The invalidation of the work of a Sahaja Yogi at Wikipedia

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

Appended is evidence for the record, of the invalidation of the work of a Sahaja

Yogi. i believe this yogi is still in the organisation of Sahaja Yoga. Nobody is

immune from a minority of so-called yogis who have put themselves over and above

approximately 20,000 SYs in the world. These few yogis do not consider the work

of individual Sahaja Yogis as valid. They only consider what their few say as

valid. There is not even a proper reason given. Shri Mataji said all we yogis

are to give Her Message, those who have felt the spiritual vibrations.

 

A real Sahaja Yogi will not work as you see appended below. It is not in their

nature to do so. It is the work of those who don't really believe in Shri

Mataji's Word - that the Truth will expose all that is not the truth. Instead,

they take it upon themselves to pretend to be the Truth, and in so doing are

commiting multiple spiritual crimes against humanity, and against fellow Sahaja

Yogis.

 

So this is for the record, for posterity, so they can see what Sahaja Yogis were

up against.

 

regards to all,

 

violet

 

 

 

Re: Valaya.co.uk

 

Why is this website being used as a source? The link

http://www.valaya.co.uk/KNOWLEDGEpujaProt1.htm for example, states its origin as

being from a " Private archive " , nothing else. Unless a good reason is provided

to keep this as a source, I will remove it as well as associated content.

Sfacets 16:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I disagee. If you look at the home page it is clearly an official SY website.

[39] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

 

And you see this how? By the copyright information? It is obviously a private

website. Sfacets 00:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 

How do you know that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 

It is kind of obvious looking at it - have you seen other official websites

sporting free counters, using tiled images as background? Sfacets 00:38, 11

November 2007 (UTC)

 

The page says that " all the knowledge, contents, and materials in this website

come from and belong to H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi. Copyright 2001 H.H. Shri

Mataji Devi 2001 all rights reserved " . Are you contending that there is more

than one individual called " H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi " ? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

03:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 

No, only that it isn't an official website, and is an unreliable source in this

case. Sfacets 03:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 

If it is from " H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi " then it is relevant. You assert

that it's unreliable, but there's no evidence of that. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

04:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability This is obviously a Self-published source,

and is not reliable, unless it is verified by another source. Sfacets 05:03, 11

November 2007 (UTC)

 

If we can prove that the material is self-published and inaccurate then I agree

that it would be unreliable,. However I don't see any proof of those assertions.

·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I'm not adding the information, or using the source. Please read burden of

evidence. You need to provide evidence of the validity of the website as a

source. Sfacets 08:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I have no idea about all this, but, by curiosity I have check main page of this

website http://www.valaya.co.uk/, and you discover that it should be a kind of

private website, or intranet maybe as a login is requested. Official website are

public. So, it is a self-published website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by

Agenor 77 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I looked this up on one of those doman tools, and it's registered to a " Gian

Luca Masciangelo " . I don't know if that's person or a company, but its address

is in Italy even though its a U.K. domain. By comparison, the

" sahajayoga.org.uk " domain is registered to " LET " , a known official SY

organization with a suburban London address. (I guess there is more than one

entity.) That being the case, I think this " www.valaya.co.uk " site looks like an

overeager adherent,. Though he copyrights the information in the name of Shri

Mataji, I doubt that she actually wrote most of it herself. The incorrect

application of copyrights seems to be a common issue with groups like this. I'm

sure it's well-intentioned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 

LET is Life Eternal Trust, the tax-exempt equivalent of VND (created before the

term VND was coined). SYogis setting up their own websites was official policy

under the Mataji-inspired Project 2800 which tried to drown out critical voices

on the Web with a flood of SY sites. See:

syrc/message/38 --Simon D M 11:07, 12 November

2007 (UTC)

 

But Simon Dicon Monfort who wrote this letter it's you no ? --Agenor 77 13:13,

12 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Yeah right, I'm really going to bother writing all that. I'm surprised you want

to deny your Guru's work. There's another reference in here: [40] The failed

project hasn't been completely air-brushed out yet. --Simon D M 13:39, 12

November 2007 (UTC)

 

Thank you for your confirmation --Agenor 77 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 

LET is not necessarily tax-exempt in all countries, nor is it the exact

equivalent of VND. This varies from country to country. Sahajhist 13:26, 12

November 2007 (UTC)

 

Simon, please refrain from using unreliable sources (mostly created by you) to

back your claims. Sfacets 13:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I can understand why you are embarrassed about the attempt to drown out all

critical voices on the Net, pretty shameful I agree, but it happened, and failed

miserably. And if you want to accuse me of fabricating any more embarrassing

material, please provide some evidence to back up your accusations. You may

choose to believe what you are told in SY, but you need some evidence before you

pass on such stories on this page. --Simon D M 13:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 

There is no accusation, you signed the message that you show

syrc/message/38 so it's an evidence. Then forgive

me to suspect each and every editing of yours as it seems you are here only for

that

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions & limit=500 & target\

=Simon+D+M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs)

16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 

The message is not signed by anybody. I posted it. Here only for what? --Simon D

M 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I see... very practical (grin) Thank you to state that you posted it.- Agenor 77

17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 

The message may have gone out on the old Sahajnet from Mark Mays. Check with him

if you're interested. --Simon D M 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 

May ? --Agenor 77 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Maybe. --Simon D M 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Nobody accused you of anything here. My issue is with you backing up your

assertions with your own material. Also please comment on the edits, not the

editor. Sfacets 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 

" But Simon Dicon Monfort who wrote this letter it's you no ? " is an accusation

in the form of a question. How is syrc/ any less

reliable than an official SY site? --Simon D M 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 

It's a question off course.. don't be paranoiac

 

Now let's stop the petty back-biting and get back to the subject in hand:

" Valaya is in line with the international policy of Sahaja Yoga "

http://www.valaya.co.uk/HOME.htm It is also listed by the Canadian site:

http://www.sahajayoga.ca/WorldWide/PersonalWebsites.html --Simon D M 14:50, 12

November 2007 (UTC)

 

That doesn't make it a valid wikipedia source. Sfacets 21:34, 12 November 2007

(UTC)

 

Another official site linking to it approvingly is here:

http://www.mpsahaj.org/links.htm --Simon D M 12:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 

It also seems Gian has some pretty high-powered customers:

http://www.masciangelo.com/INFO_BASE_UK_3.html I think he'd no better than to

start making stuff up and putting it onto his sites. --Simon D M 15:03, 12

November 2007 (UTC)

 

WP:V clearly states that personal websites are not acceptable as sources. This

is clearly a private (there is a login on the home page, although the site is

not very secure, and for this reason pages inside the site have been linked to)

and personal website, and there is no evidence that the author is an expert on

the subject. User:Windinthetrees 10:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I completly agree with you. Both point are obvious --Agenor 77 13:05, 13

November 2007 (UTC)

 

No, it says they are largely not acceptable. If we are going to restrict

ourselves to " peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses;

university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by

respected publishing houses " then there won't be much. For a fringe theory like

SY, the important thing is to ensure parity of sources. --Simon D M 12:05, 13

November 2007 (UTC)

 

Between the restriction you put supra and evidence posted by the editor itself,

there is a middle path my dear --Agenor 77 13:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 

The Valaya site is uploading standard SY materials and speeches of Mataji. It is

reliable stuff, linked to by official sites of SY. If Mataji's speeches were

changed (apart from maybe the most embarrassing bits, but then official sources

do that as well) then there would be no linking, it would be classed in the same

category as adishakti.org (which doesn't change speeches either but obviously

breaks other norms). Furthermore, valaya is produced by a professional web

developer who knows better than to misrepresent his subject matter. The site is

password protected so that non-SYogis can't find out what SYoga is all about,

which is also the problem with this page. That kind of information can only be

found behind password protection or on the sites of critics of SY which are

currently barred from most of this page because parity of sources is not

practised. However, we need to look at the overarching aim of Wikipedia: it is

not to produce an article based on " whay SY wants people to believe " , rather

" what SY is " . --Simon D M 14:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I would put Valaya on a par with Sahajavidya which Sfacets and SahajHist have

strongly defended as a suitable source in the discussion here --Simon D M 14:45,

13 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Simon is misrepresenting my views. I merely commented on the factual accuracy of

the Sahajvidya site as part of an earlier ongoing discussion. Sahajhist 20:02,

13 November 2007 (UTC)

 

It's obvious. Everybody can see that... --Agenor 77 22:39, 13 November 2007

(UTC)

 

To be precise SahajHist said that the site was reliable, accessible and heavily

used. Sorry if I overstated the case in SahaHist's case by lumping him together

with Sfacets. --Simon D M 11:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 

gni? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14

November 2007 (UTC)

 

Perhaps this discussion has gone on long enough and we should ask Will, as a

neutral party, to decide. --Simon D M 14:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 

My opinion is that this site appears to be a personal site that uploads official

documents. It's in the same category as the Sahajavidya site, which we use as a

source. I'm reluctatnt to include either site, but if we include one then

there's no reason to exclude the other. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:47, 13 November

2007 (UTC)

 

The Sahajavidya site is registered to an individual, Nick Kerswell, rather than

to an SY entity such as LET or VND. Therefore it too is a personal site

publishing SY material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Nick is on the official team previously mentioned (includes our friend Bohdan

and a certain self-proclaimed expert on Sahaj History who will go unnamed)

responsible for collating all audio and video recordings of Mataji. The Valaya

site allows quotes to be seen in full context so is in many ways an even better

source. --Simon D M 11:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Here we go again, Simon yet again twists the facts! There is no 'official' team

on the Media Project, merely a list of names, arranged by country, acknowledging

those who have helped. Sahajhist 11:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Simon says : " The Valaya site allows quotes to be seen " but anybody who is not

twostedm can understand that it is a private site and it has been build to

beunder privacy / with a login altough it doesn't work at all. But mainly, it is

a private site.--Agenor 77 13:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 

As SahajHist said about the Sahajvidya site, " this website is accessible to all

via Google... This site is very reliable, being based, literally, on the

teacher's exact words. " In fact, Valaya avoids the one problem SahajHist

identified with Sahajvidya ie " the compiler takes what could politely be called

a 'biblical' approach - a sentence from one talk, a paragraph from another -

which results in Shri Mataji's comments being discussed out of the context of

the original talk " --Simon D M 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Valaya and Sahajvidya do not have the same value as sources - Sahajvidya

references each paragraph back to a specific speech given by Nirmala Srivastava,

complete with dates. Valaya makes no claim of doing so, and is therefore not a

Reliable source Sfacets 08:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Obvioulsy ! I would request that we consider this site (valaya) as definitely

unsuitable for reference here --Agenor 77 08:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 

On the contrary Sfacets, see: http://www.valaya.co.uk/IN-DEEP.htm (btw you seem

to have picked up a cheerleader). --Simon D M 11:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Are any of the sources currently used traceable back to talks? Re:the

cheerleader - what can I say, I'm a cool guy. Sfacets 11:14, 15 November 2007

(UTC)

 

Did you even bother to follow the link? It's a list of full talks with dates,

locations and full text. Am genuinely glad to see a flicker of humour in you.

--Simon D M 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I followed the link, my question was in regards to the references currently used

in the article. Sfacets 11:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I strongly believe we shouldn't be using http://www.valaya.co.uk or http:// or

the Sahajvidya site as sources here - we all agree that they are personal sites

and as such cannot rely on them as a source for reliability. It seems to me we

have consensus on this. We've gone back and forth on this long enough even after

having Will take a look at it and agreeing they are personal sites. All

references to these two sites in the article need to be removed.Yogasun 14:06,

15 November 2007 (UTC)

 

I agree that this discussion has gone on long enough, but there is an important

principle to be taken into account and that is that the acceptable level of

reliability is relative to availability which in turn depends on how mainstream

a theory is. The section on parity states, " if a notable fringe theory is

primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and

reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer review

journal " which implies the the point I am making. Many of the beliefs of Sahaja

Yoga are largely hidden on official sites because the organisation does not want

newcomers to know what they are getting into. Thus information can only be

sourced mainly from non-official sites and the sites of critics. Not to address

these topics would make the article unbalanced, to do so may require reliance on

non-official sites. This is an unusual situation that requires thought beyond

the usual policies. --Simon D M 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 

If the Valaya site is disallowed then there's no reason to include the

Sahajvidya either. They are similar enough to be treated identically. ·:· Will

Beback ·:· 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 

Agree with Will and Yogasun - let's remove references to both. --58.110.125.64

10:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 

How about the speeches here: http://www.valaya.co.uk/IN-DEEP.htm ? These are

word-for-word speeches of the founder with her copyright on them. ---- Simon D M

(talk) 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sahaja_Yoga#Beliefs_Section.2FMerge_with_Sahaj\

a_Yoga_meditation

 

 

,

" Violet " <violet.tubb wrote

 

" Every human being can arrive at this natural state of new awareness

and inner balance and quickly become his own master. Sahaja Yoga is

not an organization, a club or a spiritual congregation - it is a

state of being and a real spontaneous experience. Self-Realization

and all the teachings of Sahaja Yoga are free of charge. "

 

www.sahajbangalore.tripod.com/

 

 

NOTE: Unfortunately, since the SY organisation are controlling Her

Message to their advantage, instead of giving it like Shri Mataji

gave it, the freedom of expression of Sahaja Yogis in the

organisation, over the internet, has been restricted. The above quote

from 'sahajbangalore tripod' can no longer be accessed, as John Noyce

and co-religionists of the SYSSR have worked hard to silence the

individual voice of the Sahaja Yogi, declaring them an 'unofficial

voice' as far as the internet is concerned.

 

So we can thank God that Jagbir has preserved this record for

posterity to witness the atrocities that WCASY are doing to the

individual SY voice.

 

Shri Mataji gave full permission to real Sahaja Yogis to declare with

their own voice and this includes the right to declare over the

internet for the public to see. Their voice is consistent as long as

it is what Shri Mataji taught, so there is no problem.

 

Here you will find the quote above, preserved for the public

knowledge, at the right hand column in the grey boxes, in the last

paragraph of the 9th from the bottom grey box, in this URL:

 

http://www.adishakti.org/lectures_to_earth.htm

 

In this grey box area you will also see the quotes of individual

Sahaja Yogis, that they have given re what Shri Mataji has given.

[Guest guest]

I would have expected a little understanding from someone who claims

to be a Sahaja Yogi, and yet to all intents and purposes is siding

with Simon Montford.

 

Are you aware that he is using speeches of Shri Mataji out of context

to attack not just the organization but also Shri Mataji?

 

We need to stand together against this affront.

Sincerely,

Sfacets

 

, " Violet "

<violet.tubb wrote:

>

> Dear All,

>

> Appended is evidence for the record, of the invalidation of the work

of a Sahaja Yogi. i believe this yogi is still in the organisation of

Sahaja Yoga. Nobody is immune from a minority of so-called yogis who

have put themselves over and above approximately 20,000 SYs in the

world. These few yogis do not consider the work of individual Sahaja

Yogis as valid. They only consider what their few say as valid. There

is not even a proper reason given. Shri Mataji said all we yogis are

to give Her Message, those who have felt the spiritual vibrations.

>

> A real Sahaja Yogi will not work as you see appended below. It is

not in their nature to do so. It is the work of those who don't really

believe in Shri Mataji's Word - that the Truth will expose all that is

not the truth. Instead, they take it upon themselves to pretend to be

the Truth, and in so doing are commiting multiple spiritual crimes

against humanity, and against fellow Sahaja Yogis.

>

> So this is for the record, for posterity, so they can see what

Sahaja Yogis were up against.

>

> regards to all,

>

> violet

>

>

>

> Re: Valaya.co.uk

>

> Why is this website being used as a source? The link

http://www.valaya.co.uk/KNOWLEDGEpujaProt1.htm for example, states its

origin as being from a " Private archive " , nothing else. Unless a good

reason is provided to keep this as a source, I will remove it as well

as associated content. Sfacets 16:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> I disagee. If you look at the home page it is clearly an official SY

website. [39] �:� Will Beback �:� 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> And you see this how? By the copyright information? It is obviously

a private website. Sfacets 00:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> How do you know that? �:� Will Beback �:� 00:34, 11 November 2007

(UTC)

>

> It is kind of obvious looking at it - have you seen other official

websites sporting free counters, using tiled images as background?

Sfacets 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> The page says that " all the knowledge, contents, and materials in

this website come from and belong to H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi.

Copyright 2001 H.H. Shri Mataji Devi 2001 all rights reserved " . Are

you contending that there is more than one individual called " H.H.

Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi " ? �:� Will Beback �:� 03:06, 11 November 2007

(UTC)

>

> No, only that it isn't an official website, and is an unreliable

source in this case. Sfacets 03:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> If it is from " H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi " then it is relevant.

You assert that it's unreliable, but there's no evidence of that. �:�

Will Beback �:� 04:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability This is obviously a

Self-published source, and is not reliable, unless it is verified by

another source. Sfacets 05:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> If we can prove that the material is self-published and inaccurate

then I agree that it would be unreliable,. However I don't see any

proof of those assertions. �:� Will Beback �:� 22:27, 11 November 2007

(UTC)

>

> I'm not adding the information, or using the source. Please read

burden of evidence. You need to provide evidence of the validity of

the website as a source. Sfacets 08:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> I have no idea about all this, but, by curiosity I have check main

page of this website http://www.valaya.co.uk/, and you discover that

it should be a kind of private website, or intranet maybe as a login

is requested. Official website are public. So, it is a self-published

website. �Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk �

contribs) 08:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> I looked this up on one of those doman tools, and it's registered to

a " Gian Luca Masciangelo " . I don't know if that's person or a company,

but its address is in Italy even though its a U.K. domain. By

comparison, the " sahajayoga.org.uk " domain is registered to " LET " , a

known official SY organization with a suburban London address. (I

guess there is more than one entity.) That being the case, I think

this " www.valaya.co.uk " site looks like an overeager adherent,. Though

he copyrights the information in the name of Shri Mataji, I doubt that

she actually wrote most of it herself. The incorrect application of

copyrights seems to be a common issue with groups like this. I'm sure

it's well-intentioned. �:� Will Beback �:� 10:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> LET is Life Eternal Trust, the tax-exempt equivalent of VND (created

before the term VND was coined). SYogis setting up their own websites

was official policy under the Mataji-inspired Project 2800 which tried

to drown out critical voices on the Web with a flood of SY sites. See:

syrc/message/38 --Simon D M 11:07, 12

November 2007 (UTC)

>

> But Simon Dicon Monfort who wrote this letter it's you no ? --Agenor

77 13:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Yeah right, I'm really going to bother writing all that. I'm

surprised you want to deny your Guru's work. There's another reference

in here: [40] The failed project hasn't been completely air-brushed

out yet. --Simon D M 13:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Thank you for your confirmation --Agenor 77 22:21, 14 November 2007

(UTC)

>

> LET is not necessarily tax-exempt in all countries, nor is it the

exact equivalent of VND. This varies from country to country.

Sahajhist 13:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Simon, please refrain from using unreliable sources (mostly created

by you) to back your claims. Sfacets 13:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> I can understand why you are embarrassed about the attempt to drown

out all critical voices on the Net, pretty shameful I agree, but it

happened, and failed miserably. And if you want to accuse me of

fabricating any more embarrassing material, please provide some

evidence to back up your accusations. You may choose to believe what

you are told in SY, but you need some evidence before you pass on such

stories on this page. --Simon D M 13:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> There is no accusation, you signed the message that you show

syrc/message/38 so it's an evidence.

Then forgive me to suspect each and every editing of yours as it seems

you are here only for that

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions & limit=500 & target\

=Simon+D+M

� Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk � contribs)

16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> The message is not signed by anybody. I posted it. Here only for

what? --Simon D M 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> I see... very practical (grin) Thank you to state that you posted

it.- Agenor 77 17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> The message may have gone out on the old Sahajnet from Mark Mays.

Check with him if you're interested. --Simon D M 17:49, 12 November

2007 (UTC)

>

> May ? --Agenor 77 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Maybe. --Simon D M 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Nobody accused you of anything here. My issue is with you backing up

your assertions with your own material. Also please comment on the

edits, not the editor. Sfacets 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> " But Simon Dicon Monfort who wrote this letter it's you no ? " is an

accusation in the form of a question. How is

syrc/ any less reliable than an official

SY site? --Simon D M 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> It's a question off course.. don't be paranoiac

>

> Now let's stop the petty back-biting and get back to the subject in

hand: " Valaya is in line with the international policy of Sahaja Yoga "

http://www.valaya.co.uk/HOME.htm It is also listed by the Canadian

site: http://www.sahajayoga.ca/WorldWide/PersonalWebsites.html --Simon

D M 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> That doesn't make it a valid wikipedia source. Sfacets 21:34, 12

November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Another official site linking to it approvingly is here:

http://www.mpsahaj.org/links.htm --Simon D M 12:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> It also seems Gian has some pretty high-powered customers:

http://www.masciangelo.com/INFO_BASE_UK_3.html I think he'd no better

than to start making stuff up and putting it onto his sites. --Simon D

M 15:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> WP:V clearly states that personal websites are not acceptable as

sources. This is clearly a private (there is a login on the home page,

although the site is not very secure, and for this reason pages inside

the site have been linked to) and personal website, and there is no

evidence that the author is an expert on the subject.

User:Windinthetrees 10:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> I completly agree with you. Both point are obvious --Agenor 77

13:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> No, it says they are largely not acceptable. If we are going to

restrict ourselves to " peer-reviewed journals and books published in

university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals,

and books published by respected publishing houses " then there won't

be much. For a fringe theory like SY, the important thing is to ensure

parity of sources. --Simon D M 12:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Between the restriction you put supra and evidence posted by the

editor itself, there is a middle path my dear --Agenor 77 13:05, 13

November 2007 (UTC)

>

> The Valaya site is uploading standard SY materials and speeches of

Mataji. It is reliable stuff, linked to by official sites of SY. If

Mataji's speeches were changed (apart from maybe the most embarrassing

bits, but then official sources do that as well) then there would be

no linking, it would be classed in the same category as adishakti.org

(which doesn't change speeches either but obviously breaks other

norms). Furthermore, valaya is produced by a professional web

developer who knows better than to misrepresent his subject matter.

The site is password protected so that non-SYogis can't find out what

SYoga is all about, which is also the problem with this page. That

kind of information can only be found behind password protection or on

the sites of critics of SY which are currently barred from most of

this page because parity of sources is not practised. However, we need

to look at the overarching aim of Wikipedia: it is not to produce an

article based on " whay SY wants people to believe " , rather " what SY

is " . --Simon D M 14:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> I would put Valaya on a par with Sahajavidya which Sfacets and

SahajHist have strongly defended as a suitable source in the

discussion here --Simon D M 14:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Simon is misrepresenting my views. I merely commented on the factual

accuracy of the Sahajvidya site as part of an earlier ongoing

discussion. Sahajhist 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> It's obvious. Everybody can see that... --Agenor 77 22:39, 13

November 2007 (UTC)

>

> To be precise SahajHist said that the site was reliable, accessible

and heavily used. Sorry if I overstated the case in SahaHist's case by

lumping him together with Sfacets. --Simon D M 11:16, 14 November 2007

(UTC)

>

> gni? �Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk �

contribs) 21:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Perhaps this discussion has gone on long enough and we should ask

Will, as a neutral party, to decide. --Simon D M 14:34, 13 November

2007 (UTC)

>

> My opinion is that this site appears to be a personal site that

uploads official documents. It's in the same category as the

Sahajavidya site, which we use as a source. I'm reluctatnt to include

either site, but if we include one then there's no reason to exclude

the other. �:� Will Beback �:� 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> The Sahajavidya site is registered to an individual, Nick Kerswell,

rather than to an SY entity such as LET or VND. Therefore it too is a

personal site publishing SY material. �:� Will Beback �:� 22:54, 13

November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Nick is on the official team previously mentioned (includes our

friend Bohdan and a certain self-proclaimed expert on Sahaj History

who will go unnamed) responsible for collating all audio and video

recordings of Mataji. The Valaya site allows quotes to be seen in full

context so is in many ways an even better source. --Simon D M 11:11,

14 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Here we go again, Simon yet again twists the facts! There is no

'official' team on the Media Project, merely a list of names, arranged

by country, acknowledging those who have helped. Sahajhist 11:53, 14

November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Simon says : " The Valaya site allows quotes to be seen " but

anybody who is not twostedm can understand that it is a private site

and it has been build to beunder privacy / with a login altough it

doesn't work at all. But mainly, it is a private site.--Agenor 77

13:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> As SahajHist said about the Sahajvidya site, " this website is

accessible to all via Google... This site is very reliable, being

based, literally, on the teacher's exact words. " In fact, Valaya

avoids the one problem SahajHist identified with Sahajvidya ie " the

compiler takes what could politely be called a 'biblical' approach - a

sentence from one talk, a paragraph from another - which results in

Shri Mataji's comments being discussed out of the context of the

original talk " --Simon D M 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Valaya and Sahajvidya do not have the same value as sources -

Sahajvidya references each paragraph back to a specific speech given

by Nirmala Srivastava, complete with dates. Valaya makes no claim of

doing so, and is therefore not a Reliable source Sfacets 08:49, 15

November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Obvioulsy ! I would request that we consider this site (valaya) as

definitely unsuitable for reference here --Agenor 77 08:54, 15

November 2007 (UTC)

>

> On the contrary Sfacets, see: http://www.valaya.co.uk/IN-DEEP.htm

(btw you seem to have picked up a cheerleader). --Simon D M 11:11, 15

November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Are any of the sources currently used traceable back to talks?

Re:the cheerleader - what can I say, I'm a cool guy. Sfacets 11:14, 15

November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Did you even bother to follow the link? It's a list of full talks

with dates, locations and full text. Am genuinely glad to see a

flicker of humour in you. --Simon D M 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> I followed the link, my question was in regards to the references

currently used in the article. Sfacets 11:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> I strongly believe we shouldn't be using http://www.valaya.co.uk or

http:// or the Sahajvidya site as sources here - we all agree that

they are personal sites and as such cannot rely on them as a source

for reliability. It seems to me we have consensus on this. We've gone

back and forth on this long enough even after having Will take a look

at it and agreeing they are personal sites. All references to these

two sites in the article need to be removed.Yogasun 14:06, 15 November

2007 (UTC)

>

> I agree that this discussion has gone on long enough, but there is

an important principle to be taken into account and that is that the

acceptable level of reliability is relative to availability which in

turn depends on how mainstream a theory is. The section on parity

states, " if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs

and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the

fringe theory need not be published in a peer review journal " which

implies the the point I am making. Many of the beliefs of Sahaja Yoga

are largely hidden on official sites because the organisation does not

want newcomers to know what they are getting into. Thus information

can only be sourced mainly from non-official sites and the sites of

critics. Not to address these topics would make the article

unbalanced, to do so may require reliance on non-official sites. This

is an unusual situation that requires thought beyond the usual

policies. --Simon D M 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> If the Valaya site is disallowed then there's no reason to include

the Sahajvidya either. They are similar enough to be treated

identically. �:� Will Beback �:� 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> Agree with Will and Yogasun - let's remove references to both.

--58.110.125.64 10:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

>

> How about the speeches here: http://www.valaya.co.uk/IN-DEEP.htm ?

These are word-for-word speeches of the founder with her copyright on

them. ---- Simon D M (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

>

>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sahaja_Yoga#Beliefs_Section.2FMerge_with_Sahaj\

a_Yoga_meditation

>

>

> ,

> " Violet " <violet.tubb@> wrote

>

> " Every human being can arrive at this natural state of new awareness

> and inner balance and quickly become his own master. Sahaja Yoga is

> not an organization, a club or a spiritual congregation - it is a

> state of being and a real spontaneous experience. Self-Realization

> and all the teachings of Sahaja Yoga are free of charge. "

>

> www.sahajbangalore.tripod.com/

>

>

> NOTE: Unfortunately, since the SY organisation are controlling Her

> Message to their advantage, instead of giving it like Shri Mataji

> gave it, the freedom of expression of Sahaja Yogis in the

> organisation, over the internet, has been restricted. The above quote

> from 'sahajbangalore tripod' can no longer be accessed, as John Noyce

> and co-religionists of the SYSSR have worked hard to silence the

> individual voice of the Sahaja Yogi, declaring them an 'unofficial

> voice' as far as the internet is concerned.

>

> So we can thank God that Jagbir has preserved this record for

> posterity to witness the atrocities that WCASY are doing to the

> individual SY voice.

>

> Shri Mataji gave full permission to real Sahaja Yogis to declare with

> their own voice and this includes the right to declare over the

> internet for the public to see. Their voice is consistent as long as

> it is what Shri Mataji taught, so there is no problem.

>

> Here you will find the quote above, preserved for the public

> knowledge, at the right hand column in the grey boxes, in the last

> paragraph of the 9th from the bottom grey box, in this URL:

>

> http://www.adishakti.org/lectures_to_earth.htm

>

> In this grey box area you will also see the quotes of individual

> Sahaja Yogis, that they have given re what Shri Mataji has given.

>

[Guest guest]

Sfacets,

 

Would you mind being honest, and telling us who you really are, instead of

hiding behind an I.D.?

 

i have read what Simon D.M. has written, and he is not twisting the facts in

this instance, as far as i can see. It is you, Sfacets, that has been evading,

and twisting facts. Can't you see what you are doing. Simon is actually behaving

himself properly. Just because he is the foe of Shri Mataji, does not mean he

cannot do the right thing in some instances, Sfacets. But i see that you are not

doing the right thing in the instance listed below.

 

You cannot play your game with me and say: " We need to stand against this

affront " . You are a worse foe of Shri Mataji than Simon in a way, because you

are a foe " inside the organisation " of Shri Mataji, while Simon is a foe,

outside the organisation of Shri Mataji. A foe inside the organisation, is

obviously much worse.

 

A foe who denigrates the spiritual work of other Sahaja Yogis, is much worse.

 

violet

 

 

, " sfacets " <sfacets

wrote:

>

> I would have expected a little understanding from someone who claims

> to be a Sahaja Yogi, and yet to all intents and purposes is siding

> with Simon Montford.

>

> Are you aware that he is using speeches of Shri Mataji out of

context

> to attack not just the organization but also Shri Mataji?

>

> We need to stand together against this affront.

> Sincerely,

> Sfacets

>

> , " Violet "

> <violet.tubb@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear All,

> >

> > Appended is evidence for the record, of the invalidation of the

work

> of a Sahaja Yogi. i believe this yogi is still in the organisation

of

> Sahaja Yoga. Nobody is immune from a minority of so-called yogis who

> have put themselves over and above approximately 20,000 SYs in the

> world. These few yogis do not consider the work of individual Sahaja

> Yogis as valid. They only consider what their few say as valid.

There

> is not even a proper reason given. Shri Mataji said all we yogis are

> to give Her Message, those who have felt the spiritual vibrations.

> >

> > A real Sahaja Yogi will not work as you see appended below. It is

> not in their nature to do so. It is the work of those who don't

really

> believe in Shri Mataji's Word - that the Truth will expose all that

is

> not the truth. Instead, they take it upon themselves to pretend to

be

> the Truth, and in so doing are commiting multiple spiritual crimes

> against humanity, and against fellow Sahaja Yogis.

> >

> > So this is for the record, for posterity, so they can see what

> Sahaja Yogis were up against.

> >

> > regards to all,

> >

> > violet

> >

> >

> >

> > Re: Valaya.co.uk

> >

> > Why is this website being used as a source? The link

> http://www.valaya.co.uk/KNOWLEDGEpujaProt1.htm for example, states

its

> origin as being from a " Private archive " , nothing else. Unless a

good

> reason is provided to keep this as a source, I will remove it as

well

> as associated content. Sfacets 16:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > I disagee. If you look at the home page it is clearly an official

SY

> website. [39] �:� Will Beback �:� 21:00, 10 November 2007

(UTC)

> >

> > And you see this how? By the copyright information? It is

obviously

> a private website. Sfacets 00:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > How do you know that? �:� Will Beback �:� 00:34, 11

November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > It is kind of obvious looking at it - have you seen other official

> websites sporting free counters, using tiled images as background?

> Sfacets 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > The page says that " all the knowledge, contents, and materials in

> this website come from and belong to H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi.

> Copyright 2001 H.H. Shri Mataji Devi 2001 all rights reserved " . Are

> you contending that there is more than one individual called " H.H.

> Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi " ? �:� Will Beback �:� 03:06, 11

November 2007

> (UTC)

> >

> > No, only that it isn't an official website, and is an unreliable

> source in this case. Sfacets 03:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > If it is from " H.H. Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi " then it is relevant.

> You assert that it's unreliable, but there's no evidence of that.

�:�

> Will Beback �:� 04:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability This is obviously a

> Self-published source, and is not reliable, unless it is verified by

> another source. Sfacets 05:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > If we can prove that the material is self-published and inaccurate

> then I agree that it would be unreliable,. However I don't see any

> proof of those assertions. �:� Will Beback �:� 22:27, 11

November 2007

> (UTC)

> >

> > I'm not adding the information, or using the source. Please read

> burden of evidence. You need to provide evidence of the validity of

> the website as a source. Sfacets 08:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > I have no idea about all this, but, by curiosity I have check main

> page of this website http://www.valaya.co.uk/, and you discover that

> it should be a kind of private website, or intranet maybe as a login

> is requested. Official website are public. So, it is a self-

published

> website. �Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk �

> contribs) 08:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > I looked this up on one of those doman tools, and it's registered

to

> a " Gian Luca Masciangelo " . I don't know if that's person or a

company,

> but its address is in Italy even though its a U.K. domain. By

> comparison, the " sahajayoga.org.uk " domain is registered to " LET " , a

> known official SY organization with a suburban London address. (I

> guess there is more than one entity.) That being the case, I think

> this " www.valaya.co.uk " site looks like an overeager adherent,.

Though

> he copyrights the information in the name of Shri Mataji, I doubt

that

> she actually wrote most of it herself. The incorrect application of

> copyrights seems to be a common issue with groups like this. I'm

sure

> it's well-intentioned. �:� Will Beback �:� 10:58, 12

November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > LET is Life Eternal Trust, the tax-exempt equivalent of VND

(created

> before the term VND was coined). SYogis setting up their own

websites

> was official policy under the Mataji-inspired Project 2800 which

tried

> to drown out critical voices on the Web with a flood of SY sites.

See:

> syrc/message/38 --Simon D M 11:07, 12

> November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > But Simon Dicon Monfort who wrote this letter it's you no ? --

Agenor

> 77 13:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Yeah right, I'm really going to bother writing all that. I'm

> surprised you want to deny your Guru's work. There's another

reference

> in here: [40] The failed project hasn't been completely air-brushed

> out yet. --Simon D M 13:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Thank you for your confirmation --Agenor 77 22:21, 14 November

2007

> (UTC)

> >

> > LET is not necessarily tax-exempt in all countries, nor is it the

> exact equivalent of VND. This varies from country to country.

> Sahajhist 13:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Simon, please refrain from using unreliable sources (mostly

created

> by you) to back your claims. Sfacets 13:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > I can understand why you are embarrassed about the attempt to

drown

> out all critical voices on the Net, pretty shameful I agree, but it

> happened, and failed miserably. And if you want to accuse me of

> fabricating any more embarrassing material, please provide some

> evidence to back up your accusations. You may choose to believe what

> you are told in SY, but you need some evidence before you pass on

such

> stories on this page. --Simon D M 13:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > There is no accusation, you signed the message that you show

> syrc/message/38 so it's an evidence.

> Then forgive me to suspect each and every editing of yours as it

seems

> you are here only for that

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/

index.php?title=Special:Contributions & limit=500 & target=Simon+D+M

> � Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk �

contribs)

> 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > The message is not signed by anybody. I posted it. Here only for

> what? --Simon D M 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > I see... very practical (grin) Thank you to state that you posted

> it.- Agenor 77 17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > The message may have gone out on the old Sahajnet from Mark Mays.

> Check with him if you're interested. --Simon D M 17:49, 12 November

> 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > May ? --Agenor 77 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Maybe. --Simon D M 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Nobody accused you of anything here. My issue is with you backing

up

> your assertions with your own material. Also please comment on the

> edits, not the editor. Sfacets 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > " But Simon Dicon Monfort who wrote this letter it's you no ? " is

an

> accusation in the form of a question. How is

> syrc/ any less reliable than an

official

> SY site? --Simon D M 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > It's a question off course.. don't be paranoiac

> >

> > Now let's stop the petty back-biting and get back to the subject

in

> hand: " Valaya is in line with the international policy of Sahaja

Yoga "

> http://www.valaya.co.uk/HOME.htm It is also listed by the Canadian

> site: http://www.sahajayoga.ca/WorldWide/PersonalWebsites.html --

Simon

> D M 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > That doesn't make it a valid wikipedia source. Sfacets 21:34, 12

> November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Another official site linking to it approvingly is here:

> http://www.mpsahaj.org/links.htm --Simon D M 12:05, 13 November

2007 (UTC)

> >

> > It also seems Gian has some pretty high-powered customers:

> http://www.masciangelo.com/INFO_BASE_UK_3.html I think he'd no

better

> than to start making stuff up and putting it onto his sites. --

Simon D

> M 15:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > WP:V clearly states that personal websites are not acceptable as

> sources. This is clearly a private (there is a login on the home

page,

> although the site is not very secure, and for this reason pages

inside

> the site have been linked to) and personal website, and there is no

> evidence that the author is an expert on the subject.

> User:Windinthetrees 10:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > I completly agree with you. Both point are obvious --Agenor 77

> 13:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > No, it says they are largely not acceptable. If we are going to

> restrict ourselves to " peer-reviewed journals and books published in

> university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals,

> and books published by respected publishing houses " then there won't

> be much. For a fringe theory like SY, the important thing is to

ensure

> parity of sources. --Simon D M 12:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Between the restriction you put supra and evidence posted by the

> editor itself, there is a middle path my dear --Agenor 77 13:05,

13

> November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > The Valaya site is uploading standard SY materials and speeches of

> Mataji. It is reliable stuff, linked to by official sites of SY. If

> Mataji's speeches were changed (apart from maybe the most

embarrassing

> bits, but then official sources do that as well) then there would be

> no linking, it would be classed in the same category as

adishakti.org

> (which doesn't change speeches either but obviously breaks other

> norms). Furthermore, valaya is produced by a professional web

> developer who knows better than to misrepresent his subject matter.

> The site is password protected so that non-SYogis can't find out

what

> SYoga is all about, which is also the problem with this page. That

> kind of information can only be found behind password protection or

on

> the sites of critics of SY which are currently barred from most of

> this page because parity of sources is not practised. However, we

need

> to look at the overarching aim of Wikipedia: it is not to produce an

> article based on " whay SY wants people to believe " , rather " what SY

> is " . --Simon D M 14:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > I would put Valaya on a par with Sahajavidya which Sfacets and

> SahajHist have strongly defended as a suitable source in the

> discussion here --Simon D M 14:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Simon is misrepresenting my views. I merely commented on the

factual

> accuracy of the Sahajvidya site as part of an earlier ongoing

> discussion. Sahajhist 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > It's obvious. Everybody can see that... --Agenor 77 22:39, 13

> November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > To be precise SahajHist said that the site was reliable,

accessible

> and heavily used. Sorry if I overstated the case in SahaHist's case

by

> lumping him together with Sfacets. --Simon D M 11:16, 14 November

2007

> (UTC)

> >

> > gni? �Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk �

> contribs) 21:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Perhaps this discussion has gone on long enough and we should ask

> Will, as a neutral party, to decide. --Simon D M 14:34, 13 November

> 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > My opinion is that this site appears to be a personal site that

> uploads official documents. It's in the same category as the

> Sahajavidya site, which we use as a source. I'm reluctatnt to

include

> either site, but if we include one then there's no reason to exclude

> the other. �:� Will Beback �:� 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > The Sahajavidya site is registered to an individual, Nick

Kerswell,

> rather than to an SY entity such as LET or VND. Therefore it too is

a

> personal site publishing SY material. �:� Will Beback �:�

22:54, 13

> November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Nick is on the official team previously mentioned (includes our

> friend Bohdan and a certain self-proclaimed expert on Sahaj History

> who will go unnamed) responsible for collating all audio and video

> recordings of Mataji. The Valaya site allows quotes to be seen in

full

> context so is in many ways an even better source. --Simon D M 11:11,

> 14 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Here we go again, Simon yet again twists the facts! There is no

> 'official' team on the Media Project, merely a list of names,

arranged

> by country, acknowledging those who have helped. Sahajhist 11:53, 14

> November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Simon says : " The Valaya site allows quotes to be seen " but

> anybody who is not twostedm can understand that it is a private site

> and it has been build to beunder privacy / with a login altough it

> doesn't work at all. But mainly, it is a private site.--Agenor 77

> 13:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > As SahajHist said about the Sahajvidya site, " this website is

> accessible to all via Google... This site is very reliable, being

> based, literally, on the teacher's exact words. " In fact, Valaya

> avoids the one problem SahajHist identified with Sahajvidya ie " the

> compiler takes what could politely be called a 'biblical' approach

- a

> sentence from one talk, a paragraph from another - which results in

> Shri Mataji's comments being discussed out of the context of the

> original talk " --Simon D M 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Valaya and Sahajvidya do not have the same value as sources -

> Sahajvidya references each paragraph back to a specific speech given

> by Nirmala Srivastava, complete with dates. Valaya makes no claim of

> doing so, and is therefore not a Reliable source Sfacets 08:49, 15

> November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Obvioulsy ! I would request that we consider this site (valaya) as

> definitely unsuitable for reference here --Agenor 77 08:54, 15

> November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > On the contrary Sfacets, see: http://www.valaya.co.uk/IN-DEEP.htm

> (btw you seem to have picked up a cheerleader). --Simon D M 11:11,

15

> November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Are any of the sources currently used traceable back to talks?

> Re:the cheerleader - what can I say, I'm a cool guy. Sfacets 11:14,

15

> November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > Did you even bother to follow the link? It's a list of full talks

> with dates, locations and full text. Am genuinely glad to see a

> flicker of humour in you. --Simon D M 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > I followed the link, my question was in regards to the references

> currently used in the article. Sfacets 11:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > I strongly believe we shouldn't be using http://www.valaya.co.uk

or

> http:// or the Sahajvidya site as sources here - we all agree that

> they are personal sites and as such cannot rely on them as a source

> for reliability. It seems to me we have consensus on this. We've

gone

> back and forth on this long enough even after having Will take a

look

> at it and agreeing they are personal sites. All references to these

> two sites in the article need to be removed.Yogasun 14:06, 15

November

> 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > I agree that this discussion has gone on long enough, but there is

> an important principle to be taken into account and that is that the

> acceptable level of reliability is relative to availability which in

> turn depends on how mainstream a theory is. The section on parity

> states, " if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by

amateurs

> and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the

> fringe theory need not be published in a peer review journal " which

> implies the the point I am making. Many of the beliefs of Sahaja

Yoga

> are largely hidden on official sites because the organisation does

not

> want newcomers to know what they are getting into. Thus information

> can only be sourced mainly from non-official sites and the sites of

> critics. Not to address these topics would make the article

> unbalanced, to do so may require reliance on non-official sites.

This

> is an unusual situation that requires thought beyond the usual

> policies. --Simon D M 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > If the Valaya site is disallowed then there's no reason to include

> the Sahajvidya either. They are similar enough to be treated

> identically. �:� Will Beback �:� 19:10, 15 November 2007

(UTC)

> >

> > Agree with Will and Yogasun - let's remove references to both.

> --58.110.125.64 10:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> > How about the speeches here: http://www.valaya.co.uk/IN-DEEP.htm ?

> These are word-for-word speeches of the founder with her copyright

on

> them. ---- Simon D M (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

> >

> >

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

Talk:Sahaja_Yoga#Beliefs_Section.2FMerge_with_Sahaja_Yoga_meditation

> >

> >

> > ,

> > " Violet " <violet.tubb@> wrote

> >

> > " Every human being can arrive at this natural state of new

awareness

> > and inner balance and quickly become his own master. Sahaja Yoga

is

> > not an organization, a club or a spiritual congregation - it is a

> > state of being and a real spontaneous experience. Self-Realization

> > and all the teachings of Sahaja Yoga are free of charge. "

> >

> > www.sahajbangalore.tripod.com/

> >

> >

> > NOTE: Unfortunately, since the SY organisation are controlling Her

> > Message to their advantage, instead of giving it like Shri Mataji

> > gave it, the freedom of expression of Sahaja Yogis in the

> > organisation, over the internet, has been restricted. The above

quote

> > from 'sahajbangalore tripod' can no longer be accessed, as John

Noyce

> > and co-religionists of the SYSSR have worked hard to silence the

> > individual voice of the Sahaja Yogi, declaring them an 'unofficial

> > voice' as far as the internet is concerned.

> >

> > So we can thank God that Jagbir has preserved this record for

> > posterity to witness the atrocities that WCASY are doing to the

> > individual SY voice.

> >

> > Shri Mataji gave full permission to real Sahaja Yogis to declare

with

> > their own voice and this includes the right to declare over the

> > internet for the public to see. Their voice is consistent as long

as

> > it is what Shri Mataji taught, so there is no problem.

> >

> > Here you will find the quote above, preserved for the public

> > knowledge, at the right hand column in the grey boxes, in the last

> > paragraph of the 9th from the bottom grey box, in this URL:

> >

> > http://www.adishakti.org/lectures_to_earth.htm

> >

> > In this grey box area you will also see the quotes of individual

> > Sahaja Yogis, that they have given re what Shri Mataji has given.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Sfacets,

 

Compared to you and Sahajist (John Noyce) Simon is far more honest

about his beliefs. But if we compare the damage done to Sahaja Yoga

and Shri Mataji's message then i have to say he is 'saintly' compared

to you, Sahajist, WCASY, Sir CP, and the entire SY organization. i am

comparing a single person against tens of thousands of so-called

realized souls participating in, and perpetuating a deliberate and

sustained collective deception to keep humanity in the dark about the

Comforter sent by Lord Jesus with the message of the Last Judgment.

(It is indeed an insult to Her that i am forced to make such a

comparison just to make sense to so many SYs.)

 

i did sent you an email yesterday in response to your appreciating my

dossier on Simon. Probably you have overlooked or misunderstood what

i think of your activities at Wikipedia. So i will quote what is

really important:

 

" The devil is in the details of sapiental tradition and this Tasmanian

Devil John Noyce puts a crown of thorns on Christ's head and

whispers " I am the one who keeps deleting the links and am as active

as the devil in preventing humanity from receiving your message of

the Last Judgment. As Sahajist ... my comments are occasional and

always concise, as they are to you now. " Yes, we couldn't agree more

John. "

 

/message/8735

 

So you can understand why i have to differentiate you from Simon. i

said he is 'saintly' because, unlike both you and John Noyce, he

tried to stop the deletion of www.adishakti.org from Wikipedia. In

case you still cannot comprehend me i better add to the above quote:

 

Sfacets pokes a spear into Christ's abdomen and taunts the Savior: " I

am John Noyce's accomplice who also keeps deleting the links and am

as active as the devil in preventing humanity from receiving your

message of the Last Judgment. "

 

Hope that makes your day Sfacets,

 

jagbir

 

 

Note: Sfacets, all these posts are being permanently archived at

http://sahajayoga-shrimataji.org/ so that future generations will

know exactly what transpired during the winter of Shri Mataji's life. As the

designated night-soil carrier of Sahaja Yoga i would value your opinion and

feedback if i am up to task.

 

 

--------------------------

 

Sfacets,

 

Would you mind being honest, and telling us who you really are,

instead of hiding behind an I.D.?

 

i have read what Simon D.M. has written, and he is not twisting the

facts in this instance, as far as i can see. It is you, Sfacets, that

has been evading, and twisting facts. Can't you see what you are

doing. Simon is actually behaving himself properly. Just because he

is the foe of Shri Mataji, does not mean he cannot do the right thing

in some instances, Sfacets. But i see that you are not doing the

right thing in the instance listed below.

 

You cannot play your game with me and say: " We need to stand against

this affront " . You are a worse foe of Shri Mataji than Simon in a

way, because you are a foe " inside the organisation " of Shri Mataji,

while Simon is a foe, outside the organisation of Shri Mataji. A foe

inside the organisation, is obviously much worse.

 

A foe who denigrates the spiritual work of other Sahaja Yogis, is

much worse.

 

violet

 

 

, " sfacets " <sfacets

wrote:

>

> I would have expected a little understanding from someone who claims

> to be a Sahaja Yogi, and yet to all intents and purposes is siding

> with Simon Montford.

>

> Are you aware that he is using speeches of Shri Mataji out of

context > to attack not just the organization but also Shri Mataji?

>

> We need to stand together against this affront.

> Sincerely,

> Sfacets

>

> , " Violet "

> <violet.tubb@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear All,

> >

> > Appended is evidence for the record, of the invalidation of the

work > of a Sahaja Yogi. i believe this yogi is still in the

organisation of Sahaja Yoga. Nobody is immune from a minority of so-

called yogis who have put themselves over and above approximately

20,000 SYs in the world. These few yogis do not consider the work of

individual Sahaja Yogis as valid. They only consider what their few

say as valid. There is not even a proper reason given. Shri Mataji

said all we yogis are to give Her Message, those who have felt the

spiritual vibrations.

> >

> > A real Sahaja Yogi will not work as you see appended below. It is

> not in their nature to do so. It is the work of those who don't

really believe in Shri Mataji's Word - that the Truth will expose all

that is not the truth. Instead, they take it upon themselves to

pretend to be the Truth, and in so doing are commiting multiple

spiritual crimes against humanity, and against fellow Sahaja Yogis.

> >

> > So this is for the record, for posterity, so they can see what

> Sahaja Yogis were up against.

> >

> > regards to all,

> >

> > violet

> >