Talk:Nirmala Srivastava/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Attributed claims versus stating items as fact

The problem with simply stating the various background items as facts as opposed to saying that she claims them to be true, is that there are editors around here who say it didn't happen, so stating these things as unattributed fact invites an edit war. Me, I don't care either way, as I know nothing about the lady. At any rate, it would seem like items such as her being jailed as part of the Quit India movement would be pretty easy to verify, so if you can point to some text source for those items, I think that would be sufficient. --Gary D 23:24, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

--- There is a questionable sentence which states that "The French and Belgian governements have also regularly included her organisation in their official lists of dangerous cults." The list to which the editor is refering is a pre-2005 report to parliament . In 2005 there was a decision to stop the unconstitutional list of "official" sects in favour of public freedom of religious expression

Source: [1] Official document: [2]

If anyone wants to contest this, please do, before I erase France from the source list. Shane 08:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Testimony

Well I'm a part of this Yoga so I thought I'd give my views...

I think that the article should have gone into more detail concerning the yoga itself. The Critism is way too long and I assure you is extremely bias. All information of the events in Sahaj are taken from a anti-sahaj view which isn't fair. The article doesn't take a neutral stance at all which would be only fair, I hope you would agree.

Apart from one sidedness here are flat-out non truths

"and then drink the footwash water" this is simply not true.

"Ex-members present evidence of routinely being charged for an assortment of incidentals that include payment to worship Mrs. Shrivastava at ceremonies called pujas, money for expensive "gifts"" All money is given in charity. It is not demanded at all and is just what people feel they want to. Money at puja's is for renting out the place in which the puja takes place or paying for food costs. This is still contributions.

"Shrivastava has advised husbands to beat their wives," not true.

"(with the agreement that they may not visit their children for up to six months)," not true.

"Children who have attended the Sahaja Yoga school, endorsed by Mrs. Shrivastava, have reported malnurishment, unhealthy living conditions, sexual abuse and a substandard educational experience." Well I went to the school for 2 years and I was certainly never sexually abused or received substandard educational experience neither was anyone else. Food was plentiful really I even remember them cooking birthday cake on my birthday which is always cool. The living conditions are equally fine infact I have some of my most memorable experiences in the school which have really changed my life I remember it with nothing but fondness and would like to return someday.

Now to areas which are just twisting truths or not displaying fair judgement on both sides of the arguement.

"such as a crystal swan, silver and gold artifacts and payments, made to Mrs. Shrivastava, in the form of gold bullion." people do give gifts to Shri Mataji, they are not all yogi's because a lot of people respect her. These gifts are not distributions of payements or anything like that at all they are bought by individual people or from one collective who want to pay respect to someone that they admire incredibly. A lot of the time Shri Mataji gets given so much that she doesn't know what to do with it and just gives it away. In my household we have numerous items she has given to my family.

"Some former members suspect that one of Shrivastava's main purposes for the Sahaja Yoga organization is to dupe followers out of large sums of money. They claim that much of the money going to the organization is funneled into her personal bank accounts or into her hands in the form of cash." Well for someone who is apparantly claiming all of this money it makes you wonder why Shri Mataji has started many charities besides Sahaja Yoga ( I beleive Sahaja Yoga is a listed Charity) which must cost her most if not all of the money she has. Money contributed at puja's etc are part of a collective of Sahaja Yogi's, say the English Sahaja Yogi's, to help collective events. This money doesn't even pass its way to Shri Mataji.

"decorate them with swastikas" just a quick explanation. Swastikas were originally ment to signify peace and innocence. In Sahaj this is what the Swastika represents.

Agreed - a swastika is a typical and expected decoration for a Hindu or Buddhist based ritual (among many others). The specific reference to swastikas here seems to have been included in order to evoke an emotional response to Nazism, which is fairly silly. A more neutral reference to the decoration might be less polarising. - toh 17:09, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

"They further assail her claim of discovering Sahaja Yoga in May 1970, alleging that records show she was at a Rajneesh meditation camp at the beginning of that month and did not offer "en-masse self-realization" until 1972." I don't know anything about this Rajneesh but it wouldn't matter about claims of any specific thing as Sahaja Yoga includes philosophies from many religions which we learn from. For example the following people Christ, Mohamed, Moses, Socrates, Confucius, Lao Tze,Buddha and many others. All of these people talk of Sahaj principles in one form or another and are respected highly in Sahaja Yoga.

"couples who are too much in love to divorce" I only know of one case of this happening and the story behind it was extrememly complicated I'll tell what I know of it. This can be misunderstood easily however Sahaja Yoga is about ascent and evolving as mankind. We promote art, music, dance drama etc and learning. Shri Mataji saw that one lady was too much in love with her husband and so told her that her love was blinding her from evolving because she was attaching herself to others rather then freeing herself. So she asked them to divorce as she would bring herself down and also him.

"homosexual Sahaja Yogis to marry members of the opposite sex."

There is no body being forced to do anything. If you wouldn't want to do Sahaja Yoga you simply don't do it. If you were Homosexual and married a member of the opposite sex its because you choose to.

Lastly there always seems to be people that get hurt by taking things the wrong way in life. Its always tragic when it happens because it can happen with people you really value and they turn on you though you still love them. Its a way of life that if you look for negative things you can find all kinds of things that aren't there or are misunderstood.

Sahaja Yoga School

I have been practising Sahaja Yoga for more then 12 years and have studied in the Sahaja School in India for 10 years. If one really should comment on the Sahaja Yoga school in India it would be necessary to know what many of the students themselves have to say about it. Here is a link which will throw light on aspects of the school- http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan. One may go to the "Previously Featured Articles" section and click on 'Founded in Dharma-Sahaja Yoga Public School' which is an account of the school by the students themselves. I am grateful to Shri Mataji for founding such an amazing and unique school. It has enriched my life in the most beautiful way. I am certain my freinds from the Sahaja Yoga school feel the same way. I am in touch with them and know what joyful and genuine people they are.Most of us ex-students are now becoming Doctors,lawyers, engineers and artists. We are all very healthy and feel blessed to be brought up in such fresh and rejuvenating Himalayan air. I am still practising Sahaja Yoga and am completely content with life as are most of my freinds from school which is certain as I am in touch with them and it can be observed from the article in the above given link. One may also check http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/ in 'links of interest' section under 'Response to False allegations'to get a more complete picture.

---

I also went to the School in Dharamsala: today I am no more "brainwashed", uneducated, unhealthy or any other false idea mentioned in this article. Today I have finished my Secondary education, and soon I am going to start at university.

The time I spent up in Dharamsala is an unforgetable one, and I feel truly priviledged to have studied up there with all the benefits (and none of the downsides) and comfort of the modern world surrounded by lush and beautiful nature.

If you have any questions regarding the school, or need to clarify something don't hesitate to mail me: sfacets[AT]gmail.com and I will be happy to answer your questions.

---

This article should be moved

I am not here to contest claims for or against this woman, but to state that this page should be moved so that it is titled simply Mataji Nirmala Shrivastava. Even widely acclaimed historical figures like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa have articles without the honorific Shri or Sri in front of their names, and I support a minimal use of the honorifics and titles in the page names of Wikipedia. Shri or Sri could still be used within the article itself, and for redirects, as it is with Shri Ramakrishna. ~ Achilles 18:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Works for me. --Gary D 19:18, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Except that Mataji is also an honorific (meaning "mother" but connoting "mother goddess"). I've moved the article to what should be its final resting place - will have to clean up some double and triple redirects (some of which were already outstanding from the last move). - toh 23:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

In the past

Y'all need to stop this revert war over such a minor detail and actually talk about it.

Personally, I find the pro "in the past" argument most persuasive. It seems to be to be more accurate. It conveys that the complaints may not be current. If the complaints are current, then the language is redundant.

But perhaps there is better way to word it? Like, how about we actually attach a date? If we just say "In such and such a time, so and so said" we avoid this whole problem. NickelShoe 04:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand by the idea of using an actual date, which avoids these POV issues. But I also made a change myself from "have attended" and "have reported" to simply "attended" and "reported". There is a difference between present perfect and simple past. Simple past puts an event squarely in the past. Present perfect implies ongoing.

Compare:

I lived in the United States for twenty years. (Now I live in the UK.)

I have lived in the United States for twenty years. (And still do.)

Both formulations of the past tense present a POV, so I probably shouldn't have changed it. I was just annoyed at the back-and-forth with no attempt at consensus. What's the most recent date of the claims? Just put that on. NickelShoe 16:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

True. :) But I stand by my choice of tense, some of these events have occured in the past, and there have been no current complaints of that genre.

I agree with the date idea, it caters for both POV's. Thanks for the moderation mate ;) Shane 08:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously someone refuses to talk this out (I refer to the latest revert) I propose that this section be removed pending the outcome of this conflict (until a verifiable date is proposed).

Shane 17:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt temporarily removing criticism is a solution that will be acceptable to all parties. The criticism website refers to complaints in 2003 about events in 1994. (Under child abuse) [3] Is that satisfactory? NickelShoe 18:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I modified the document, adding the date and removing unverified claims. Please comment. Shane 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. We need to look a little harder for those other claims, though. NickelShoe 05:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Some of the criticism shouldn't appear in this article. points such as:

• Critics assert she claims to be the Supreme Goddess (aka Adi Shakti, or the Holy Ghost) and her followers worship her as such.
  

• It is alleged that her followers routinely wash and decorate her feet and then drink the mixture of offered elements (panchamruta), believing it to contain "divine vibrations".

can't even be considered critical in nature - how are these points critical of Nirmala Srivastava? Sfacets 12:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody wants to comment on this, I have removed the aforementioned content. Sfacets 03:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 14:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga/tssy/origins.htm has video and photographic evidence that Nirmala associated with Rajneesh. There is no such evidence that she 'advised' Gandhi as some sources claim. Given that Nirmala's career has more in common with Rajneesh's than Gandhi's, perhaps this association should be given more emphasis in this article. --Simon D M 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mataji's association with Rajneesh is also attested to in Coney's book which is the only academic source. So unless anybody has any sensible objections, this modification is going in. --Simon D M 12:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Self as a proper noun

I would just like to point out, after several reversions, that 'Self' in the context of this article is being used as a Proper Noun, and as such is capitalised. Sfacets 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What should be linked to

According to WP:EL Wikipedia rules on external links should be:

• proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)
• Contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.

and should not:

• Contain factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view

Image Nirmala1.jpg position

I am using firefox (linux) and find the image on the right does not collide with the 'contents' block, when it is on the left it looks awkward. Maybe problem with my browser, please help? Also on biography pages the usual place of the image is the right hand side! Perhaps putting it on the left has some reason? IrfanAli 08:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Other discussion pages

Please also note extensive discussions on the Sahaja Yoga entry. Sahajhist 22:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

I have requested details of source materials from those involved with the Sahaja Yoga websites which have used these statements for several years. Thank you for pointing this out. Sahajhist 22:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference

Please do not remove the reference to the University of Virginia website.[4] It is a valid and credible source. --NovaSTL 08:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No its not. Its a student essay from the year 2000. This issue has been extensively discussed on the talk page attached to the Sahaja Yoga entry. Please read. Sahajhist 22:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not an essay. It's research published by a reliable source overseen by an expert in the field. The date is irrelevant. No one has found pointed to anything in the article that's incorrect. -Will Beback 22:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is an essay and, btw by an undergraduate student. The date is very relevant. Sahajhist 00:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked you before several times why the date is relevant but you never responded. So, why is the date relevant? Are we only allowing weblinks to articles by PhDs? If so, there won't be many links left. -Will Beback 05:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The relevance of date is that an article that is written in the present tense about a subject can be misleading when changes have occured in regards to said subject.

No one said anything about needing a PhD, however (as previously discussed on the Sahaja Yoga discussion page) references to work by author(s) of unclear academic standing may be removed at any time. Sfacets 05:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no rule anywhere in Wikipedia that says that. If you want that to be the rule for these articles then we're going to have to remove virtually every link, including the "official" ones. But you can't make that the rule for some links but not for others. -Will Beback

06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose you continue this discussion on the Sahaja Yoga Talk page, where the discussion originated. Sfacets 08:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(ftr:Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons)Sfacets

How about this link [5]? Also, she was born Christian? I find that hard to believe.71.97.245.142 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is correct. Nirmala's brother, H.P.Salve, confirms this in his memoirs (see main page for citation). Sahajhist 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nirmala1.jpg

Image:Nirmala1.jpg - Do we know what year this photo was taken? It appears to be quite old. -Will Beback · † · 07:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the question you were referring to? Does it matter? Sfacets 08:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It matters. When was this photo taken? -Will Beback · † · 08:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the date important to you? Please state your reasons. Sahajhist 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does this request meet with such resistance? It's a simple question. -Will Beback · † · 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Compared to this photograph [6], taken March 14, 2006 (which is among the best recent photos I've seen), the Image:Nirmala1.jpg appears to have been taken at least 20 or 30 years ago. -Will Beback · † · 10:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty with the dating is that very few of the early photos have precise dates. See Geoffrey Godfrey (compiler), The Divine Mother: 1008 photographs of Shri Mataji (London: Life Eternal Trust, 2000) Sahajhist 22:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be hard in this case. Sfacets claims to have taken the photo himself.[7][8] -Will Beback · † · 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hello all, I am the mediator for your case. Please remember to keep things civil, and I thank you for choosing voluntary mediation for your dispute resolution. All parties to this case, please respond on the case page within 96 hours with what you would like to see come from this mediation.

Pacificists

What's our source for calling the subject a "pacifist"? I did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pacifist?[9]

Thanks, but that doesn't help. Just the opposite. That letter apears to encourage warfare. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor restored the category, with the comment: "(see int'l honours.)". However I don't see anything there about pacificism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See nominee for Nobel Peace prize. Sfacets 04:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That means nothing. A: The only requirement for nomination is being alive, and we've already indicated the subject is a living person. B: One needn't be a pacificist to be nominated or even win the Peace Prize. No one would call Arafat, or even Kissinger, a "pacifist". C: The subject has written a letter calling on George Bush to rid the world of terrorism. It doesn't say anything about doing so with love and pacifism. D: We need a reliable source which calls the subject a "pacificist". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - even though you are contradicting yourself by requesting a reference to validate a primary one and yet find that the letter (also a primary source) is a valid reference. Sfacets 06:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing using the letter as a source. However it is sufficient to raise significant doubt about an unsourced claim of "pacificism". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly one could use Shri Mataji's recent comments on Love [10] Sahajhist 01:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not usable as sources for biographies. Also, a few flowery lines aren't sufficient. As I wrote above, we need a reliable source who's called her a "pacificist". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The talk is here: [11] Sahajhist 00:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A very nice talk. Shri Mataji looks much better than last year. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag photo

The following statement has been issued regarding this matter:

"Our Deepest Respect to our National Flag

We Sahaja Yogis have the highest and deepest respect for our National Flag, which is the symbol of our National Freedom. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi participated actively in the Quit India Movement. Her father Shri P K Salve was imprisoned by the British because he participated actively in Mahatma Gandhiji’s Freedom movement. It is inconceivable that any member of Shri Mataji’s family would tolerate even the slightest disrespect to our National Flag.

Possibly, at an Independence Day function held abroad, some foreigner Sahaja Yogi brought our Flag and without meaning any disrespect, kept it on the ground. The Flag was respectfully removed immediately on being noticed.

Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi asks us all to respect National Flags of all countries.

This unintended but serious mistake is greatly regretted. Not even the slightest disrespect to our National Flag will ever be tolerated.

To all those whose feelings have been hurt by this wholly unintended and unfortunate error, we express the assurance that we fully share their anguish and we extend our deeply felt and sincerest regrets and unqualified apologies. For H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi Sahaja Yoga Trust Rajendra Kumar Trustee" [12] Sahajhist 01:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the assertion that it is a copyright violation? I think it'd be better to restore the photo along with a mention of this letter. -Will Beback · † · 01:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

if you restore the photo, you expose Wikipedia to legal action. The photo is clearly copyrighted material. Sahajhist 01:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A) Who is the copyright holder? B) How do we know this? -Will Beback · † · 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we assume that the people posting the photo are the copyright holders? Unless someone provides evidence otherwise it's a reasonable assumption. -Will Beback · † · 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, thats not a reasonable assumption. The person doing the posting has to provide the evidence, not the other way round. Sahajhist 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The photos have been posted on various blogs, so one of them must be the copyright holder... The editor needs to seek permission from the original copyright holder (the person who took the photo). Sfacets 17:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have got the free copyright for the images.Parvez 17:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

From who? Sfacets 17:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That is confidential. If needed i will submit to wikipedia.Parvez 18:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You need to show proof that you own the license to the image, otherwise you cannot upload it. Feel free to contact Wikipedia about it, and then (if you get a(n) (positive) answer you may upload the images again. Sfacets 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The holder of the copyright is known to me. He has already had the photos removed from flikr (part of Yahoo). Sahajhist 21:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Claims"

WP:WTA calls on us to avoid using "claim" because it isn't neutral. However if we agree to use it in one instance I think we should allow it in all instances on this page, which would result in the article being full of "claims". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

a classic example of wikipediaspeak. Sahajhist 02:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you've been around here long enough that I'd thought you knew the policies. Sfacets knows, though, because he cites WP:WTA often. Anyway, if we let this one "claims" stand then it's only to change the text so that other assertions are called "claims". For example, "She says'claims that on May 5, 1970 she witnessed the rising of the..." However since the guideline says not to use "claims" we don't have to go down that path. Unless you want to insist on "claims" I'll chnage it back to a neutral term like "says". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)