and current setup takes care of all. Feel free to edit the page, we all are here to balance the page :).
::If you wish to propose a Sahaj Marg (California) page one Sahaj Marg (India) page and one PAM page, and then one SRCM (California) page and one SRCM (India) page and then one ISRC page. then there will be six page's referencing to one object. This does not seems to be a good idea. In one page about Sahaj Marg, all factions can be included which the case is currently, this page gives a clear picture of what the current situation is, trade mark registered twice, court cases, and the teachings, in a perfectly balanced and NPOV aspect. Six pages for one method ? then i would propose one more page to display the controversies and dispute, one page where cultish stuff of Sahaj Marg, and intellectual deterioration of member's, various divorce cases and characterless ness of member's (as reported in European newspaper's) should also come into picture. I am going through them and will crack on edits soon regarding those aspect's. 
::As far as i can read the page, it is already in accordance with what you are proposing, infect there is no reference to SRCM in this page, except the link given :) Page starts with stating what is Sahaj Marg (trade mark), this cannot be omitted. then the philosophy of Sahaj Marg is explained, next comes another trade mark constant remembrance.
::Pls read the page once again, you have stated not the organizations (the various SRCMs) Sahaj Marg page has no reference to organization except where it is needed. Personally i do not agree with this idea, as it is SRCM only which teaches Sahaj Marg, and a group without any teaching has no basis, and a teaching without any group is also invalid. there has to be some infrastructure, around which Sahaj Marg is groomed, and there has to be something that SRCM is doing for which it has been listed as harmful secte. Sahaj Marg and SRCM in essence are one and same, Sahaj Marg is a trade mark registered by the group. and they cannot be differentiated, they are same, i propose that SRCM page should list the controversies, as well, and currently it seems to be in perfect shape. 
 
::There can be as many pages on wiki as you want, you need to request for a page and it will then be reviewed and accepted. 
::In my view, this page discribes Sahaj Marg as is, without any POV push currently, if there is any requirement for change in text, feel free to do them, we all will look at it and will share our view's and POV and balance the article. Change in format as of now is not acceptable, if you feel the need to start a new page, kindly do the same.
::French report has been established as authentic, by the reference you have provided.
::There is no need to loose your sleep over this debate, as there are chances that emotions can come between logical thinking and our acts, we need to keep this page as far from emotions as possible. 
::The link that you have provided  say's(b) governments have established specific initiatives targeting so-called “sects” or “cults.” ref. page 47, this establishes that sects and cult's are actually same. So now i hope you agree to the idea that UN also accepts that there is no difference between sects and cult.
::Same report further add’s
:: that concrete action be taken within the OSCE to ensure that all participating states are living up to their commitments to combat discrimination and intolerance, in particular to combat anti-Semitism, as detailed in the 1990 Copenhagen Document, action which should include adopting laws to protect against incitement to violence based on discrimination, including anti-Semitism, and providing the individual with effective remedies to initiate complaints against acts of discrimination
:: the creation of a mandate within OSCE, perhaps in the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, with the responsibility to monitor and report regularly on anti-Semitic incidents and the implementation by member states of their Copenhagen commitments
:: review of state compliance within the OSCE of commitments of member states on anti-Semitism on a regular basis
In effect the UN report has not rejected but accepted the French govt. stand and has endorsed it, keeping in view the violent activities conducted by these sects (cults) in there respective countries. Human right violation which you are trying to lay the blame on French Govt. is actually laied on the cult's by this committee formed by the UN. I will use same report in SRCM article to substantiate the french govt's observations and as acceptence by the UN of French Govt. stand aganst cult's. Now the view is actually universally accepted.  
:: Your view’s about spirituality contradicts my approach, after my research about the group, I find it is effective, but only for brainwashing and mind control, otherwise there cannot be any divorce due to any group. A divorce due to one group, establishs brainwashing. Spirituality cannot divide (as claimed by the group itself) since result are contradictory to what is stated then it also establshes that there is something seriously wrong with group, method and the teaching, as it is resulting in adverse and affliction to member’s. Only that method can be effective which is established by current scientific standered’s, for example I have firm belief in Astrology  this is established scientificly as it consider’s moon to influence human thoughts and therefore the person character and therefore his/her acts and therefore consequence of its acts. If moon can pull and push ocean by force, our thoughts are also influenced by position of moon, those with strong moon are intelligent and those with weak moon are lunatic’s. and this is why I accept Raja Yoga, as they begin with truthfulness, and controlling the breathing’s which in turn controls out thoughts and thereby we can have control over nature, which result’s in our control over existance, and finally liberation from thoughts. (Samadhi).--Einstein 22 13:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Renee

message: Hi Folks,
I started to work on this page and it seems we're really muddling up what's Sahaj Marg the practice and what's the Shri Ram Chandra Mission (two organizations).  
I've moved different sections together and tried to create a more logical order to the page.  
For example, there was no definition or goal of Sahaj Marg, so I added that in the beginning.  I moved the section on transmission up to the top because that's an essential feature of the practice.  Then, I explained the practice.  Previously, practice elements were mixed up throughout the piece -- sometimes in the criticisms section, sometimes up front, once in the middle.   I also moved philosophy down because it seems that one should describe the practice first, and then give the philosophy.  Finally, there was much redundancy in parts (i.e., parts of the philosophy are repeated in the teachings and vice versa, so I started to delete the redundancies to clean it up).
With regard to the secte issue, I put exactly what appears on the SRCM page on this page, which is a listing of the exact facts according to the reports.
The "mind control" section is a complete point-of-view.  The reports cited never mention the practice of Sahaj Marg (only SRCM) and they never say SRCM practices mind control.  The only reference in the 2003 report is that some promotional materials say that during an activity at the ashram, children will learn about spirituality and meet the Master with their parents.  There is nothing about mind control.  Also, this section is stock full of personal opinions.  For example, there is absolutely no proof that transmission causes one to become disconnected with his or her family.  That may be one person's experience, but other people become more connected with their families.
The "claimed exclusive approach" is inaccurate too.  I checked on the ISRC site and they advocate exactly the same methods as these.  Further, the sufi groups cited as advocate similar methods.  More importantly, these are "practice" elements and should not be under criticisms, so I moved the practice elements up into a practice section and made them more neutral.
Finally, the article excerpt by the Danish tabloid newspaper is selectively chosen. There are other sections in this article that are pro-Sahaj Marg.  I've deleted the article excerpts (otherwise this section will be twice as long if we are to provide this excerpt and then the pro excerpt) and just offered a 1-line summary.  
SETHIE -- I'm wondering if you can insert something about disputed neutrality or points-of-view in the "Teachings" section.  I haven't had time to go through this carefully but it is really slanted and distorted and out of context.  I'll find the quotations to balance it and still get across the points Shashwat wants, but right now it reads very hostile.
Sorry, Renee, it appears you didn't see the inuse tag, I had to write over your edits... Sfacets 09:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticisms, re-ordering the sections 

message: Hi Folks, 
Okay, it seems that we are able to start from the newly re-organized piece.
Please give your feedback on the re-ordered and revised piece up until the teachings.  (The text after the teachings section has not been revised and in fact, other parts were moved to this.  IMO it still reads strongly from a specific point of view, but shall we agree on the parts up to that point first and then work on that?)
I've tried to take in Jossi's points above that it's too long, so up to the teachings section, you'll see I tried to make it very short and factual.
I wonder if we should just cut the whole "teachings" section since that's the most contested and really, because they are designed to promote a point-of-view perhaps they'd be better on blogs where people can continue to build their case?
Thanks, Renee      --Renee 06:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting Afresh

message: Hi Folks,
This page is getting very long.  Should we archive it and start afresh?  
Renee   --Renee 06:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: Shashwat,
I notice you just did SIX changes in an hour without any discussion.  This is not Wiki policy and is not in the collaborative nature of Wiki.
Regarding the first paragraph, 
- you said yourself that you didn't want the word "claims" above in the introduction section 
- it is against Wiki policy to use the word, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid
- it is grammatically incorrect and akward
Can we all agree (Sfacets already did) that we simply say "Sahaj Marg is a meditation system..."  I understand, Shashwat, it's a meditation system you fiercely dislike, but that doesn't not make it a meditation system.
Regarding the philosophy paragraph, I see you unilaterally moved it.  The philosophy section should go after the description of the practice.  Also, it represents your strong point-of-view about the leader, when this is mis-represented here (and your POV comes across because you put leader in every word).  You've done the same thing for constant remembrance which is false.  I can provide many quotations from both Babuji and Chariji that constant remembrance is remembering the divine essence.  If it helps, you can remember the master as a representation of the divine essence, but that's one of many options and you present it as the only option, which is a selective distortion of the facts.
Renee    --Renee 09:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first paragraph 

message: Dear All,
I re-edited the sections on the leader to make them more neutral.  Shashwat strongly wants the leader in there so I added "divine essence" and that the leader represents the divine, in the philosophy section.
Also, the obedience section belongs in the teachings.  It doesn't make sense to have it before the practice.  This ordering reflects a point-of-view where this is meant simply to be an encyclopedic entry.  
I think transmission should be moved it, because it helps to explain the practice more.
Comments and discussion welcome!
Renee     --Renee 09:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Edits

message: Dear Jossi,
Do you still think the article is too long up to the section on "masters and leadership?"  We've tried to reduce it substantially and make it more neutral.
Also, I tend to agree with Don that the two pages, Shri Ram Chandra Mission and Sahaj Marg should not be merged.  One represents a meditation practice that multiple groups use as their basis, where as the Mission is a governing organization of just one of the groups.  
Advice is welcome.
Renee   --Renee 09:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Rumiton.  I've tried inserting references where possible in the document (again, I haven't worked on the teachings which I agree are long and rambling and represent a specific point-of-view).  Do you think it reads okay up to the masters and leadership section?  I've tried leaving in Shashwat's strong POV regarding the leader and then adding divine essence which is (according to Sahaj Marg) what the leader represents, but I can live with what's written up to the masters and leadership section.  Thanks, Renee    --Renee 10:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the earlier section still needs quite a bit of work. It seems to be written in an Anglo-Indian style that has its own charm, but which looks out of place in an English-language encyclopedia. The definite article ('the') is sometimes missing and other semantic peculiarities obscure the meaning. For example, what exactly is under dispute? Is it the ownership of the Sahaj Marg trademark (sic)? Or are there other more tangible assets? You must remember you are writing for a reader who knows nothing of the organisation or its history. Also there are some misspellings (California.) Maybe you might first download the text to a Word Processor and do a spell check, then paste it back in. Then we can look further at the writing style. Cheers, and don't give up. Rumiton 10:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Rumiton, Yes, I can see your points. It seems that it was originally written by a non-native English speaker.  Once we hear from Shashwat I can go in and clean it up in terms of flow and grammar,  Thanks, Renee  --Renee 11:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you could do that immediately. It is not the article that is under mediation, it is two of the editors. They have an obligation to report interim changes to the mediator, but cleaning up the article should be done regardless. Rumiton 11:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Jossi

message: Hi Folks,
Per Rumiton's and Sfacets previous comments, I'll go in and clean up the grammar and flow of the piece up to the teachings portion.
Do people think the long teachings sections belong here?  
I'd vote to delete all of it. Here are the reasons:
- the way the quotations are selectively pulled is meant to push a specific POV
- the way the topics are selectively chosen is meant to push a specific POV
- the way the sections are written is long, rambling, poor grammatically, and again, meant to push a POV
I think that all of this can be deleted without losing anything in the article.  It all belongs on a blog anyways.  
Comments? 
Renee    --Renee 14:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar & Flow Clean-up