Talk:Sahaja Yoga

Role of women
I feel this section is heavily skewed towards a negative interpretation of this chapter in Judith Coney's book. I would like to restore the balance and context that I have found in the original text. The main message is that men and women's roles in SY are different but complementary. Preferably I would rename this section "Gender roles".

The full chapter of the book can be read here: and a summarised version of the relevant parts is  here.

Let me know what you think. Budgewoi (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I think you should delete both those pages at once as copyright violations. see WP:COPYVIO - Roxy the dog 16:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like a faithful summary. Interesting that it is not Shri Mataji being quoted about the Code of Manu but rather Judith Coney's proposition. To say "woman should be honoured and adorned but kept dependent on men in the family. Women are also described... as 'dangerous' and needing to be guarded from temptation." does not represent Sahaja Yoga in theory or practice. I've never heard Shri Mataji say anything like that. In her talks she always talked about the feminine power that women have, and responsibility for the family. Hire power (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

FT/N
I have raised a query about this article at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this line from the lead appropriate for wikivoice?
Seems pretty silly for us to be using wikivoice to state this when its pretty out there and clearly pseudoscientific. Maybe rephrase to Practioners believe that during meditation seekers of truth they experience a state of self-realization produced by kundalini awakening --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's pure woo. Bon courage (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and took it out of wikivoice. --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of 'In Scientific Research' Section
To whom it may concern,

I noticed that upon my support of a new member in our community – @J.R.Hutcherson – unprovoked, I received backlash from the user @Bon courage, who decided to single-handedly rollback all my edits on this article. With the off-hand comments:

"Nothing reliable here" and "dump of junk resources".

The section, as you may see in previous iterations of the page, is fully within the remit of the guidelines of wikipedia, citing legitimate and long-standing academic journals in their relevant fields. In consideration to any medical claims, this section repeatedly underlines the fact any medical treatments were adopted as either an adjuvant or adjunct to standard medical practice. Moreover, the neurological findings in the field in the realm of fMRI findings are considered significant in their scope and possible applications in further clinical studies.

The section quotes nearly 42 individual, peer-reviewed and approved studies. May I ask with what accolades does @Bon courage deem to have the authority to prevent the simple elucidation of facts and information; break the 3R rule; and, most importantly, undermine credibility in the ethos of users working under 'good faith.'

Without further indication of specific parts within the section that trespass wikipedia guidelines, rather than a wrangle of wikipedia jargon, I will forthwith reinstate the section. Mr Birchwood (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:MEDRS for WP:Biomedical information. We need secondary sources, and not in fringey altmed journals. Your sources did not meet those criteria. Bon courage (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Birchwood, you're not using very high quality sources and they're very likely to be judged as not reliable. When a source claims something so far out of line with the mainstream preponderance of scientific and academic thought giving it prominence is a violation of WP:FRINGE. --(loopback) ping/whereis 13:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to give you a few pointers, large amounts of it are source to primary sources (papers in journals). These are specifically called out as a WP:PRIMARY source as an example: It likewise tells us to be extremely careful using primary sources:  The entire first segment of that section is cited to primary sources, and they are the overwhelming majority of citations in all subheaders of that section. Additionally, even in the sections you do cite to secondary sources as the project asks, I'm only seeing one that unquestionably passes WP:MEDRS. --(loopback) ping/whereis 13:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation?
The Belgian legal description of SY as a cult has been the subject of deceptive editing in the past. I am concerned that on 10 Nov 2022 altered the text FROM

TO

but the (hard to check) source, has no such information on page 24 as cited. What is the explanation? Note the diff also includes several apparently POV re-wordings and a blatant BLP violation in labelling Jean-Marie Abgrall as "discredited" in wikivoice with no sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Glad you underlined this!
 * To the best of my knowledge you can find that 'the court of appeal ruled in favor of Sahaja Yoga' (pp.11-50) for the 2005 IACSSO statement that has been referenced, and therefore they have been urged to remove their statement from their main website.
 * On Abgrall, as you can see on his wiki, the current take on his character is dubious. There was a reference to the following source (at some point 147, now 37)?
 * Anthony, Dick (1 December 1999). "Pseudoscience and Minority Religions: An Evaluation of the Brainwashing Theories of Jean-Marie Abgrall". Social Justice Research. 12 (4): 421–456. doi:10.1023/A:1022081411463. ISSN 1573-6725. S2CID 140454555.
 * Hope this satiates your incessant search for a smoking gun ;) Mr Birchwood (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, so you did misrepresent the source, which in fact says the appeal court upheld the IACSSO position. And furthermore, adding unsourced negative material about living people on Wikipedia is likely to get you sanctioned. Bon courage (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For your former claim, no, it represents the current standing of the situation. For the latter, as proven, the source has been provided.
 * In sum, any claim of misrepresentation is an invalid point. Mr Birchwood (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a policy WP:V which means things need to be backed by sources, not by your imagination. You misrepresented what the source says and were caught red handed. Simple as that. Bon courage (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * All these changes were just from sockpuppets. Their contributions needs cleaning up. Bon courage (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word 'cult'
The word 'cult' is a slur and all religions have at some time or another been accused of being one by someone or the other. There is no need to use this word in 'wiki voice' in the introduction of the article. In the section dealing with these allegations it is clear the people making these claims have their own reasons. (Some) Ex members, Jean-Marie Abgrall who is a self styled "cult buster" whose methods have been criticised as being pseudo scientific, and a Belgian state department which has also been criticised by Human Rights Watch of persecuting new religious movements. The word 'cult' is a non specific slur and has no place in the intro, or in the lexicon of 'wiki voice'. Budgewoi (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's necessary for NPOV to mention this. That at expert in cults said so and an organization specializing in cults make it so. Bon courage (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But as mentioned, the word is pejorative and unscientific. It has no place in wiki voice. My point is actually that the word is by definition POV. Budgewoi (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, as it's what relevant expert sources say. We have a constant problem with SY fans wanting to remove it (who were equally keen to say SY was "not a cult" when they thought the Belgian organisation were saying that). Bon courage (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Bon courage,
 * I just saw now that you've taken out the 'controversial' in front of 'cult-expert Jean-Marie Abgrall', and I see your point that the word 'controversial' doesn't reflect a NPOV. However I can't help feeling the fact that he is referred to even on his own page as a 'cult-expert' only in inverted commas is because it is a contested claim, and this is something which the general wiki reader should be alerted to in some way.
 * Just for the sake of clarity, and not wanting to provide such a NPOV on Sahaja yoga that we risk going over to the other side in a 'methinks thou doth protest too much' (excuse the misquote!) direction, should we not somehow indicate the status of Abgrall? For example, also using inverted commas to describe him as a cult-expert, in line with his own wiki page? And incidentally more in line with Judith Coney. Or even taking that para out as there already seems a good chunk on cult allegations?
 * What do you think? Thanks! Bookish14 (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's fine as is. As you observe its insertion violates NPOV, so that's the end of the discussion. Bon courage (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the quick reply. Yes I agree on not using the word 'controversial'. Could you kindly re-read my reply above as I suggested a couple of other options in dealing with the discrepancy?
 * Thanks again Bookish14 (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Any further thoughts/consensus on this? Bookish14 (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To repeat: it's fine as is. If in doubt, a return to WP:FT/N could be in order. Bon courage (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think it's fine as is. If any articles need adjusting, it's probably, Jean-Marie Abgrall, which is heavily weighted toward criticism of Abgrall. I say that without knowing how much of the body of RS is dedicated to such criticism, but maybe those with more experience should take a look. The state of that article shouldn't really affect this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. IME, Abgrall is controversial about deprogramming but not otherwise, In any event, this article is not the place to get into it and of course WP:BLP prevents slinging around negative adjectives as is being suggested. Bon courage (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really 'slinging around', merely suggesting in the spirit of discussion, and as already said, agree that it's not appropriate :)
 * Yes might be worth looking at Abgrall; at the moment he's appearing rather fringe, and as Coney uses the same Anthony and Robbins who discredit Abgrall to uphold her views that SY is not a cult, rather a NRM, it seems a bit contradictory to use them both in the 'Cult' section. Bookish14 (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The 'relevant expert' (singular) has himself been criticised. Furthermore he makes a living from 'cult busting'. This doesn't change the non specific (POV), prejorative and unscientific nature of the word. It is not scientific and doesn't belong in wiki voice even if it does suit your own preconceptions.Budgewoi (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello fellow Wikipedians, just wanted to explain a fairly minor update to this paragraph as it seems to be quite a hot topic! I’ve added ‘controversial’ in front of ‘cult expert Jean-Marie Abgrall’, as after following the link to his Wikipedia page it does seem that his status as a cult expert has been marred by allegations of his pseudoscientific line of reasoning, especially in regards to brainwashing. Interestingly, this view is put forward by that same Robbins positively referenced by Judith Coney in her book on sahaja yoga as an authority on why NRMs are wrongly classified as brainwashing their members. As Coney has been quite extensively referenced in the Wiki article on SY, it seems almost contradictory not to point out the controversial nature of Abgrall’s findings.
 * Also (not sure whether to put this here - I'm still quite new so please let me know if I'm stepping out of Wiki protocol!), I took out the sentence: 'Coney has reported facing a challenge in getting behind what she called "the public facade" of Sahaja Yoga' in the 'Beliefs and Practices' section, as it is later again stated in the 'Cult Allegation' section, and thought it best to avoid repetition. Bookish14 (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Biasness
This article clearly is influenced by the views of a single party. Rampant biasness. Needs major adjustments. &#38;#8213&#59;&#60;span style&#61;&#34;background:#8FF&#59;border:solid 1px&#59;border-radius:8px&#59;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px&#34;&#62;&#38;nbsp&#59;&#91;&#91;User:Falcon with appendix&#124;&#60;span style&#61;&#34;font-family:Old English Text MT&#59;color:#C00&#34;&#62;Falcon with appendix&#60;/span&#62;&#93;&#93;&#38;#124&#59;&#91;&#91;User talk:Falcon with a (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Not just a religion
In a previous version of the article we had this sentence in the intro:

 Sahaja Yoga is not only the name of the movement, but also the technique the movement teaches and the state of awareness achieved by the technique.

This states quite accurately the three meanings of 'Sahaja Yoga'. It is a religion, a meditation technique and also the state of consciousness achieved by the technique. The reference seems OK and I'm sure anyone who knows anything about it would not disagree. Hire power (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I would agree, seems a sensible and accurate way to describe the movement. Bookish14 (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The subtle system
Currently the sentence "Chakras do not physically exist" sounds a bit blunt. I checked the source it was based upon and it didn't put it exactly like that and was not so dismissive. So I've expanded it to say:

There is no proven relationship between chakras and the anatomy or physiology of the human body. Chakras have never been physically detected using modern instruments.Hire power (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That's worse, as it implies they exist (which the source does not). Bon courage (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But these words are more consistent with the source as it doesn’t say they don’t exist, only that no physical proof has been found. Hire power (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Family section
Hi all, I would like to flag a change I want to make to the 'Family' section.

The emphasis given to the word 'unusual' seems misplaced, as Langlaude is here using it more generally in order to link Sahaja Yoga with another NRM, in this case the Osho movement. It would be more contextually accurate to pull the quote that refers specifically to Sahaja Yoga, which is that it has 'a distinctive image and model of childhood', and then include the examples already given in the Family section, but also add for further contextualisation at the end: 'This is in line with the other religions Langlaude examined, who has concluded that "almost all traditions include informal nurturing within the family and slightly more formal nurturing within a religious community", and that children "are also initiated by their parents to a number of initiation rituals and to ceremonies and festivals" (p.34).

Contextualising in this way will add more weight to this section. Bookish14 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)