Talk:Sri Chinmoy/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Copyright Question

  • What is the copyright status of the poem on this article's main page? Since the author was born in 1931, it's not free for the taking, unless he's specifically authorized that use of his work. -Colin Kimbrell 01:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- I've exchanged email with someone at Sri Chinmoy Centre who is involved in their web publishing. I believe a permission will soon be emailed to permissions@wikimedia.org. There seems to be goodwill to do this, and I got a strong sense that a copyright complaint is unlikely. I'm removing the Copyvio banner with the expectation that this matter will soon be resolved, and that the banner is overkill. I will monitor and post a follow-up. Thank you. --Fencingchamp 12:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of the copyright issue, I think that a poem is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Of course, there should be a "Beliefs and practices" section, but not in this way. Andries 22:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Update Jan-1-2007: The Columbia Encyclopedia describes Sri Chinmoy as a "mystic and poet," so it's appropriate to discuss his poetic works. Excerpts from his writings have been released under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) on a page located here. The Wiki article does not contain any copyright violations. Fencingchamp 03:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To Avoid Revert War

To Fencingchamp: I admit, that the tabloids aren't the most credible sources ;). So I tried to provide more serious published material. To further clarify my intent, im not up to paint Sri Chinmoy black but the criticism exist and cannot be reduced to some hate group. The article shouldn't state his guilt or innocence. It should inform about the fact that the issues have been raised. (62.168.125.215 15:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Ex disciples

To find all the information you need, look for the huge amount of ex disciples and their stories. You'll find all sort of things... [defamation removed Fencingchamp 15:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)] It's not just one story, neither two. It's plenty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.169.217 (talk • contribs)

+++

These are vicious and unsubstantiated allegations.

Wiki9898zzz 23:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC) +++

If Sri Chinmoy is the monster the ex-disciples paint him to be, why, in 40 years in the West have there been no criminal charges pressed? Why does the United Nations and the U.S. Congress allow him to hold meditations at their very facilities? People can make all the claims they want, but where are the affidavits? There are none.

Why have these ex-disciples not come forward and put their views down in an affidavit? Because they would go to jail. Just because it is easy and fun to try and criticize and pull others down, doesn't mean the rumors are true. To this day people doubt Shakespeare's authorship of his plays, though any serious historian knows that there are volumes and volumes of direct documentation that he, in fact, wrote all the plays. To this day people believe that in Columbus's time that the people believed the world was flat. Take any course in the history of science and this will be proved ludicrous. It was been know since the Greeks, and probably before, that the world was round. Yet, rumors become truth, when not well researched.

If you truly believe Sri Chinmoy is a fraud, do you own independent research and you will not find any documentation of any fraud or abuse. Why? Because, however much our jaded minds refuse to believe it, some people are sincere.

People should understand this, and very clearly. Libel is a crime. Defaming another's reputation is a crime. One can't merely make claims because you dislike someone. You must prove your allegation or you are guilty of a crime.

The so-called "anti-cult" movement supports kidnapping people in order to "convince" them. These people's word is not some kind of "counter-balancing" equality in the search of truth. It is extremely biased testimony of people who are often involved in criminal kidnappings in order to "convert" people.

Wiki9898zzz 16:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

These disciples have come forward. But: It isn't illegal for a cult leader to preach abstinence and fuck get laid with his adult female fans. At most, a civil lawsuit would make sense if coercion was involved. (Of course, these ladies would risk to be called "sluts" by Sri's attorneys).

It is illegal to posted unsubstantiated allegations. Your posts, even in this wikipedia article constitute libel and you should be prosecuted for it.


Wiki9898zzz 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Same for his bogus sports achievements. It isn't illegal to claim to be superhuman. --Tilman 16:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't illegal to be a Nazi either. Unless your actions violate laws. Your actions are part of a hate campaign. They constitute libel and probably violate harassment statutes as well. You should be prosecuted for these offenses against the laws of the United States.


Wiki9898zzz 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)



I have deleted a section which posted allegations about Sri Chinmoy's behavior. If you have references from credible sources which are critical of Sri Chinmoy, please present them, not undocumented accusations which amount to both character assassination and illegal libel. Can you reference an article from a respected psychological journal which declares Sri Chinmoy and his practices to be harmful? The reason I mention this is that professional journals, or even professional magazines like Psychology Today maintain standards of journalism which protect themselves from lawsuit. Therefore, they check facts. If you have criticism of Sri Chinmoy, do you have some from a respected source? From a university professor?

Wiki9898zzz 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete comments by others.
Criticism doesn't have to come from a university professor. --Tilman 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

+++

And so, you can't find criticism from a university professor or respected source.

You have reference Rick Ross as a source. Here is a website about his background:

http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/rr_convicted_felon.htm


Wiki9898zzz 23:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

+++



Yes, in a sense these disciples have come forward. But they are lying. Ok, if not an affidavit, then how about testimony under polygraph examination (lie detector)? They won't do this either...because their allegations are simply false. He did not sleep with his students. That is a lie. People just want to throw mud on everything, just want to drag everyone down to their own miserably depressing level.

I am sorry if people refuse to believe in transcending physical limits, but his weightlifting events are not stunts (by the way, an Indian student of Yoga in the 1920's did incredible physical feats as well and his efforts were published in the papers of the day. Mahatma Gandhi, by the way had an appendectomy without anesthetic, remained conscious the whole time and joked with friends while the operation was going on. That is also documented).

The weightlifting has been done in public places, and videotaped, often with public officials looking on. The documentation is there, the tapes (and photographs) can be analyzed for fraud. There is none.

The movement to discredit Sri Chinmoy is often promoted by fundamentalist Christian groups who do not believe that any group outside of Christianity is a legitimate religion (and, they don't even believe that some other Christians are legitimate either). Allowing these kinds of extreme people to make statements is like allowing Nazis to argue for the lynching of African-Americans.

As far as ex-students are concerned, let them take a polygraph and assert their testimony. These are consciously disgruntled people, with an ax to grind. They tried to find truth and they did not have the strength to persevere in that discipline. This is hardly unique to Sri Chinmoy's path. People have been leaving monasteries for centuries and then blaming the monastic life for everything under the sun...simply because they did not have the strength to persevere in the disciplines. That spiritual topic is discussed broadly in all monastic traditions, not just on Sri Chinmoy's path.

No, people have fundamentally gotten this wrong. This is not some crazy Jim Jones character. This is a traditional Hindu monastic path; from a traditional which dates back at least 4000 years. That is the path that produced Mahatma Gandhi and the Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore. There is reason that it produced them, there is a reason that meditation works and its expression is a pure benefit to society.

Wiki9898zzz 04:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: the deleted comment.

I've been polite here. I used the f-word in a general meaning, that it isn't illegal to "f" adult followers, that is all. It may be sleazy, but not illegal. I did not say "f you" or "f person XY". But to make you happy, I'll strike it and put another word. I did not post defamatory comments, I did not bully other editors. I did, however, make statements that include a different opinion as yours.

You used the "f" word because it is designed to inflame emotions. That is all you can do, since you have no proof of anything. Creating a climate of hatred against someone is an illegal act of harassment and unsubstantiated claims are illegal acts of libel.

Wiki9898zzz 15:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A polygraph is not a scientific instrument. --Tilman 16:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, polygraphs are used by corporations all over the world and thousands and thousands of institutions.

Wiki9898zzz 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't make them scientific. --Tilman 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If the weight lifting was done in public and is shown on video, provide me an address where I can download it. --Tilman 16:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tapes of these events are available through the Sri Chinmoy Centre and other avenues as well. Professional forensic techniques can verify that these videos and DVD's do not include doctoring of the images.

I have seen in your posts that you are opposed to Scientology. Personally, I think they are a little wacky myself. However, I have met a bunch of them who are not only very nice people, but used the techniques to get off of drugs and solve other problems. So, perhaps I don't know everything. I do not believe that you have truly examined the evidence, personally, about Sri Chinmoy. If you do, I do not think that you will find that this is a cult. Why is the U.S Congress and the United Nations letting him conduct meditations in their facilities if he is such a monster? Do you not think they have security people capable of doing background checks?

Wiki9898zzz 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is not what "can" be verified. The question is whether it has ever been verified. At least one witness has come forward that there has been some doctoring. --Tilman 08:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

-Pardon me for intruding here. I believe that if there is a significant amount of SUGGESTED abuse of power on the part of Sri Chinmoy, then that becomes a notable point of consideration in a fair and unbiased biographical account of the man. If part of Sri Chinmoy's effect on the world has been to arouse suspicion and doubt concerning his objectives, methods and results, then that is worth mentioning. cheers

Your idea that a group of allegations mean something is necessarily there is the definition of a witchhunt! Lincoln was called a tyrant by the Southern racists, didn't make him one. Plenty of public figures have had every kind of mud thrown on them without one shred of it being true. Again, where is one allegation by a reputable source? Where? A million lies don't make one truth.

Wiki9898zzz 15:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Who says that there is a suggestion of abuse of power, other than that by a group dedicated in opposition to Eastern religion? They are not an unbiased source.

Sri Chinmoy meditates at the United Nations and US Congress. And he has done so at the UN for at least 20 years and at Congress for at least 10 years. Why have they not kicked him out? Do you think they don't run security checks. So those are two very powerful and very credible sources which completely refute your suggestions.

Wiki9898zzz 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

True Masters - Fake Masters

Let the truth be said. In this 21st century of ours, we have enough information on true masters and fake masters. It's amazing to see so many people still waste their time and follow these charlatains [defamation removed Fencingchamp 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)]. It could be understandable in the past, with the lack of informations. But come on guys. It's more than time to wake up. It's been a long time now since the 60's and 70's. There is no easy path. Self knowledge is the hardest path of all. If you can't take it, go practice something else, but don't think you'll know yourself by taking drugs and having sex, self knowledge is not a party. I'm sorry. It just won't happened without self effort and sacrifice. The words of one charlatain compared with the words of all the real masters is like comparing a spark with the sun. This is not an opinion. Go ahead, study all the great spiritual classics of humanity, such as the Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, Upanishads, Puranas, Mahabharata, Yogasutras, The tibetan book of the dead, Buddha's gospel, not to mention the Bible and Coran, and these books will confirm what true masters state, such as Krishna, Buddha, Lao-Tse, Nanak, Patanjali, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Abedananda, Ramana Maharishi, Trailanga swami, Nagendranath Baduri, Sri Yogananda, Sri Yukteswar, Morihei Ueshiba, not to mention western masters and saints. It's all there, the same truth, the same words, the same life-examples, in very similar practices. So please, give us all a break. Denying what is writen here is nonsense. "Only fools follow fools, bad Karma of disciple, even worse of socalled master".

Yogi. December 5th 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advaitananda (talk • contribs)

I'm missing your point. Sorry if I perceive your above paragraph like soapboxing. Are you suggesting a specific change be made to the article? Regarding "let the truth be said" — it's important to note that all content must be verifiable. Truth isn't enough. So if you have notable facts to include about Chinmoy and can cite references, go for it! --Ds13 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you've missed my point, I'll make it clearer, although I'm sure most people understood what I meant. I'm a man from the days when Truth was enough and the only sought thing. True Masters expose their teachings with their own acts, that's why there are so many great masters who never spoke a word. It is quite simple - do not preach that which you yourself cannot follow. Do not say "don't eat meat" and get caught eating chicken! Do not preach "be a celibate" and then have thousands of people stating that they had sex with you. I'm talking about real imaculate masters. The ones who their whole lives are impecable. Why waste your time trying to verify if all the many acusations are true or not? If they were only one or two allegations, but c'mon, this man had A LOT going on behing the scenes, and everyone knows about it. So, if my point is still not clear - let me put it down on words in a way you will understand ok? You're wasting your time following someone with loads of acusations.True masters are rare. Fake ones are in every corner, take India for instance. The land of true, rare masters, yet packed with charlatains. You have enough informations nowadays to follow anyone. See it for yourself. Is there any fault on the life of Ramakrishna? No one dares to say a thing. He was a saint from begining to end - and I'm not saying this because I'm a follower of his, cause I'm not. Go ahead an openly speak to any ex-disciples, and I'm sure you'll not miss the point anymore. I love the history of India and all it's legacy of great teachers. All I want is to help alert people to the fact that there are hundreds of misguiding people in the paths of spirituality. This kind of concern is well known in India, for they know the urge for alerting people better then anyone. There is much allegations and acusations going on concerning the man in discussion, and this is a great example and oportunity to recall the ancient legal concept of fumus bonis juris, the smoke of good judgement. There's A LOT of smoke, so there's a good, good chance that the fire is big.

Yogi wannabe. April 10th 2008.


Let's Maintain A High Standard

This article has suffered from the "Siegenthaler problem" in the past, though no one made a public stink about it. Also - as some critics of Wikipedia would be quick to note - when the article contained defamatory material it was scraped by a couple of spam sites which set the defamatory content in stone.

For this reason, and given Jimmy Wales' new directive on handling biographies of living persons more responsibly, I'm removing a couple of anonymous swipes which I don't believe can be justified through any reputable source. I've also rechecked whether sources previously linked to use tabloids and message boards as the basis for their criticism, and will revise accordingly.

Not for nothing, but Sri Chinmoy was invited to open the Parliament of the World's Religions with a silent meditation in 1993, and again in 2004. It's not because he was the only one who could find directions to the hall. I don't think he would have received awards from Hinduism Today, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (the Institute of Indian Culture), or the Jesse Owens Foundation if he were some shady character or bump on a log. Fencingchamp 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fencingchamp, I'm hardly an anti-cultist or even a critic of Sri Chinmoy. However, I have no respect for the way this entry is written, which in turn makes me suspicious of Chinmoy adherents. Even if, as we know, encyclopedia entries are hardly free from subjective assessments, this one is over the top. Wikipedia should not be the place for a glowing article written (and controlled) by one person, in what comes across as a PR spin. For instance, there is a difference between "His music is simple, spontaneous and appeals to a childlike spirit" and "his music can be described as simple, spontaneous and appealing to a childlike spirit" (the first being your original and revert, the second being my edit). The first is debatable, the second proposes. Please realize that propaganda does not necessarily put forth your agenda more effectively. In some cases it only hurts your cause. RKlassen 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag

For some reason the consistent removal of everything critical related to Sri Chinmoy has been performed on this article. Even a section detailing controversy or allegations would aid in making this article less of a "Sri Chinmoy is fantastic" piece. Nothing on the archived discussions has been resolved, and Fencingchamp is domineering the edits with poor logic and voluminous replies. "defamation removed" by Fencingchamp in the above comment? Completely absurd for him to get away with censoring the talk page. Needs to stop now. Blumpalump 08:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am amazed of this one-sided hagiography, about a guy who is basically a fraud and has been exposed for it multiple times. I recommend a look at [1]. --Tilman 13:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tilman is referencing Rick Ross. Here is a website critical of his background, which apparently includes a jewelry theft conviction, at least one expert questioning his mental stability, and states that Rick Ross holds no degrees in either psychology or theology.


http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/rr_convicted_felon.htm


Wiki9898zzz 23:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Chinmoy entry has a whole lot of undisguised interpretation! This sort of language simply should not be in an encyclopedic entry: "Browsing a list of Chinmoy's achievements, one might imagine that he operates from an ivory tower high above the plane of human suffering. But in fact, he spends most of his time with his students, helping them deal with everyday human problems like depression, illness, the loss of a loved one, and the struggle to remain cheerful in a world filled with hatred, bloodshed, and myriad natural disasters. His efforts to gain acceptance for his teachings make life easier for his students, lessening the likelihood that they will be subjected to religious discrimination." What is this? I would edit it except it seems that it would just be reverted. RKlassen 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone who does believe in Sri Chinmoy, I don't disagree that an encyclopedia entry should not be merely some glowing admiration of the man. But that does not mean the opposite is true. In the biography of Abraham Lincoln, you do not see unsubstantiated allegations of child molestation. And there is a reason why. Because no one has credible evidence, from respected sources that such an activity took place. Similarly, there is no evidence that Sri Chinmoy has done anything wrong. And, on the contrary, there is a host of evidence, that he is quite credible. I would imagine that if this article were not the conscious subject of attack by right wing fundamentalists, like the followers of Rick Ross, that those who do believe in Sri Chinmoy would not be involved in opposing this libelous attack. If the Sri Chinmoy Centre cared enough, they could easily prosecute these people for libel. I believe on occasion they have indeed done so (and successfully), but I think that they focus on the positive and not on every criticism suggested by an extremist. Again, if people want to weigh the pros and cons, let them reference respected psychological or theological journals and not just anyone who has an ax to grind.

Respectfully,

Wiki9898zzz 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Credibility

(note: Not sure of all the etiquette here, hope I am doing this correctly)

Sri Chinmoy has been conducting meditations at the United Nations since the 1970's and at the U.S. Congress since (I believe) the 1980's. I highly doubt he would have been doing so if he fit the bill of his critics.

The anti-cult movement has targeted truly extreme and frightening groups like Jim Jones and (IMHO) the Moonies (who I personally enountered in San Francisco and felt were scary). And the anti-cult movement has targeted just about every single group that does not fit into some ludicrous kind of Norman Rockwell painting. They have targeted Buddhism - across the board. They have targeted Hinduism - across the board. The have even targeted people people in the gay community and people with left wing political ideologies. Further, many of these people are consciously engaged in illegal kidnapping to enforce their own views. So, readily accepting criticism from these groups hardly seems an exercise in unbiased academic truth.

Further, Sri Chinmoy does not take fees. There are no communal living arrangements. He has been open about his finances, he lives in NYC, though he was offered a large piece of land in upstate New York (he refused because he felt that spirituality must not run away from society, but must work within it). His requires his students to be drug free, not drink, not smoke and to obey all the secular laws.

Wiki9898zzz 16:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues: Poetry, Religious Vilification Sites, Accuracy of Edit Summaries

I was once a sophmore myself, so I can understand the playfulness and good humor behind adding the Vogon poetry banner to articles about poets who are off the beaten path and for whom one feels no kinship or sympathy. But because the Sri Chinmoy article space is a frequent target of vandalism, it would be a kindness if the friskier members of the Wikipedia community could please restrain themselves from teasing minorities.

Among many aesthetes of good will, there is a gentleman's or gentlewoman's agreement that one writes about the poets whose work one finds worthwhile, and doesn't trample on those working in areas where one has little interest. Sri Chinmoy's specialised field is devotional poetry rooted in the Vaishnava tradition. Many of his finest English poems are translations from his original Bengali. This area is not everyone's cup of tea. If you're into Charles Bukowski, write about Bukowski! (or Douglas Adams).

Wikipedia is an effort at something resembling democracy, but it has no Bill of Rights. This means that majoritarian views, stereotypes, and prejudices can sometimes ride roughshod over the minority, if enlightened sysops do nothing to help.

I would like to assume good faith on the part of all editors. It's possible some new editors haven't read past discussions, or haven't fully made the connection between not directing readers to religious vilification material (unless the article is about religious vilification), and the problems (vis-à-vis slander and libel) this causes in biographies of living persons.

One important theme which did emerge in prior discussions is that a basic article on beliefs and practices should not include religious vilification material à la The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or similar material. This would (quite rightly) outrage members of the Wikipedia community who happen to be of a particular faith (Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, etc.). It would also tend to lower Wikipedia's reputation and standing among people who hope to find here high quality information unsullied by hatred or prejudice.

I would caution against using RickRoss.com, since an in-depth examination of the site shows that it contains much anonymous or poorly sourced material, including gross defamation, coarse language, and strong sexual content - what might be generically described as "hate material." Using such material in biographies of living persons is exactly the kind of irresponsible editing that Jimbo Wales has warned against as placing Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Adding links to RickRoss.com seems to encourage vandals to cut and paste anonymous rants from that site randomly into the Wikipedia article - surely not a desirable outcome.

Also, where some editors have removed links to the Ross site, to reinstate the link with an "rvv" (revert vandalism) edit summary is inappropriate, since the removers would appear to have been acting in good faith.

Thanks to all editors for their contributions. This is a research-oriented article still in progress. For over 3 years, the Sri Chinmoy article has been little more than a stub, and has been subject to frequent drive-by shootings (which continue to this day). The new, detailed article is the product of much effort, and is a measured response to past problems. I hope editors (and sysops) understand that this article space has suffered from the "Seigenthaler problem," and that defamatory versions have been scraped from Wikipedia by spam sites and set in stone. No one has complained about this or written any outside articles saying that Wikipedia is bad. Rather, there has been an effort to raise consciousness about the relevant issues, and to contribute a detailed, accurate article covering beliefs, practices, lifestyle, artistic works, and historical context. In other words, those unhappy with the continuing problem of defamation are working within Wikipedia to address it. Surely that's the way it's supposed to be.

It seems unfair to demand immediate perfection from the new, detailed article. Please give it a chance to develop. I believe the footnotes, which are now about 2/3 done - and are beginning to be added - will support the accuracy of the body of the text.

I believe most Wikipedians are intelligent people of good will who also appreciate the value of sweat equity. And when you see what people trying to do serious scholarship in the Sri Chinmoy article space have to put up with, it's not surprising they sometimes get a bit defensive. :-) Fencingchamp 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rick Ross is a well known cult expert, who is frequently quoted by the mainstream media. His site is mostly newspaper articles about the topics he is an expert on. These are on-topic here - Sri Chinmoy is the super-human that he and his followers are trying to make him look. --Tilman 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

+++ sorry to interject this...but this website references Rick Ross's involvement in such kidnappings.


http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/rr_convicted_felon.htm

Wiki9898zzz 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

+++

While I have no direct knowledge of Rick Ross being directly involved in illegal kidnappings regarding so-called "deprogramming," my best recollection is that he was connected with some groups who had some links to these acts. The extreme people in the the "anti-cult" movement, in this regard are like members of the Klan. They may get up and say that they are promoting the rights of working people, but behind the scenes they are responsible for beatings and worse. I think it is reasonable to make some connection between this kind of "anti-cult" activity being a front for an organization for behind the scenes illegal acts. It this kind of irresponsible hatred that comes up with these crazy notions about Sri Chinmoy being disreputable. Again, it is like taking testimony from the Klan or Nazis. If some credible theologian, from a university, wants to make negative statements about Sri Chinmoy, with documentation, then let him. Otherwise, these blatant lies are conscious attempts to defame his character and are illegal acts of libel. There is no right to print libel. If folks want to print these kinds of allegations, they must only do so with accompanying documentation. And not just testimony of disgruntled people, but with actual documentation. Otherwise, this isn't some internet debate, this is criminal activity.

Wiki9898zzz 04:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Here is a reference to a website which lists allegations of Rick Ross's criminal behavior, some of which he admits to, including a felony arrest. He also apparently admits to being involved in kidnapping people (which, of course, is an illegal act) in order to "de-program" them.

http://religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/false-experts/rick-ross/continuing-pattern-and-practice-of-criminal-activity/

Wiki9898zzz 05:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reinserted the neutrality tag, and also the unsourced tag. This article is still a one-sided hagiography. This is wikipedia, not the poetrypedia. Factual statements should be properly sourced. Wikipedia is not the correct place to make PR. The article shouldn't be a praise, it should describe his activities in a neutral tone.
Spare us stories about Maria Monk & co. Like every guru, Sri Chinmoy has his critics, so these should be mentioned, possibly with a rebuttal, of course all properly sourced (newspaper articles, academic articles, government statements, etc). --Tilman 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why "should" every single article, written about every single person, include some section which spews all kinds of negative things about that person? Are people innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? In the article on George Washington, does it list that he molested children? Where is the proof that Sri Chinmoy has done horrible things? Provide it with a reference to a reputable source. Psychological journals have discussed the cult phenomena. Provide a reputable journal which references the negative actions of Sri Chinmoy. If you do not have a reputable source, absolutely none of this material should be published - here or anywhere else. On his side, the U.S. Congress and the United Nations both let him conduct meditations on site. Those are just two of the innumerable positive endorsements and recommendations he has had by all kinds of reputable sources. So, if there are 1000 reputable sources for him and none that speak negatively, why should anything negative be printed about him? Why? Where is the justification?

Since this internet site has rules about academic verifiability, why not let that be the standard by which this article is judged, not just some vague comments by unnamed people? You reference Rick Ross. He admits to both being convicted of a felony and to have engaged in illegal kidnappings. Why should this site publish anything from him or from people connected to him?

These comments against Sri Chinmoy really feel like they are coming from a hate group, not from fair impartial academic debate. I am sorry if you personally hate him, but if that is the case, that is not enough of a reason to justify the publication of your views. You must provide some independently verifiable facts.

Please sir, this is not a contest. This is someone's legal and moral right not to have their reputation damaged.

Wiki9898zzz 05:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that you're adding sources, this is good. What is bad is that you've removed all the weblinks - this may be a mistake, or you may be in the middle of some editing so I won't revert it right now. Also, don't remove the neutrality tag.
About criticism and that every Guru has some, see here: Sathya Sai Baba#Criticism. Of course nobody asks YOU to add criticism. Just let other people add, and check the sources, and add rebuttals if available. --Tilman 06:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I found the last comment (not the above) to be personal, so I deleted it. I would appreciate no personal comments about myself or others who post here. Just because someone posts some text on a website, does not mean that people can glean from that who they are or what their motivations are. I would appreciate no speculation on such things.

The act of freedom of expression, includes the freedom to allow people to express their ideas and opinions. Judging why someone posts what they do presumes knowledge that is not in play here.

Wiki9898zzz 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


I see that the weblinks (including the only criticism) and the POV tag are still missing. Please put them back (or explain why you removed them), or I'll do it soon. --Tilman 16:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must be written from a NPOV. This article however is written like a Chinmoy press release. Editors may personally believe what they want about whether the criticism is valid or not, but Chinmoy is widely criticized, and not only anti-cult sites, but atheists, and ex-followers like Carlos Santana. A criticism section will be created like that for other gurus, and customary critical links like [2], and [3] will not be allowed to be suppressed by Chinmoy advocates who view criticism as "hate". NPOV is non-negotiable. --Dseer 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I made an attempt. It won't stay long, however; I've got an editor on my trail whose main activity in Wikipedia is to delete. The summaries are usually a random choice of (WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:LOGO). For example, he claimed yesterday that Skeptic Magazine is not a reliable source. --Tilman 12:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Sorry I's the first time I post a content on wikipedia and my english is not my mother language, so please forgive me if I make grammatical and procedural mistakes. I think we face here a problem not very easy to solve, since no article can be totally objective and neutral. Anyway I think that for bio we should discrimanate the nature of the criticism. For example is true that Sri Chinmoy have criticism but also Ghandi had it. Are those critics in Gandhi's bio? I found only generic criticism about his political approach but not about his person. I'm preatty sure that someone in India or in UK reported very bad things about him, but a bio should not include personal attacks unless are not proved by a Court especially if the subject of the bio is still alive. Any famous people has enemies, who are willing to paint him in black. Reporting those personal attacks it will really help us to understand the life of that person? I don't think so. Resources that include diffamatory declarations, even legally relevant, should not be included in a bio of a living person, unless supported by a Court virdict.

The Criticism should be contestual to the relevance of the Bio content. It's different if we are talking about for example a Sri Chinmoy misconceptions of Hindu philosophy or traditions, if there are any, supported may be by an article or a book of a renowed cultural Hindu Association or a famous hindu philosopher.

With all my respect

Chinmoy's name

I'd like to point out that Chinmoy Kumar Ghose is his real name, and Sri Chinmoy is the name used by his followers. Whoever put "originally Chinmoy Kumar Ghose" seems to think that "Sri Chinmoy" is his real name and not an appellate. I've revised the introductory sentence to reflect an encyclopedic approach. Blumpalump 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The tile "Sri" is a traditional religious title given to teachers from the Vedantic (Hindu) tradition. It has been used broadly and probably for at least 4000 years. Wiki9898zzz 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not relevant. I changed "originally" to "born". Not only is this slightly more accurate ("originally" implies he changed his name), it mirrors the biography given on Chinmoy's official site. -Fendersmasher 00:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments are completely relevant since the only reason to post this misinformation was another attempt to defame Sri Chinmoy. When you go do a martial arts dojo, you call the teacher "sensei." Does that mean he is running a cult? Hardly so. When you go to football practice, you call the coach, "coach" or "sir." Our society is filled with titles of respect.

Wiki9898zzz 15:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


I'd be surprised to find any Wikipedia articles on senseis, coaches, et al whose names are prefaced with these attributed titles. Case in point: Vince Lombardi. Notice how he is not listed as "Coach Vince Lombardi". -Fendersmasher 07:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

I removed all the gaudy quotations from the article - Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. That is what Wikiquote is for. Sfacets 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sri Chinmoy has been officially reprimanded by the United Nations for using their logo without their permission. He was also asked to change the name from "Sri Chinmoy United Nations Meditation" to "Sri Chinmoy Meditation at the United Nations". He has instructed about 60 of his disciples to work at the UN. Sri Chinmoy was not invited to give meditations at the UN, his disciples applied on his behalf under the UN Staff and Recreation Club. He only gave a few meditations at US Congress before having this privledge withdrawn by Congress.

Please provide a source for this. --Tilman 16:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sri Chimnoy..

I heard he holds the world record for most weight lifted over one's head. I heard there's a video of him painting 17,000 paintings in one day. This article is a piece of crap. Where are the facts. He deserves a wikipedia article that illustrates his accomplishments now that he's dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.205.79 (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Text Removed

This text was removed recently, while it is likely applicable, it needs a reliable source to be included.

Controversies

- Quote from the 10/13/07 New York Post, "In 2004, one former longtime follower of Chinmoy told The Post how Chinmoy summoned her for extended sex romps, then ordered her to have sex with another woman, while he watched. Other women recounted similiar tales, including one who said Chinmoy paid for her abortion after he got her pregnant." - - Rudra Tamm, a member of the group since 1968 who served as the organization's attorney until 2002, said Ghose's operation is almost entirely cash-driven, with disciples across the world funneling parts of their incomes directly to the guru to support his life and activities. Tamm said many disciples went into debt just to support the guru and to attend the group's annual three-month winter trip. "For a lot of disciples," said Tamm, "their whole existence is saving enough money to go on the Christmas trip." --Rocksanddirt 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Can these be added with the sources? Sfacets 22:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
If it's relevant in terms of a biography and supported by actual references, why not? This article can not be let to morph into some sort of "teaching document" or advocation of Sri Chinmoy, this is not what a biography is. As a biography, this article simply does not meet even the thinnest of definitions. WiccaWeb 02:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You want libel, Wiki9898zzz? You got it.

You and Sri Chinmoy are both bold-faced liars. He is a possible rapist, a definite fraud, a completely self obsessed money making charlatan of a fake. He should be shot in the face, in fact I hereby publicly threaten to do so. Now, at last, you have someone to sue for something, I hope proceedings against me will distract you from further damaging this tattered article with your ramblings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.24.72 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


General source: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.241.38 (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Good luck with those death threats. Hope that gets you where you deserve to be (which, I guess, would be prison). I would certainly, publicly, take a lie detector test and affirm every single statement I have made on here. As long as when I pass, you pay for the exam, pay for my travel to the exam, issue a public apology and donate $10,000 to any major charity. Up for the challenge?

As far as financial matters are concerned, Sri Chinmoy opened his financial records to public scrutiny at one point. There was nothing there...very little money, no land, no jewels, no riches, nothing. Just another lie perpetrated by a bunch of haters. Don't believe me? Just call the group and ask for public disclosure of records to prove there was no corruption. They have nothing to hide.

If this Rudra was an attorney, why didn't she press charges? Where is her affidavit? Where is the court case?

Just more lies....endless lies from endless crazies trying to prove that up is down.

I think it is good that you quoted the New York newspapers. But go a little farther and find out what their sources are. Because if you dig a tiny bit under the surface, you will find nothing. Why? Because there never was any corruption...not ever. There are some disgruntled ex-members and probably a few fundamentalist Christians who joined with the intention to harass the group. I would guess that 90% of the former members who are critical, were antagonistic from the moment they joined the group. Little psycho "spies" who think that Christ needs some assistance from them in protecting his message of love.

Don't believe me? Do the research, but thoroughly and with documentation. Find someone who does not like Sri Chinmoy? Ask them to write an affidavit that binds them legally if they lie. See how many folks will sign one. He was here for 40 years. There does not exist one single piece of paper like that.

And please stop deleting the reams of evidence I already posted to prove that no fraud ever existed.

By the way, I applaud Wikipedia for eliminating the references to Rick Ross, who is a convicted felon and whose testimony had no credibility.

Truth Alone Triumphs - The Vedas

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Reliable Sources

While it is nice that there are so many inline references in this article, the sheer number of them to the subjects own writings is problematic for a biographical article. Much of this article is not an encyclopedic biography of a notable subject, but a "sales pitch" for his spiritual beliefs. --Rocksanddirt 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dua, Shyam, ed. The Luminous Life of Sri Chinmoy." Delhi, India: Tiny Tot, 2005. This book appears to be used as a lot of the factual sources of the subjects life. Is there any more information on it? A source to buy one doesn't come up in a quick look at google, only references to its use in a couple of online biographies (including this one). --Rocksanddirt 16:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Amazon doesn't have it, Powell's Books doesn't have it, Barnes & Noble doesn't have it, a Google search turns up circular references to it, a search at ISBNdb.com for "3726100059" turns up nothing for the title. In my opinion, it does not exist. In this case, since the source document is non-existent, the reference needs to be removed, and the citation reference need to be replaced with "Reference Needed" or whatever that tag is. Failure to come up with legitimate references should result in removal of the specific content.
I've "spot checked" about 2 dozen "references" and found that they don't say anything about the passage in the article. Many of the references can not be verified or simply don't exist (perhaps they are "secret" texts a la Scientology) This article is complete crap. This guy IS notable, but the quality of this article is zero. WiccaWeb 22:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Controversies section needs to be "tight" with proper citations, otherwise the Chinmoy people will be able to reasonably argue that inclusion is improper. WiccaWeb 14:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The AP is a reliable, fact checked and NPOV source. They note Chinmoy was considered "charismatic" and "quirky", and the controversy around the 1996 plaque incident, and that his organization was considered a cult by some sources. I suggest the following at the end of the introduction: While widely respected, he was also characterized as "charismatic" and "quirky", and some considered his organization a cult. [1]. The NY Post article containes numerous allegations that can be sumarized, this is the link, [5] --Dseer 17:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Controversies section should indeed only ever contain properly cited statements. I question the sentence: "Concerns have also been raised involving the primarily cash-driven nature of the organization, wherein disciples worldwide voluntarily send part of their personal income to support Sri Chinmoy and his lifestyle[citation needed]." First, what is "the organization"? An organization founded by Sri Chinmoy is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Many people tithe to their church, so this hardly seems like a controversy. Also "concerns have been raised" is pretty vague, and "support Sri Chinmoy and his lifestyle" sounds negative. Until proper citations are found, I think the the sentence should be deleted. Thanks, Cruiser1 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, I didn't originate the statements but they are all sourced. The source states: "Rudra Tamm, a member of the group since 1968 who served as the organization's attorney until 2002, said Ghose's operation is almost entirely cash-driven, with disciples across the world funneling parts of their incomes directly to the guru to support his life and activities. Tamm said many disciples went into debt just to support the guru and to attend the group's annual three-month winter trip. "For a lot of disciples," said Tamm, "their whole existence is saving enough money to go on the Christmas trip."--Dseer 05:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Credibility

Criticisms on here have included that the sources of the article are primarily from Sri Chinmoy Centre sources and related sources. To assume that no other sources exist is inaccurate.

People had asked for sources not associated with the Sri Chinmoy Centre. Here is one article from a non-Sri Chinmoy Centre source:

http://news.scotsman.com/obituaries.cfm?id=1649042007

Quoting from the article:

"Sri Chinmoy, the Indian spiritual guru who had been nominated by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and seconded by former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for this year's Nobel Peace Prize, devoted his life..."

So, this article references that Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Mikhail Gorbachev, two very prominent people felt that Sri Chinmoy was credible enough to be awarded no less than the Nobel Peace Prize.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

As indicated above, Sri Chinmoy was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I submit this as strong evidence of his credibility. Further, the nomination was made by an internationally respected member of the religious community - Archbishop Desmond Tutu. I do not think it is a minor thing that an Archbishop of the Catholic Church not only does not consider Sri Chinmoy a fraud, but considers him worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

As the Catholic Church awards this man with prizes and honors, they go against everything they supposedly believe in. The direct definition of "Cult" from the Catholic Church is, "a group that promotes a teaching opposite Catholic doctrine." While Catholics consider cults to be the opposite of Catholic doctrine, even archbishops try to promote cult teachers' motivation with awards. I understand your position of defense for Chinmoy, however. While WhiSri Chinmoy is considered a peace seeking man by many, but he was also the leader of a dangerous facist cult. I don't know why the Catholic Church allows Desmond Tutu to keep preaching acclaim to this man's beliefs and works when he runs something so highly against the Catholic Church. America also throws mud on Chinmoy because a cult is an example of a facist group. While Americans are in the middle of fighting a certain war on terrorism, I think Sri Chinmoy is highly susceptible to criticism. Also, in a more religious standpoint, Sri Chinmoy went against his own religion owning up to this cult of 2,000 followers. Sri supposedly practiced submission to allah, but urged 2,000+ men and women to follow him, which went against everything he owned up to. He was considered for a Nobel Peace Prize for his peace work. However, Chinmoy did have many faults. I dont mean to cause any hard feelings for his current followers, just sharing my opinion with the rest of the Wikipedia community!!!

Further, the nomination was seconded by Mikhail Gorbachev, a former world leader! Again, I think it is no small matter that such a prominent world figure not only does not consider Sri Chinmoy a fraud, but so profoundly admired Him that he felt he should receive the world's highest award for peace work.

Owing to these two very serious endorsements of Sri Chinmoy, I urge Wikipedia to remove all critical comments about Sri Chinmoy until such criticisms come from court documents or other respected sources.

Two of the world's great men have nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Must we let people continue to throw mud on the name of a person so highly regarded? It does not seem appropriate.

Wiki9898zzz (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)