Talk:Sri Chinmoy/Archive 3

Kind Words
This is a link to a webpage which list quotes of great praise for Sri Chinmoy, by notable people:

http://www.srichinmoy.org/kind_words

Included on this page are quotes by various famous religious people, including: Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, Mother Theresa, and the Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Please note that all these people are indeed religious experts, giving profound and overt testimony, verifying Sri Chinmoy's religious expertise.

If people want to pretend that these quotes are invalid merely because they are referenced from a Sri Chinmoy website, but all means contact the people and/or organizations represented in the quotes and have them verify their validity.

They are valid.

Further praise is given by no less than U Thant, former secretary General of the United Nations, Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev, former President Bill Clinton, former Vice-President Al Gore, Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire, and on and on.

Please cite an example of a so-called cult leader who has received such extensive praise from such a host of prominent figures!

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is high praise from Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Please note that Archbishop Tutu, as an Archbishop of the Catholic Church is an extremely qualified expert on religion.

Quoting Archbishop Desmond Tutu, from an India Post article (a non-Sri Chinmoy Centre source).

"We shall remember Sri Chinmoy forever." Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote, Sri Chinmoy was a great man. God is smiling to know the immense good he has accomplished and encouraged in others. In a world of suspicion, hostility and conflict, he worked tirelessly to bring the different faiths together and inspired many to emulate."

Quoting from the same article, "Bishop Carlos Belo of East Timor, winner of the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize, wrote, 'The Lord of Life and of Death receives his most blessed son who during his life sleeplessly worked for the peace and harmony of between peoples of religion.' "

So, here is another religious expert, a Bishop of the Catholic Church and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize offering this kind of praise. The fact that even two men of such prominence would offer such high praise, is easily enough evidence to remove all criticism of Sri Chinmoy that is not referenced from a credible source.

from: The India Post (a non-Sri Chinmoy Centre source)

http://indiapost.com/article/usnews/1237/

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This section is horribly unencyclopedic for unreferenced and POV statements. Cases in point:

It's fine to say U Thant, Al Gore, et al praised Chinmoy as long as you include references. Please refrain from making statements like those above in quotes, as it constitutes original research - No_original_research. Please look at Neutral_point_of_view along with the rest of that article. I'm also moving this chapter on the talk page to the bottom since talk pages explicitly tell you that newest text goes at the BOTTOM.-Fendersmasher (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Sri Chinmoy was very highly regarded by many notable men and women."
 * "Sri Chinmoy's loving heart and profound wisdom touched many lives."


 * Reading this section again, I've noticed it seems very indicative of spam and thus ought to be removed. Most of the rest of the article is written in such fashion as well, particularly the Teachings and References sections - the Teachings section is not notable and reads like it's advancing Chinmoy's and the author's stances. According to WP:Spam, reference sections should only could works directly cited in the article. See also COI - editors should not be promoting their own interests. I plan on removing such content in the future unless it's changed. Feel free to discuss. -Fendersmasher (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I find these comments very unfair, as all the comments made above can be referenced. I did not know that the discussion page required references, as the actual article does. If and when I have time and interest I will post those references, from non-Sri Chinmmoy Centre sources. But anyone can do a quick Google search and find these.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My comments were about the article section "Kind Words", which is dated. -Fendersmasher (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of controversy section is in dispute
The inclusion of a controversy section is in dispute. Uninvolved editors are invited to please comment.

Comment by ZuluPapa5
Controversies must be supported WP:V and should be relevant and notable for inclusion. Folks don't like to hear about things that aren't related to the subject notability. This guidance BLP is most important. What I've seen occur is a combined "Controversial and Acclaim" section emerge in BLP articles. Remember for good reasons, the standard to include negative info is higher than the standard for including non-negative info. My guidance is if there is any reasonable indication that negative info may be false, then it's best to leave it out. (note I am in a similar dispute )Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me add, I've looked a few of the sources supporting the sexual conduct controversies, and that I don't consider them to meet WP:RS. Whenever there is no editorial control of the source material, there's good enough reason to leave it out. Sorry, but I just realized this is not a BLP. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your good common sense and interest in the spirit of fairness.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed two of the references given for sexual abuse accusations and left one from an article from the New York Post. -Fendersmasher (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

While I do understand that there is technical merit in leaving a reference to a NY Post Article, the problem with that, is that one allegation of child molestation or one allegation of sexual misconduct is so egregious as to incredibly sour the reputation of the individual so charged. The NY Post article does not reference any charges ever pressed against Sri Chinmoy (because none were) and it does not reference any affidavit written against Sri Chinmoy (because none were). And when dealing with an accusation as serious as sexual misconduct, I believe it is necessary to only offer a reference with that kind of level of credibility.

Further, there are (metaphorically) 100,000 positive references about Sri Chinmoy, including those of very highly reputable people - for example an Archbishop of the Catholic Church, referenced in non-Sri Chinmoy Centre sources. And in an article that is of, perhaps 5 or 10 paragraphs in length, to devote an entire section to controversy, is, I believe, unfair. And again, I assert that, I believe that the people posting these things have no professional qualifications in psychiatry or theology, but are from what constitutes a hate group with a vendetta against the expression of all Eastern religion in this country, not just Sri Chinmoy. I posted references about the lack of credibility of Rick Ross which proved that very point. Again, this is like letting a neo-Nazi group make comments upon a Jewish person that they hate. If people from a reputable theological or psychiatric background want to make criticisms, that is fine. But unless they come from a reputable source, they should be removed.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide Wikipedia policies that support your notions of what is "necessary"? -Fendersmasher (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Include - but why were the sources removed while this is still under RFC? No matter, I found the matter with a Google search of "Rip Sleazy Sri". ► RATEL ◄ 08:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The essence of the problem is that members of the Sri Chinmoy organisation can not be considered as unbiased due to their associations. Individuals involved with Sri Chinmoy may present a positive bias whereas others that have left may present negative views due to their experiences (real or otherwise). Others outside the organisation probably don't have enough experience with the organisation to have their views as representative. So what does that leave us? We must base opinions on facts that can be tested. So have any charges been raised (whether or not they were later dropped)? Did any charges proceed to court (whether or not they were dismissed)? Were any convictions upheld in any court? These things are as objective as you can get, so let's start quoting them if anyone can find them. --- P.S. I am not associated with the organisation at all, merely and interested bystander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.12 (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems a little like saying that anyone who respects Sri Chinmoy, must not be allowed to comment upon him. It also presumes that anyone who was a student is some blind lemming, who, because of Sri Chinmoy's powerful "voodoo" can't think straight. That itself is a huge prejudice. His disciples include lawyers and doctors and professionals in many fields. It is very disgraceful to suggest that these people don't have their own mind to form their own opinions. And they are hardly the only source of praise of Sri Chinmoy. They are hundreds, if not thousands of references of praise, from very prominent people who were never his students. Do the research. The facts are all there. These criticisms are really just like neo-Nazis saying the Holocaust never existed. This is taking seriously the ravings of mad men. And that is why there are no facts to back up their allegations. Because they are just nuts.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Artistic pursuits
Yes, by all means, listen to him play the flute. If you have an ear for music, you know that no one can create beautiful music like that without being someone extraordinary. Listen yourself. It is beautiful.

If you like abstract expressionism like de Kooning or Jackson Pollack, then look at his paintings and see for yourself what is there. They are beautiful.

If you like poetry, read Pole-Star, Promise-Light. The poetry is deeply spiritually passionate and moving.

No one...and I mean no one, can create beauty like that and be a fraud. It is impossible. Listen to the music, look at the paintings and read the poetry...and let your heart tell you what is plainly apparent....this is beauty, created by someone deeply connected to beauty.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"He also played the dilruba, and had learned Indian Classical musical from Vasant Rai.[citation needed]."

I have followed Sri Chinmoy closely for decades, but never heard any mention of Vasant Rai being Sri Chinmoy´s musical teacher. Was this a long teacher/student relationship? Which year? How many hours/classes/semesters? Vivvvvek (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello to everyone who is into this discussion.

This "problem" can be very simply solved.

As we are all trying to make this world better living place and we are huge part of it, why couldn't we just focus on the positive bits and pieces that we rarely have in our existance in general.

There are thousands of people on this earth who are inspired by the spiritual work of Sri Chinmoy.

I have personally met followers of the the Guru who stand out in such contrast with other people who i have met so far in my life time. If this Guru can make such difference in the human's presence and values than what is better than that?

I ask all of you?What is better than that?

I have read personally many materials written by Sri Chinmoy and he is teaching for purity, innocence,better clean-hearted living. And when you look up in history of our human race you will see that all effords of the spiritual books, teachings and personalities pointing this way. Books from thousands of years back are teaching the same thing!If we look up on the global view of the world we living today, you will see that nothing else made a better change for this whole world!

So the end of this discussion can be achieved in the name of the cause to do not kill the inspiration for others.

So I would like to thank first the people who created such a usefull place on the web such as Wikipedia! and ask the people who head Wikipedia to clear that article from this negativity and controversy which is not helping anyone and not needed for any point of view which face a better place of living!

Appreciations,

Izit99Izit99 (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Racial Background
His racial background? The first thing I thought on seeing his photo was that he is Caucasian, white or mixed. To me his facial features...he looks white, he dosent look typically Indian. Dosent have typically indian features. Maybe one of his parents was White British, the Anglo Indians..the many who ran (Administrated) India for the British Empitre   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.189.126 (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Sri Chinmoy is a false master
There is no evidence that Sri Chinmoy is a false master. Other than the hate spewed by some groups who believe that all meditation is brainwashing and all belief in God is folly. These are the people offering these kinds of comments. Additionally, they delete material they don't like, and frankly, I have been stalked on the internet by at least one of these folks, following me around to whatever board I post to and posting all kinds of vicious comments in return, including threats.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree on that. There is plenty of evidence that Sri Chinmoy is a false master. You can find them by contacting the ex-disciples who will tell and prove all kind of terrible things he did to them, specially his ex women-disciples. Sri Chinmoy, after giving them some kind of "special tantric blessing", asked them to abort the result of that blessing, if you know what that mean. This didn't happen once or twice. Other disciples caught him eating meat, while he preached a vegetarian diet. Carlos Santana left him because he was "hitting" on his wife. And so did John McLaughlin. Real masters are immaculate. I love meditation and I've learned from it that God is not to be believed. Faith has nothing to do with it. God is existence itself. Wether people believe in Him or not is of little importance. To know Him is the real deal. But I have to warn people against fake masters-gurus, for the real ones exist, they are there, telling you not to follow them, but to discover your real self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.112.21 (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If he was such a horrible person, why wasn't there a court case against him? Why? Answer the question directly. Where is the credible evidence? If he is so horrible, why haven't scores of professional theologians and psychiatric professionals railed against him for years? That certainly is the case with people like Rev. Moon. Why isn't this so...because prejudice produces blindness. Blind hate is not a methodology by which to discover the truth. All the negative comments on here are coming from the anti-cult movement. It is like neo-Nazis denying the Holocaust. That is who is crafting the opinion on here. Yes, Nazis say the Holocaust never existed. Yes, the KKK thinks Jews and African-Americans are horrible. Yes, the anti-cult movement thinks every Indian teacher of meditation is a cult leader. Don't doubt that. That is what they think. Why? Because they let hate guide them instead of any facts. Any facts. The CSA thought Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant...why isn't that on his wikipedia bio? - "Lincoln was a controversial figures believed to be a tyrant." The same percentage of people that thought Lincoln was a tyrant and that Hitler is a great guy, is the percentage of people who think Sri Chinmoy is bad. Why should we let any of their opinion exist on this page? Examine the facts, examine the evidence, do the math...if .0001% of people hate Sri Chinmoy, does that merit some kind of equal presentation? It is ludicrous.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Friends, why waste your time with such controversial figures? There are so many other true masters of the yogic-vedic tradition whose lives are or were immaculate! It's all here, in the web. Search a bit and you'll find them. In this short life, it is a tremendous waste of your precious time to endulge in such discussions. I'm sure some of you might have come across the latin legal term "fumus bonis juris", meaning, the smoke of good law. That's equal to the old saying "there's fire where there's smoke". So, you see, all these alegations and acusations about these fellows are a big obstacle in the lives of those searching for a spiritual path. With all due respect, but an avatar would never have such controverses and acusations upon him. Like stated before, anyone willing to do a research on the lives of all true avatars, masters, yogis and saints, will come to same conclusion, their lives were an example, pure, imaculate, devoted to God, to austerities, meditation, fasting, seclusion and so forth...no child sex abuse, drugs, murder, abortion, prossecution, prision, etc. My advice is, don't waste your time trying to prove or disprove these alegations, let the lawyers do it. If you're seeking God, you should set these matters aside, instead of geting caught in the gross mud of delusion set forth in the lives of all these fake masters and gurus. Only God knows the heaviness of the karma of these charlatains. To mess with the people's inocence, devotion, hope, spirituality and religion is the worst sin there could be. I'm sure millions of lives under fake masters await for these fellows. The followers themeselves are already under the spell of this karma, but the ones resposible for misguiding are the ones to suffer the most. Awake and free yourselves now from this karma. Ask God for true spiritual guidance and He will answer you, for if your desire to know and be with Him is sincere, a true master is surely to appear. Or perhaps God Himself will manifest to this devotee. At least that is what all the ancient vedic scriptures affirm. Sri Chinmoy is not an Avatar, nor a yogi, saint or guru. He is a tipical example of guruism, a man absorbed in his own matters, seeking his own glory and fame, along with his paranoia to have sex with young devotee girls. I wonder why didn't he performe real miracles like walking on water or raising the dead, like Christ and many other true masters of India had made? Lifting weight is not a big deal. So, you see, such figures have been around India for many centuries, and Hindus know that well. Acctually, India has had many more charlatains then real masters. A fake guru can be found in every corner of India, but a true Guru is to be born only once or twice in every century, and these are very, very hard to find. They are usualy anonimous, not concerned with the salvation of others, neither with politics or philantropy. These guys will always tell you the truth, that God is within you, and only you can find Him. He would never ask you to follow him, or to give him money, or "special massages in private rooms" and "tantric sexual blessings", if you know what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.112.21 (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Even after Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Soviet leader nominated Sri Chinmoy for the Nobel Peace Prize people still are trying to throw mud on his name. Please name a single "cult" leader ever nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize by two prominent world leaders.

Please cite an article by a prominent psychological journal, prominent psychiatrist or prominent psychologist who declares Sri Chinmoy to be a fraud.

Please cite an article by a prominent theologian who declares Sri Chinmoy to be a fraud.

If people can not cite a credible source for criticism, then I would ask Wikipedia to remove the controversy section.

Anyone can make an accusation. I have seen no proof. Yes, there is a group of disgruntled ex-disciples. They have made serious allegations...but how come there are no affidavits by them? How come there are no court cases? There are no affidavits by them, because that would be legal grounds to sue them.

So, again, I would ask that this controversy section be removed.

Thank you for your time.

"Truth Alone Will Triumph" - the Vedas

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion page clearly says to put new text "under old text". This does not belong at the top of the talk page, before the headers. I'm moving this edit further down the talk page. -Fendersmasher (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the diffs, either Wiki9898zzz has reposted his/her above comment at the top of the page, or user with IP 69.142.199.203 did so and Wiki9898zzz changed the signature of 69.142.199.203 to his/her own. I removed that section for its being a copy/paste of Wiki9898zzz's above comment. -Fendersmasher (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not mistake a lack of facility with the rules and methodology of posting with some malicious motive. I am fully willing to comply with any realm of fairness. But I do not believe it is fairness, in any degree whatsoever, to make libelous claims about Sri Chinmoy. That is a criminal action.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The link connected to the Nobel Peace prize nomination brings up the name Professor Walter Dorn. Dr Amnesan Walter Dorn was a disciple of Sri Chinmoy for at least 20-25 years until he was asked to leave the group some time in spring 2007. He nominated his own teacher, Sri Chinmoy, for the Nobel peace prize, and went public with the nomination against the request of the Nobel Prize committee. The spiritual name Amnesan was given to him by Sri Chinmoy. I know Dorn personally as we both lived part time in the same building on 150th street, Jamaica NY. (Dorn lives in Canada but came/comes to NY regularly).

You are suggesting a conspiracy! Do you not realize that anyone could contact the Icelandic government, forward your comments to them and you could be sued for libel! You are implying that these officials are corrupt! You are implying that because one Icelandic representative had a connection to Sri Chinmoy, that he somehow duped 50 other representatives into just buying into a Nobel Peace Prize nomination! You are making a statement that constitutes a crime. You are committing libel!

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I also know the background story of the Icelandic nomination which was presented on this site yesterday, but was removed. That was also partly an "inside job" as you may or may not know. As you say "Truth alone will triumph". However it is probably true that Tutu/Gorbie nominated him that year also. Vivvvvek (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by an Archbishop of the Catholic Church...not only an expert, but an extreme expert on religion, plus Gorbachev! Nominated by 51 members of the Icelandic Parliament, a group of Czech professors, and a professor at a Canadian military college (and probably plenty of more folks). So, apparently, Archbishop Tutu, Gorbachev, the Icelanic Parliament, Czech professors and a military college professor are all in on the conspiracy??? And that in itself, is just the tip of the iceberg of how many prominent public figures have given him extremely high praise over the years. I would think that list is somewhere between 50 and several hundred. Maybe even more! Are they all in on the conspiracy??? Are there any false teachers who have even gotten 1/10 of 1% of the praise that Sri Chinmoy has? That means he is not false! Accept the possibility that you can simply be wrong and move on.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please give it a rest...either Archbishop Tutu or Gorbachev (I forget which one) was directly involved in the nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. And 51 members of a governmental body involved in some kind of conspiracy? Give it a rest. You are simply wrong. You are like a Holocaust denier. No matter how much damning evidence is presented that you are wrong, you still persist in trying to prove that Hitler was a great guy. He wasn't. Yes, Sri Chinmoy was nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. Not the Butterball best turkey recipe...the Nobel Peace Prize! If you can't respect that piece of evidence, you won't respect anything. And that says something about your motivations...which are to damn Sri Chinmoy, without respect to any fair presentation of the facts of his life.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

All this criticism is more about people who are making it, than about Sri Chinmoy. Wikipedia is a great instrument to get all kinds of informations, but some people are abusing it for their personal negative needs. I have meet Sri Chinmoy during one of his concerts and to say he changed my life because his teaching of prayer and meditation. I learned to look at the world more positive way and to respect and love others, but I feel pity for such a silly comments here. I pray for you and wish you to be more happy in your life. Jooobble (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I have an uncle, who is a Chinmoy enthusiast, and he is really lucky with it. I heard from him about Mr. Chinmoy and allways very positive. Reading the comments on this site I feel a lot of scepticism. I think if Mr. Chnimoy was a real "guru" it is shamefull to fight against his enemies with "KKK" "Nazi" "Holocaust denier". Thats the way, communist burocrats are fighting in western Europe against their accusants. Thats not the right way! What I understood is that Mr. Chinmoy chose the "american way" of teaching, which means "Show, celebrity and money" on the one hand, which allways goes hand in hand with critcism and enviousness on the other hand. My oppinion is that a real spiritual leader (or how ever you call him) is not dependent on such tactics. Neither on "Show" nor on fighting. Therefore folks, enemies and friends, if you are acting like this, none of you understood what love is, you are allways talking about. Flacz, just a beginner. 20:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC

Untitled
Archive 1 is 97 kilobytes. It mostly discusses NPOV, cult/anti-cult issues, what constitutes reputable sources and good faith research, what is peer review, what is religious vilification material, what policies religion editors follow, whether or not religious tolerance should be a factor when editing, and what types of references are appropriate to represent the anti-cult POV. Contributors: Alex576, Maikel, Fencingchamp, Fadix, Andries, Zappaz, and Rozencrantz. Thanks again to all contributors. --Fencingchamp 08:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The article should show more how Sri Chinmoy was very controversial.
I wanted to see Sri Chinmoy's biography to compare it with my own experience of him.

Many people considered the man to be less than what he claimed to be, and many of his followers just drifted away after a short time of following.

One follower of his invited me to hear his New Year's message in the late 70's. So I went. John McLaughlin was playing with several other supporting musicians. Sri Chinmoy sat on an elevated pillow and on occasion his eyes would flicker dazzlingly while he meditated, from what I assumed to be reflected light from all the spot lights. Either that or there was hellfire inside his head (which I can't seriously suggest here). Please forgive me that observation, but it was experiential, and of that nature (one or the other, it seemed).

At the end he handed out boxes with an orange, and his New Year's message printed on a slip of paper inside. When he handed me my box, I took the opportunity to shake his hand. I suppose that was wrong, because he neither smiled, looked at me, nor shook my hand in return, nor lovingly held my hand for even a moment. He just limply withdrew his hand from mine.

Getting an orange or a piece of fruit or candy is a standard practice (receiving prasad) in many Hindu monasteries. If you work in a corporation, do you immediately get the right to walk up to the CEO and shake his hand? Is that how it works in every institution, that, right away, you get to shake the hand of the boss? There is a reason for respect. Not to be arbitrarily authoritarian, but to simple learn the rules. When great saints are in a high meditation, they are not fully conscious of the world. So, shaking people's hands is not wise. It can take them out of their meditation. That is also standard practice throughout Hindu literature and not specific to Sri Chinmoy.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There were many people there that night. So this story of mine is easily verified, though my personal experiences may not be verified so easily.

Years later I saw the person that had brought me there that night. He had stopped following Sri Chinmoy, and talked about it as some minimal phase of short duration he went through.

I saw print outs of his "paintings" from some type of "marathon" painting challenge he had done - liken to performance art, displayed. There was a page of boxes, each with six squiggly lines, two each the same color, so there were three colors, six lines, on a white background. Each box had qualified as a "painting." But I was also told he had done other paintings more complex than that.

Your criticism of his art...which is often both abstract and minimalistic is the same criticism levied against Jackson Pollack, Willem de Kooning, Rothko and many other painters. To properly assess his work, you would have to have an art expert, familiar with these disciplines determine that they are so. I can assure you, that if you went to a group of art professors familiar with the abstract and minimalism and showed them the paintings without them having prior knowledge of who did them...you would be quite surprised about their reaction.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would really love to see the whole story of this man in detailed accounts. He was certainly a character of some real controversy. Knowing as much about who he really was would be extremely helpful to people interested in the whole Guru phenomenon.

There have to be a lot of people that have had direct experiences with Sri Chinmoy that can be verified that should be gathered up before it is too late. I just mentioned an experience of forty years ago. Easily others that were there are no longer with us, like Sri Chinmoy.

Imagine if Wikipedia existed after Christ died. What kind of Gospels would there be available then? Please, no one be offended. I'm not making that comparison from a virtuosity standpoint, but from a position that whatever truth we are going to find out even in this century, it is going to take some real input. Especially if Sri Chinmoy was really a fake, like some have charged. For the sake of truth, someone ought to prove that definitively, and be done with it.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu nominated Sri Chinmoy for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. He was joined by Gorbachev, 51 members of the Icelandic Parliament, a group of Czech professors and a professor at a Canadian war college (and probably many more). How much more evidence do you need? And those are only a small handful of the hundreds of incidents of noteworthy people offering him extreme praise. All the criticism is coming from a small group of very disaffected people. There was never a court case against him. There was never an indictment against him. Why? There were many court cases against controversial religious leaders...but not one against Sri Chinmoy in over 40 years. If you want facts...they are already there. To persist in doubt, you really have to have a directed will to deny the body of facts....they are extreme. And I do apologize for commenting within the text of what you wrote.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Signed,

Jackspratfacts

Jackspratfacts (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackspratfacts (talk • contribs) 14:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To editors here

 * Bibliographies never have books (if that is what they are) in bold type. In addition, the publisher never receives bolding.
 * I am surprised that there is no mention of Sri Chinmoy's influence, (both good or bad) on others in a "Legacy" section. This would, in particular, be helpful in understanding others, like Carlos Santana or John McLaughlin. I suggest the article be copyedited, for POV and other style issues.--leahtwosaints (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am new to Wiki and editing. My first suggestion had to do with Baseball. However, I was a student of Sri Chinmoy's for 20 years, and I travelled the world recruiting 100s of people to his cult. I left the cult on my own accord and have no axe to grind. I can list pages of how he manipulated his students, ruined many peoples lives.I would like to correspond with the person who is deciding how to balance this article, how they plan to do and how I can present my views to go along w, th the views of members of the cult. According to "top" part of this page, the scope of the article is part of WikiProject Biography. WikiProject Hinduism, and WikiProject Bangladesh. I believe it should also fall within Destructive cult, and cults. I would also volunteer my services to help develop these new subjects on Wiki. Pleas let me know how I can help. Thanks. Benjamin Spector 06:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminsp (talk • contribs)

You are making quite serious accusations. Where is your proof? What specific incidents are you talking about? And please realize that making untrue statements can constitute a criminal act, whether or not your legal name is used. By all means, use your real name, and assert your allegations. Then those lies can be passed along to the Sri Chinmoy Centre and you can be prosecuted for libel. So, there is the challenge. Publish direct accusations. Do it. If you are so convinced they are true, publish your accusations and see if you don't wind up losing your house in a lawsuit. Lies are not truth. All you have is the typical discipline that exists in any monastic community. And you are trying to make that into some evil act. If you are in a Trappist monastery and some monk yells at you to get up for prayer, is that abuse? That is the entirety of what your allegations are. You recruited people into a cult? So, when a priest gives a sermon asking people to join a monastic order...he is also recruiting people in to a cult? When a Marine recruiter comes to a high school, he is also recruiting people into a cult? An Archbishop of the Catholic Church nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize!!!!...and still you don't believe? What more proof could you possibly need?

Monasteries are about discipline. Many people leave monasteries, not only Sri Chinmoy's, but Buddhist monasteries and Christian monasteries...and then go on tirades about how the path is just a bunch of gullible people. That does not give credence to their claims. And that kind of criticism has been going on since the dawn of time. Perhaps you just did not meditate enough. That is the typical reason why people don't have experiences...because they simply don't work hard enough. Two people have a track coach. One scrupulously follows all the exercises and disciplines and advice...and improves dramatically. Another misses out on some practices and doesn't follow all the advice, maybe drinks a bit on the weekends, and then doesn't improve. Is that the coach's fault? Every person I know who sincerely meditated with some effort...for only five years, had wonderful experiences. And that list includes perhaps 100 people from a broad variety of paths. And, by the way, there is strong medical evidence of the health benefits of meditation...verified by fully professional scientific studies. Just put in some more effort, real and concentrated effort..and you will indeed discover that there are inner spiritual experiences to be won through meditative practice. Just try harder.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit that I am not familiar with the subject in question, but please wait for other editors to contribute to the discussion before removing the content. Thanks- Reconsider !  07:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not really an academic discussion...this article is under attack by some very hateful extremists, akin to the KKK, neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and the like. The fact that Wikipedia allows them to post anything...in parity with credible facts is sheer lunacy. It is just exactly like letting neo-Nazis write an article about Judaism. And they play every single trolling tactic to try to get their way...including a pretense of obedience to rules.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source?
We have this text in the article. Is the source proved a "reliable source"?


 * In 2007, Sri Chinmoy was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who were earlier given Chinmoy's own U Thant Peace Award.

Are tabloid newspapers considered a reliable source?

It is well known that such newspapers print sensational attention-getting stories, often without an attempt to verify them or seek a balanced view. If content in this article from such sources were removed, how much controversy would remain? 2010Theresa (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the standard of some articles is more a Celebrity Gossip, it should not be use in here. Peace-maker111 (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There Is No Controversy, Never Has Been
The "controversy" about Sri Chinmoy has been created by a small number of people, who hate him for no apparent reason. The internet is victim of these "trolls" - who enjoyed vilifying people for whatever their motivations. There is no more evidence that Sri Chinmoy did anything wrong, then there is for any other innocent person on the planet. The fact that a great deal of fraud has been exposed about the so-called anti-cult movement and that this "controversy" still exists on this board is reprehensible.

Here are some links that explain these kinds of practices:

Internet Trolls:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

+++

flame baiting:

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

+++++++++

I have been stalked on the internet by members of the anti-cult movement. I have never heard of anyone from the Sri Chinmoy Centre doing anything close to that. I even met an old friend from high school, she became a fundamentalist Christian. She told me directly that she went online, creating false identities in order to convert people from being pagans. On Wikipedia, someone on here sent me a false message, supposedly from an administrator of Wikipedia, warning me or some such thing. That person, on their profile, indicated that they were a fundamentalist Christian. As far as the book goes, I would love to see her sources. If I were in the Sri Chinmoy Centre, I would immediately proceed with a libel suit. One of the problems on here, is that those folks are very spiritual. And they simply ignore mud being thrown on them. I probably should learn from that and not bother doing what I am doing. But that is why these allegations get spread...because they are busy praying and meditating and don't want to be bothered by the courts. They know very well that the real "Supreme" court...that of God's Justice, is enough to punish sinners for their criminal behavior. If you want to do the research, then do the research. See how many of the critics of Sri Chinmoy have been diagnosed with severe mental health problems. Rick Ross, the leader of the anti-cult movement was himself declared by someone in law enforcement to be quite seriously disturbed and in need of mental health treatment. Folks, these critics are deeply disturbed people. They do not deserve your attention. And please note, that the day after I did an edit on the site, they are right back, and attacking again. They have the behavior of stalkers, not concerned academics.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

About Sri Chinmoy banning books of Sri Aurobindo... Well, he even lived in the Aurobindo asram, he even wrote the famous long poem about the birthday of Sri Aurobindo. Just check it out at http://www.radiosrichinmoy.org/radio/73 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.55.174 (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments about how Sri Chinmoy thought of himself and how he taught his students about that, must be viewed through the eyes of Hinduism. In Hinduism, everyone within is God Himself. So, when a Hindu saint says that he has united with God, it is not a claim unto himself. It is in the tradition that many saints, from many different paths have done the very same thing and that every single human being on earth has the potential to do the same. Indeed, the Sanskrit saying goes, Tat Twam Asi ("that thou art") - or, more informally "you are God." So, when an Indian saint says "I am God," he not only means that he is God, but that everyone else is as well...at least, potentially. To take these kinds of statements and misconstrue them as being part of some dark power play is an incredible misread of the Hindu theology behind them. Avatar means "incarnation of." One can read this as, say, Babe Ruth was "an incarnation of baseball talent." It has that meaning, generally. Spiritually it conveys something much beyond that. It conveys the achievement of a great spiritual height. But, again, that must be construed relative to its place in the Hindu theological hierarchy of spiritual states.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is under continual attack by a member or members of the so-called anti-cult movement. They continually remove material that does not support their position, and try to bias the article against Sri Chinmoy, despire overwhelming support of him by a vast range of prominent world figures, including no less than archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev who nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007!!! Allegations against Sri Chinmoy are made by extremists, akin to people like neo-Nazis, the KKK, Holocaust deniers and the like. There are no reputable sources for criticism of Sri Chinmoy. There are no articles by professional psychologists or theologians, only a few completely unsubstantiated claims by disgruntled ex-members. This is a smear campaign, not an expression of truth.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I was in the Sri Chinmoy Center for a significant period of time. The recent allegations of Sri Chinmoys sexual abuse are absolutely true. I am familiar with the girls involved and their stories. Almost everybody who knows these girls and is familiar with their stories believes they are telling the truth. They have all spent decades of their lives in this Center, and were all well respected within the Center. Over the years other women have come forth and revealed Chinmoys private sexcapades, and sexual abuse. The recent coming forth of girls in the San Francisco Center was generated by these girls realizations that they were not alone and that their friends had suffered the same, and this gave them the courage and clarity to step out from under Chinmoys thumb and to reveal their very painful story's.  Chinmoy was not anything like he claimed to be; namely God in human form, the Avatar of the Age, and the most significant soul in millennia to descend to earth. Unless we are expected to believe that the Truth involves sexual abuse and manipulation. Which it clearly does not. This man needs to be shown for what he was. A Charlatan. A Manipulator. A Narcissist, and a false Guru who committed crimes against many of those who followed him and harmed their lives, for his own sexual gratification and delusional self aggrandizement. These cowardly people who sit at their computers and slander these girls, and disregard the immense effort and time that they have put into following Sri Chinmoy,  I consider to be accomplices after the fact. They do their best to run these girls names into the ground, and discredit everything they say. And the reason they do this is because they are misguided religious fanatics. The truth about Chinmoy needs to be made public. These girls need to have their stories recognized and respected. I know that there are many girls in the Sri Chinmoy Center now who have endured exactly what these girls have endured, and much much more. This is known because some have confessed to others, privately, that it has and they have told and named many of the girls involved. But for some reason they could not find the strength or rationale to leave. These are the girls who I feel most sorry for. They have been abused and they are too scared to acknowledge it or accept it, and so their life drains away as they carry around with them these horrible secrets. The veneer of Chinmoys superlative persona needs to be cracked and broken so that people are able to see him for what he truly is, and so that people can come forth and acknowledge what has happened to them at his hands and a process of healing can begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgd99 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I find some of the comments here very disturbing. It is a terrible shame that the Wikipedia discussion pages be used to spread serious slander. I do hope that they are cleared and future discussions can be in good faith.2010Theresa (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There usually is controversy about Spiritual Guru's. It has its place. However, given Sri Chinmoy is recently deceased, I think it is worth bearing in mind some general principles of project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons For example, I'm not sure how much weight wikipedia should give to unsubstantiated allegations mentioned in Tabloid newspapers. I slightly rewrote controversy section to make more NPOV. Canon2212 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

POV edits
This article's longtime edit wars do not seem to be waning in favor of a resolution at this time. I want to invite all and any editors to please comment on this Talk page prior to making edits such as mass removal of controversial statements, and removal of tags ,. There needs to be consensus between editors on the talk page prior to removing such material. Removing policy tags constitutes vandalism. Again, please comment here if you think the tags or controversial content should be changed or removed so we can come to a consensus. -Fendersmasher (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, for clarity, is "Fendersmasher" an official of Wikipedia? Because the tone seems to suggest that. If Fendersmasher is not an offical of Wikipedia, but merely just another person posting, I would like that specified as such. Thank you for your time. Respectfully,

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While this page is under full protection I want to state some proposed edits, beginning with removing the Kind Words and Teachings sections (see comments in the Kind Words section of this page) to make this article read with a more neutral point of view. For example, saying Chinmoy was "prolific" and using similar descriptions is opinion and not fact. Most of the content given in Chinmoy's biography section is original research and should not be included unless it comes from a verifiable source with citations. I am going to hold to that standard when editing the article in the future. If the article is under protection in the future, these will suffice as recommendations to WP admins for making edits, provided different conclusions are not arrived at by consensus with other editors. -Fendersmasher (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. the word “prolific: I’m not so sure that the use of this specific word in this article is an expression of opinion and not a statement of fact. The use of the word “prolific” (i.e. producing something in large quantities or with great frequency), I think, aptly describes Sri Chinmoy’s work in the fields of music, art, poetry, etc. based on facts. I would think that, as this article continues to grow, more and more reliable sources would inevitably verify those facts.
 * —Celicabeach (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, sir. Someone who has painted thousands of paintings and published hundreds of books is indeed prolific, as defined by the meaning of the word. Would it not be fair to say that Teddy Roosevelt, who published 37 books (I believe the figure is correct) was a prolific writer? To not be allowed to use that word, seems like censorship, not obedience to an academic standard of the presentation of facts. His paintings have been exhibited in public, thousands of them, with accompanying video. That is proof. And, his books can be bought, from various sources...and hundreds of them. That is proof that they exist.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the word is appropriate as a statement of fact (see WP:Avoid_peacock_terms). What Chinmoy has accomplished speaks for itself, and as of the most recent revision of the article, his accomplishments as an author and musician are not yet reliably verified. -Fendersmasher (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "prolific" is a peacock term. It's not necessarily flattering to be called prolific: one can argue that producing fewer works of higher quality is a better use of talent - I know that the composer Bohuslav Martinů was accused of this. But being prolific and pushing yourself beyond reasonable limits appears to have been a central tenet of Chinmoy's teachings, so I think it's important to refer to it. It's true that we don't yet have an independent source that states "I have counted his works and he wrote ", but the self-published statements to this effect have been accepted and repeated by some of the reliable sources, and I've not found any that seriously dispute them - have you? Incidentally, an Amazon.com search lists 336 books authored by him (but there are many duplicates) and this earlier version of the article lists 75. // So even if the real totals don't approach those claimed, the available evidence does support the important concept that he produced lots of stuff. If you accept the above argument, then I think it's reasonable to say something like "he was a prolific author, composer and artist" in the lead because that paragraph should be "a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic", per WP:LEAD. (The lead needs more work in this regard.) —S MALL  JIM   16:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree this is excessive debate about one word and I'm not going to be inflexible about it. In regards to Chinmoy's actual achievements, I won't dispute what Amazon catalogs, but I think that the numbers of works he's touted to have produced do need more scrutinizing than reliable sources not challenging what's been said about him or what he's said. If one totals all the works his organization's claimed he has produced in ==Artistic Pursuits==, it would be 336,500 works, or roughly 16 per day since he was 20. The New York Times reported that he claimed to have drawn 16 million peace birds in his lifetime, which would amount to roughly 861 drawings per day. These are just the artistic works produced. Forgive me if I'm getting sidetracked, but I think these claims illustrate that more reliable scrutiny is needed to accurately define how prolific he was. -Fendersmasher (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's been no activity for over a week. While I'd hoped to find more independent sources attesting to his artistic works, I don't think ==Artistic Pursuits== needs omission of the claims as they seem notable. I'd consider that item closed. -Fendersmasher (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "In the nineteen-nineties Chinmoy made it a requirement for his male disciples to have finished at the very least a half-marathon (13.1 miles)."

I was a male disciple throughout the nineties, I do not recall this. However around 2000-2005 there was a certain pressure to join the august marathon for all his disciples, male and female. (full marathon).

Every spiritual teacher includes discipline. There are Zen monks in Japan who have been running marathons as part of their discipline since, I believe about 600 AD. Here is the link:

Marathon Monks of Mount Hiei

http://www.runpunxsyrun.org/tendaimonks.html

Hindu ashrams have been around for thousands of years. The traditional ashram discipline was far, far, far more severe than anything Sri Chinmoy ever asked from his disciples. The standard practice of Hatha Yoga in those monastic communities including arduous Yoga exercises, fasting one day a week (often much more) and disciplines that would make a Navy Seal cringe. Sri Chinmoy not only was trying to modernize the ashram disciplines, but make them easier and gentler for his disciples...and also, out of respect for the West, trying to use Western exercises to do so. No good deed goes unpunished. His nobility in trying to respect America in every possible way, including using Western exercises instead of Hatha Yoga, is now used to throw more mud on his name. This is only one of many examples of his nobility and, indeed, of his conscious and overt respect for America. But if you hate, you can meet a saint and think he is a monster. Hate knows no bounds and will not be convinced by a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Yes, he encouraged disciples to do two things with athletics. First, use them to simply keep in shape for health. And, second, use as a vehicle to transcend one's limitations. There is no difference between that and what any athlete wants to do - aspire to do their best. That is all it was about. Aspiring to do one's best. And that is now wrong too? This is lunacy to criticize these things. And the disciples were encouraged, not required. Yes, I was a student, but only for a year. I remember a very nice guy, who happened to be fat and did not do a single thing. Sri Chinmoy loved him. The kind of crazy picture these criticisms are trying to present are just lunacy...sheer and utter lunacy. Sure, in an ashram, you are supposed to be disciplined. Trappist monks wake up at 3AM. They take vows of silence. They, traditionally have been vegetarian, if not vegan. Discipline is the standard in all monasteries. And in Sri Chinmoy's it was somewhere in the middle...most monasteries ask far, far, far more austerity from its members.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "In the early nineteen-nineties Ghose banned all his disciples from reading any of the works of Sri Aurobindo.[citation needed] This was controversial, "

No, he did not put such a ban to all disciples. He once said if you want you can read ´Life Divine´, that will be enough. (I am not sure of the title, he said one book, I think it was ´Life Divine´). Sri Aurobindo´s books were sold at the "Circus side show" by Sri Chinmoy´s disciples, to his disciples, in his presence, twice a year, also in the nineties.

Quote: "Disciples were also forbidden to bring any writings other than Ghose's to the playground in Jamaica[citation needed], Queens, where he held court, often at great length. This led to an amusing incident occurring in 1994 when a group of disciples wanted to perform a play about Sri Aurobindo during the celebrations of Ghose's birthday, coincidentally after a few similar plays about Aurobindo. Initially Ghose refused permission but had to perform a volte-face when it was pointed out that he..."

Yes, other writings were "banned", but I do not recall the amusing incident, I was definitely there at that time. All the plays performed there were written by Sri Chinmoy, so why was that a surprise to him? Vivvvvek (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a ludicrous interpretation of what is standard monastic practice, across many disciplines, both in Hinduism as well as in Judeo-Christian monasticism. And that is basically this - if you are studying one path, then study that path. Karate teachers who teach Tae Kwon Do, don't allow their students (in the beginning) to study Kung Fu...because the mixing of the disciplines becomes confusing. Over and over and over again in Sri Chinmoy's writings, he praises all the major religious paths. He quotes from Hazrat Inayat Khan, a Sufi (Islam) that he respected. He quotes from Hakuin, a prominent Zen Master, he overtly praises Christianity and Judaism. And not once or twice, but over and over and over again. These comments above are trying to suggest that he is trying to deny the validity of other paths. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Examine his writings. Examine "Eastern Light for the Western Mind," these allegations are simply false. They are designed to throw mud on him and have no basis in fact.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Vivvvvek said:

Quote: "In the early nineteen-nineties Ghose banned all his disciples from reading any of the works of Sri Aurobindo.[citation needed] This was controversial, "

No, he did not put such a ban to all disciples. He once said if you want you can read ´Life Divine´, that will be enough. (I am not sure of the title, he said one book, I think it was ´Life Divine´). Sri Aurobindo´s books were sold at the "Circus side show" by Sri Chinmoy´s disciples, to his disciples, in his presence, twice a year, also in the nineties.

Quote: "Disciples were also forbidden to bring any writings other than Ghose's to the playground in Jamaica[citation needed], Queens, where he held court, often at great length. This led to an amusing incident occurring in 1994 when a group of disciples wanted to perform a play about Sri Aurobindo during the celebrations of Ghose's birthday, coincidentally after a few similar plays about Aurobindo. Initially Ghose refused permission but had to perform a volte-face when it was pointed out that he..."

Yes, other writings were "banned", but I do not recall the amusing incident, I was definitely there at that time. All the plays performed there were written by Sri Chinmoy, so why was that a surprise to him? Vivvvvek (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I was told by a very well respected senior disciple (my local centre leader) that Chinmoy had instructed all disciples not to read any of Aurobindo's works. Both I and the senior disciple were admirers and readers of Aurobindo. The instruction was the official line and was issued at some point between 1991 and 1994. At any rate, I take your point. Perhaps the rule was made and then rescinded at a later point in the nineties? I find it difficult to believe that my senior disciple would have made a mistake since he was very intelligent and, as an Aurobindo-reader, the rule concerned him directly.

First of all, plenty of people in the Centre, got plenty of things very very wrong. And that is not just a phenomena of the Sri Chinmoy Centre, but of every monastic community...and, indeed, every institution.

Sri Aurobindo's path is more "mind-oriented." It fits better in India, where secular academic education has not become the false god that it is in America, where people worship getting a college degree, instead of worshiping God...so that they can get a job on Wall Street and learn how to steal from widows. Sri Chinmoy was simply trying to encourage people to be more of the heart, of compassion and caring and kindness, and less academic and rigid. That is all. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. He quotes Sri Aurobindo! I believe in Eastern Light For the Western Mind! He respected him as an illumined saint!

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Again, I got this from my very well respected senior disciple. The bit about the Aurobindo play concerns a disciple or group of disciples who had prepared a play by Aurobindo for performance at the celebrations. Unfortunately they didn't confirm its suitability with Chinmoy beforehand. When they arrived and made their plan known to him they were refused permission to perform it on the grounds that only Chinmoy works could be read or performed at the court, so all their preparation was wasted. Later on another group wanted to perform a different sort of Aurobindo play - "The Descent of the Blue". When told of this Chinmoy refused them permission too, saying "No Aurobindo plays", presumably thinking it was a play by Aurobindo. It was then pointed out by the group that it was actually Chinmoy's own Aurobindo play and he gave way. I've edited the passage in the article slightly to make it a bit clearer. Chotochele (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I request that the Wikipedia editors remove the following two sentences from the Teachings section as they break Wikipedia core content policies. 'In 1992, Ghose made it a strict requirement for his disciples to meditate on this photograph every morning at 6 a.m. for at least thirty minutes, thereby tightening the somewhat more relaxed arrangement that had previously been in place. He also requested that each disciple perform daily at least four hours of approved activities, for example prayer and meditation, running, singing of Ghose's songs, reading of Ghose's writings, or promotion of Ghose and his organization.' While the 6am meditation is well known and verifiable, as are activities such as prayer and meditation, running, singing and reading, the 'requirements' specified of 30 minutes of meditation, and 'at least four hours of approved activities', are not, and constitute unverified, original research. I was a member of the Sri Chinmoy Centre for 12 years and in this time, these specific 'requirements' were never expected of me, nor have I read them in Sri Chinmoy's writings. These entries are not suitable as encyclopedic content. Also, the use of words such as 'strict' and 'relaxed' do not represent a neutral point of view. 2010Theresa (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on your suggestions Theresa, I have removed POV wording and unsourced material. Please use your editing axe as you feel is appropriate. --BwB (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

External links did not meet Wikipedia guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link Added official site, removed links to Yahoo group messages and others of peripheral use. Since there is dispute over number of books it makes sense to have www.srichinmoylibrary.com as link which publishes online the Guru's books. Hurin333 (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the following content removed as non neutral POV. In 'In the West' section - 'In 2000, Santana discussed Sri Chinmoy as being "vindictive" towards the end of their relationship.' and under 'Controversy' section - 'Other Issues When rocker Carlos Santana, a former follower, parted ways with Chinmoy in 2000, he told Rolling Stone Magazine that the guru was "vindictive" and "told all my friends not to call me ever again, because I was to drown in a dark sea of ignorance for leaving him”'. Apart from being incorrect, as Carlos Santana parted ways with Sri Chinmoy in the early 80s and not in 2000, per his biography, this material constitutes gossip and not encyclopedic material. Plus Carlos Santana had said many positive things about Sri Chinmoy which are not included. If the 'Kind Words' section previously in this article could be removed as not neutral, then this material quoted here should also be removed. Otherwise, I will understand that I may add quotes of people's opinions to the article. 2010Theresa (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The material contained in the second half of the paragraph under 'Accusations of sexual misconduct', starting with 'In 2009', is not supported by the cited reference at the end of the paragraph. The cited reference does not contain any details about alleged misconduct. By Wikipedia precedents relating to unsourced non neutral material, it should be removed. 2010Theresa (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding "Otherwise, I will understand that I may add quotes of people's opinions to the article.", of course you can add any relevant quotes from notable people about Chinmoy, if they are properly sourced. Likewise quotes from the rocker cannot be removed. --Demetrioscz (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

RickRoss.com
Please let me explain why I removed the link to rickross.com. It has nothing to do with the link being critical.

RickRoss.com hosts articles taken from multiple newspapers and other reports which violate the copyrights of the original publisher. This means that we cannot link to his site, per WP:EL. Not linking to sites violation copyright is a hard rule and such links can't even be included even by consensus. Of course, the original source articles can be used as references to add critical material to the article, though without links to rickross.com, just with a standard citation.

In any case, in general we should not link to polemical anti-cult sites directly, but rather use their sources to include notable criticism in the article. This is especially true when the site is self-published, as Rick Ross's is. Any of his books published by an independent publisher may of course be cited. Yworo (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. --Demetrioscz (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

More Info on What Sri Chinmoy Did
This article is quite low on information about activities of Sri Chinmoy. To give one example, there is passing reference to controversy over 7,000lb lift but nothing about other documented lifts and experience of people being lifted. For example, http://www.inspiration-lifts.org/ gives many references which would be worth including in this article.

Since Sri Chinmoy was nominated for Nobel Peace Prize, it would benefit to have more on peace activities, and programs like "Lifting Up the World With a Oneness Heart - http://www.newsweek.com/2007/10/29/are-miracles-real.html. There could be mention of how Sri Chinmoy's writings and poetry have been used by mainstream society e.g. Poetry read at 9/11 memorial http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/42451/ - books like America The Beautiful. Canon2212 (talk)

I added new sections Weightlifting, United Nations with good referenced sources. Poetry section look like copied blurb from a book so rewrote with some references. Tried to make more details about life of Sri Chinmoy. Canon2212 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

White keys of piano
I have inserted into the article the "white keys" refinement concerning piano and pipe organ improvisation style of Sri Chinmoy. Just look at any video record of Chinmoy's improvisation to get an evidence that Chinmoy uses ALWAYS white keys only while playing on piano or pipe organ, or,  generally speaking, on any piano similar instrument. http://www.srichinmoy.tv/tv/318. Speaking more exactly, Chinmoy does use sometimes black piano keys but in cases of simplest single-voice melodies. It looks like that Chinmpoy's piano techniques level is somewhere before a beginner level. Do not believe? Just seat at the piano and try! Expressively and rhythmically hit  any white keys only, carefully avoiding  black ones. If you are able to do it, several hours later humanity will have got one soulful musician more. Have fun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agafon005 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately my "white keys" remark has been undid by User:  Bigweeboy as "need a written reference for this". Of course I was looking for written references. And have not found. Why may we not consider numerous video records as the evidence if written evidence not found? --Agafon005 (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

White keys - you may be right, but what is the point you are making? I agree that it has been taken away. If you see him playing harmonium (keyboard instrument) you will see that he uses the black keys a lot, more than usual to the western viewer. Vivvvvek (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a good question, Vivvvvek. Where do I begin? Unfortunately I do not know anything about your personal background in theory of music. So, let my explanation is addressed to everybody who reads this “White keys of piano” section, including those who do not have any knowledge in theory of music. I will have to use some musical terms such as Octave, Diatonic scale, Tonality, Sharp (music) and Flat (music).

Let me start.

1. Each octave of the piano is represented by 12 musical notes extracted by its white and black keys. They have following names
 * C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B.
 * A piano keyboard covers several octaves, so its black and white keys names are:
 * A, A#, B, C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B, C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B, B, C ... and so on.
 * Please, note that each name of black key has the "#" symbol (Sharp (music)) within its name. I could use the Flat (music) symbol instead of the # symbol, but it is not so principally in this explanation. By the way, if we play on white keys of piano we use only seven notes from each octave such as C, D, E, F, G, A, B. If we play on black keys we use the rest of the set - C#, D#, F#, G#, A#.

2. Usually, any particular musical composition (this statement is applicable for classical music, too) does not use all 12 notes from each octave. Very often only a limited set with different 7 notes is used. Why seven? There is no simple explanation. We may consider it as the fact coming from multi century western musical tradition and evolution. For more details you may look into the Diatonic scale article.

Often we can see that white and black keys are used together by a musician within the same composition. But if we are investigating the set of notes used in any composition we see that the number of different notes names is constant and equal seven. It means that some white keys are not used at all within the play if black keys are used. Please, see the Tonality article for details.

What are these seven notes? We may count twelve different sets of these 7 notes. Several sets are represented here:
 * 1. C, D, E, F, G, A, B.
 * 2. C#, D#, E#, F#, G#, A#, B# = C#, D#, F, F#, G#, A#, C
 * 3. C##, D##, E##, F##, G##, A##, B## = D, E, F#, G, A, B, C#
 * 4. an so on

What happens if a musician playing a composition, for example, in tonality (C, D, E, F, G, A, B) is touching occasionally a key not included into this set, for example C# key. It will sound as an obvious mistake of maestro. What happens if some other (outside for this set) keys are touched, for example: C#, D#, F#, G#, A#, too? The composition will not sound as music at all. It will sound as a cacophony. So, this is a significant thing - to stay within selected seven notes set (to stay within selected Tonality).

What happens if a maestro playing a composition in a tonality (C, D, E, F, G, A, B, for example) will touch occasionally any keys from the same set. This case will not be accepted as a rough mistake. It can be considered even as a musical improvisation of maestro. By some people, at least.

I guess it is clear enough that it is very important to stay within the same tonality while playing a musical composition. So, concerning piano, what tonality is the simplest one to stay within? The answer is obvious. This tonality is with C, D, E, F, G, A, B set - the set of all white keys without an exception. So, if somebody expressively and rhythmically will hit different WHITE keys only, carefully avoiding touching black ones, this “musical action” can be considered by some people even as a music, because it does have the most significant attribute of a musical composition - a tonality. That is what maestro Chinmoy is using almost always while playing on piano or piano similar instruments such as a pipe organ and an electronic piano.

Vivvvvek, you are writing "If you see him playing harmonium (keyboard instrument) you will see that he uses the black keys a lot". Here I have to repeat the following. Speaking more exactly, maestro Chinmoy does use sometimes black piano keys but in cases of simplest single-voice melodies. What would be a reason to do it? I guess to adjust the musical support to his vocal range. Why does he use black keys while he is NOT singing? I guess because he has trained himself to use them to support his singing initially, and then there was no significant reason to play it in another tonality. The most easy way is to stay within initial trained variant used in any case - with / without singing, I suppose. --Agafon005 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing that you guys are saying or trying to say, matters, if it has not been said by reliable sources. Please see WP:RS. Using white keys only is like using only a few letters of the alphabet. The music or writing you produce wont be as good as if all the keys or letters were used. But again, our arguments dont matter and cannot be included in the article, unless a reliable source has mentioned it specifically. This is a basic rule that ever editor here should know. --Demetrioscz (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)