Talk:Shri Ram Chandra Mission/Archive 1

Content for Organization

Hi Folks, glad to be back after so long. With the recent changes in the SRCM organization, I thought of updating the "Organization" section in this page. Below is what I suggest.

The current president of Shri Ram Chandra Mission and and spiritual Master of the Sahaj Marg system is Shri Kamlesh D. Patel (b. 1956). This includes SRCM USA, which was registered in California in 1997 (SRCM California-1997), and SRCM India, which was registered in Lucknow, India in 1945, (SRCM-Shahjahanpur-1945). SRCM was founded by Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur, affectionately known as Babuji (1899 - 1983). He was succeeded as president and spiritual Master by Shri Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari, affectionately known as Chariji (1927 - 2014). Following the mahasamadhi of Chariji on 20th December 2014 , Shri Kamlesh D. Patel has become the fourth president of SRCM and spiritual Master of the Sahaj Marg system.

Babuji was taught by Ram Chandra of Fatehgarh (aka ‘Lalaji’), the Adi Guru of the Sahaj Marg system. Babuji met him a few times. According to the literature of SRCM, Lalalji rediscovered the ancient yogic method of spiritual training based on the transmission of divine energy or pranahuti.

The Shri Ram Chandra Mission (SRCM) is now present in over 120 countries on all continents except Antarctica, and books published by SRCM have been translated into over twenty languages and used in many ashrams and centres around the world.

Suggestions welcomed, I will wait for 24 hrs before committing it into the page.

Duty2love (talk)

References

Review: Introduction

As mentioned before, in an effort to review this page to bring it to a Neutral tone and using reliable sources, I will be posting remarks section by section, starting with Introduction

The Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Shahjahanpur) (also named SRCM) is a non-profit organization, a new spiritual movement. It was registered in 1945 in Lucknow, India, by Shri Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur (aka Babuji) (1899–1983) in memory of his spiritual teacher, Shri Ram Chandra of Fatehgarh (aka Lalaji) (1873–1931), whom he met a few times before Lalaji's death in 1931, and to promote the method of Sahaj Marg which Babuji invented and registered in 1945. The Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Chennai) was registered in San Luis Obispo, California, USA, in 1997.

Suggested changes:

• Don't see what value the word "(Shahjahanpur)" after Shri Ram Chandra Mission is adding, suggest we take it out
• Ref used in 2nd sentence mentions nothing about Lucknow as place of registration, I suggest we state exactly as in the ref used, i.e., "It was registered in 1945 in India in the year 1945 ....."
• This is adding no value to the intro, I suggest we omit it - "whom he met a few times before Lalaji's death in 1931"
• This is grammatically incorrect, making the sentence too long, has redundant info, suggest we take it out or put it in a separate sentence - "and to promote the method of Sahaj Marg which Babuji invented and registered in 1945"
• Ref used for this statement does not mention any of the locations mentioned here, hence will not meet the WP:V criteria, suggest we take this out - "The Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Chennai) was registered in San Luis Obispo, California, USA, in 1997"

That's all for now. I think these changes will make the intro short, crisp and most importantly devoid of any unverified/disputed info, hence Neutral .... Your thoughts are welcome. Duty2love (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Need careful review

Hey guys, I happend to stumble upon this page after a long time today and was appalled by the kind of unreliable information that has gone into this page. Although I am not an original committer of this page but I am one of the orignial committer of Sahaj Marg page, which is very closely related to this page, hence I will be doing review of this page and post my concerns here. Largely many of the quoted links do not seem to confrom to WP:RS standard, hence need a closer look so we keep this page free of biased or unauthenticated info. Duty2love (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Historical background

Hi all...

Before I begin to edit the article, I would like you to read this site of Lalaji's family, managed by the dean of NaqshMuMRa Sufi Order (Lalaji's Sufi society), Dinesh Kumar Saxena, who is Lalaji's grandson. Specifically read this article: http://sites.google.com/site/laalaajinilayam/epitomeofsahajmarg

Also look at (many) other legitimate societies formed by the followers of Lalaji. This one is for Ramashram Mathura by Dr. Chatterbuj: http://www.ramashram.com/

This is a quote from Babuji's journal which was published by his grandson, Navneet Kumar Saxena who is the President of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission registered by his grandfather in 1945:

Babuji claims he received this instruction from Vivekananda: http://autobiographyoframchandra.blogspot.com/

p 21 (20.05.1945) Intercommunication by S. Vivekananda "As you are to have a registered body 'Shri Ram Chandra Mission', call a meeting of the persons who are to be the members of this body to start with. (...) The body will be called 'Shri Ram Chandra Mission, Shahjahanpur (U.P. - India)'".

You will notice that nothing is said of naming the society for Lalaji, who would be: Ram Chadra of Fatehgarh. You will also notice that Lalaji, being a Sufi Master, has nothing to do with Sahaj Marg. Basbuji formed his Sahaj Marg, 14 years after Lalaji's death. Lalaji taught the Sufi path until his death. Babuji met Lalaji a few times only, and was not a preceptor of Lalaji's Sufi Order. You will notice in "epitome of Sahaj Marg" that Lalaji by-passed Babuji and he states in this article, the reason for by-passing him.

There are two "Shri Ram Chandra Mission" societies. One registered by Basbuji in 1945, which is now presided by his grandson, Navneet Kumar Saxena, and one registered in San Luis Obispo, California, USA in 1997 and is presided by Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari (aka Chari).

Kindly make the article reflect the truth about the two societies and the role of Lalaji (none) in Sahaj Marg and the Shri Ram Chandra Mission of Navneet and Chari. If you check on Chari's site, you will notice that it states that his society was registered in San Luis Obispo, in 1997. The Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation was registered in Austin, Texas, USA, also in 1997...

North America ONE... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.150.226 (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't forget that a Wikipedia article should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources per WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, so sources that are not affiliated with the subject... --Europe22 (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, editors of this page! I strongly suggest that you research in Sufi literature the practice of their meditation. You will find that Babuji did not invent this method, he adapted it, but it already existed long before in Sufi circles. Lalaji is a link in the chain of what is called the Golden Sufis, who meditate in silence on the heart chakra, and they do not use any other means, such as dance or chant, like most other lineages of Sufis do. The other point I want to mention is that if Babuji claims Lalaji as his Master, which it seems to me he has always done, then nobody should attempt to insinuate anything that suggests otherwise. Either Sahaj Marg is an honest and ethical movement, in which case, they should be scrupulous about the truthful facts, or they should call themselves a political organization, not a spiritual one. This coming from a Prefect of yours. Sahaj Marg has grown from the spiritual and philosophical roots of Sufism. This is a fact. Lalaji, our Adiguru, was the first non-Muslim Sufi Master. I hope this means something. Thanks and Namaste! Firedragoncharmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firedragoncharmer (talk • contribs) 03:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Scan of Original SRCM Constitution of 1945

See here (http://www.freedom2think.org/documents/original.pdf) for a scan of the original constitution of the SRCM of 1945. You will notice that it is registered in "Lucknow", not Shahjahanpur...

Notice also that Babuji stated that the SRCM is set up as a "dictatorship", which should be interesting to the UNDPI who claim to promote "democracy" in their members...

The source of this info is the same as the source of the other information. The SRCM of Babuji, presided by Navneet, Babuji's grandson, and by the SRCM of Chari, registered in California, USA in 1997.

You will notice also that in the Wiki protocols, all minority statements and positions are to be included.

North American ONE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.252.237 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

For Definitive Information on Lalalji

See: Sufi Saints and Sufism by Dr. RK Gupta http://sufism.weebly.com/

NaqshMuMRa Stream of Sufis (the Sufi Order that begins with Lalaji:http://sufism.weebly.com/naqsh-mumra-stream-of-sufis.html

NaqshMuMRa Nexus: (Lalaji's Family Site, by the Dean of NaqshMuMRa Stream of Sufis, and Lalaji's grandson, Dinaysh Kumar Saxena)http://sites.google.com/site/laalaajinilayam/home

Institute for Shri Ramchandra Consciousness (ISRC) of Narayana, son of Dr. K.C Varadachari, (close friend of Babuji, and guru-in-waiting before Chari come on the scene. (see the section on their Masters: Lalaji, Babuji and ?? http://www.sriramchandra.org/

Why Babuji was not a "preceptor" in Lalaji's organization and why he did not chose to "fit-in" to Lalaji's many legitimate societies: http://sites.google.com/site/laalaajinilayam/epitomeofsahajmarg

Then there are all the "blogs" by preceptors, Zone-in-Charge, and abhyasis (philosophers, thinkers, intellectuals, and leaders) who left when Chari took over...

North American ONE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.252.237 (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Words of Chari, President of SRCM (California-1997)

Read this speech: "Securing the Future of the Mission" at: http://www.sahajmarg.org/literature/online/speeches/securing-the-future-of-the-mission

Find these words:

"A new Bible to replace the old one!"

These words are also from your Master.

"It will be the future Bible of our Mission, Shri Ram Chandra Mission".

That article is accurate with the words of your Master refering to the Bible of your MISSION.

-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.106.145 (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Please engage in discussion of things one at a time so we can mutually work together to create a good quality article. Also, you changed the article wholesale (not just the issue above). Please discuss. Renee (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Renee

Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

In many fields and contexts, such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources if possible, and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources."[15] In addition, primary sources avoid the problem inherent in secondary sources, where each new author may distort and put their own spin on the findings of prior cited authors.[16] However, a primary source is not necessarily more of an authority or better than a secondary source. There can be bias and other tactic used to twist historical information.

Here we see a situation where some disciples of SRCM or Sahaj Marg are trying to eliminate "primary" information from the MOUTH of the MASTER, the President of their "religion", which would embarass them (hence is very subjective and POV)... The TRUTH should be what we want from an "encyclopedia".

If you have "secondary" sources which disagree with the PRIMARY source presented, then show it and have your MASTER address the "contradiction". When one calls a document a "bible", it means that that document is IMPORTANT, and should be mentioned in the article.

I have presented information from PRIMARY sources and it is acceptable and valid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.148.150 (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Need careful review

Hey guys, I happend to stumble upon this page after a long time today and was appalled by the kind of unreliable information that has gone into this page. Although I am an original committer of this page but I am one of the orignial committer of Sahaj Marg page, which is very closely related to this page, hence I will be doing review of this page and post my concerns here. Largely many of the quoted links do not seem to confrom to WP:RS standard, hence need a closer look so we keep this page free of biased or unauthenticated info. Duty2love (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Start with mutually agreed page then edit paragraph by paragraph

Yes, I agree that this page has been frequently edited of late by IPs which are probably the banned users. The bias is evident. I have reverted back to a mutually agreed upon page when all parties were involved. Unfortunately the archive for that appears to be gone but we can ask some neutral admin who's familiar with the page, like Willbegone, to help get that back so we don't have to rehash so many points. Best, Renee (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

oops, I forgot that the original SRCM page had been deleted for lack of noteworthiness. So, we can either put it up for that again and/or if someone has an earlier draft they can insert that and we can start from there. Renee (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

All of the cult stuff has been discussed and gone over dozens of times here. The French report was highly discredited and shows to be a non-reliable and non-mainstream source. The consensus over and over again was that this stuff does not belong in an article. For example, would the UN really allow a "cult" to be a member of their group? Renee (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Reneeholle! The way in which a group is perceived is worthy to be mentioned in an article and, by the way, it is stated in the NRM project that a section should be named "Reception" to gather opinions about the group. The fact that a governement considered a religious group a "cult" does not mean that it is true, but it is a fact and can be proerly sourced with reliable sources. And why do you remove sources from sociologists ? They pass WP:N and their sources are academic and thus reliable. As I said in the edit summary when I reverted your change, your attemp to remove this whole section looks like WP:CENSORSHIP, which I can't accept. Of course, it is possible to add other info to balance the "reception" section and particularly the alleged cult status in France, but removing it doesn't comply, in my opinion, with WP policies. Regards, --Europe22 (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with my revert, I will ask for a third opinion. --Europe22 (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To all editors who are members of this New Religion (according to its founder)

It is clearly stated above from Wikipedia that Primary sources are preferable. Read it and start telling the truth about this group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.255.48 (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Please read WP:SECONDARY. --Europe22 (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)