Talk:Siddha Yoga/Archive 1

This page 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.

History

Why I removed the history section.

Here is the removed text:

The group’s success in the west is founded on the work of Gurumayi’s predecessor Swami Muktananda (d. 1982) who brought the practices of chanting and meditation to a spiritually hungry west in the 70s and early 80's. The group has always kept a fairly low public profile shunning the limelight sought by others such as Rajneesh, Hare Krishna and Transcendental Meditation (TM). Students of Siddha Yoga come to it primarily by word of mouth and personal contact and its followers are from diverse social and economic backgrounds. Siddha Yoga has been quick to adopt the modern technology of the international video link and internet as ways to keep its world-wide network of ashrams and meditation centres part of its global community. Currently there are centers in countries on each continent, western, eastern, and in First World, Second World and Third World countries.

The first line

The group’s success in the west is founded on the work of Gurumayi’s predecessor Swami Muktananda (d. 1982)

is technically correct.

However the rest of the line containing

who brought the practices of chanting and meditation to a spiritually hungry west in the 70s and early 80's

is false. Muktananda did not bring chanting and meditation to the west. Chanting and meditation have been around in India and the west for hundreds of years. Technically, it might be more accurate to say that Siddha Yoga originated in India and was brought to US and the west by Muktananda, though I am not sure how accurate that statement is.

The statement

The group has always kept a fairly low public profile shunning the limelight sought by others such as Rajneesh, Hare Krishna and Transcendental Meditation (TM).

Seems to be more an opinion than an actual statement of fact. Plus there is no supporting evidence cited. For example, did the original author contact anyone in the SYDA organization and ask if this is an official policy?

Likewise with the statement

Students of Siddha Yoga come to it primarily by word of mouth and personal contact and its followers are from diverse social and economic backgrounds.

Again, did the original author verify his information. This is a statement about the demographic makeup of the organization, and should be easily verified if the organization keeps such statistics. So why is there no reference cited?

The line

Siddha Yoga has been quick to adopt the modern technology of the international video link and internet as ways to keep its world-wide network of ashrams and meditation centres part of its global community

is again opinion, and not really history.

Maybe it belongs in the description section.

Finally the line

Currently there are centers in countries on each continent, western, eastern, and in First World, Second World and Third World countries.

is once again somewhat true, but there seems to be no effort on the part of the original author to supply supporting evidence, and really seems to be not su much about the history of SYDA but just another description.

Thanks for reading this. TheRingess 03:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I have reinstated a reduced history section after taking into account comments by TheRingess. If you have access to a more detailed history then please add it to the article. Lumos3 22:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Basically I think this article should be classified as a stub.

There is very little information here.

The revised history section does not add any information.

The introductory section is sparse.

The beliefs and practices section is so general as to be non-informative.

This page is barely more than a link to other pages.

None of the previous authors bothered to cite any sources.

For instance, how do we know that the beliefs and practices section is accurate.

Nowhere on the page is there any citation where a reader can go to verify the contents of that section.

Is there not some sort of textbook or an online link that defines the practices and beliefs of SY?

I think this could be a good article that would help a lot of people understand this organization and its controversies better, but someone needs to do a lot more research and fact checking, rather than just linking to other pages and asking the reader to take for granted that the author's summary and opinions are valid.

I removed the blurb about darshan in the beliefs and practices section because basically it was wrong.

If you decide to reinstate it, please cite a relative SY reference that defines darshan, otherwise I will probably remove it again.

I decided to let the other blurbs in the practice section stand, even though they are so short as to be almost non-informative, and not entirely accurate, it doesn't seem worth the trouble right now.

Once again this article seems to have been written by people unwilling to do any real research.

Links to Press articles should link back to original articles not copies since the reader should not be forced to research whether or not the copy was changed from the original in favor of a particular pov. This should be the author's job. The author would also need to present evidence that they verified the authenticity of the copy. Neither seems to have been done by the anonymous person who added. I left the original 3 links since they did link back to the original publications in which the articles appeared.

I would have changed the link to the New Yorker article, but didn't have the time to find the official link, ditto with the CoEvolution Quarterly.

TheRingess 03:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The links page at the bottom has a link to the Leaving Siddha Yoga website which presents a critical pov.

Ringess, I would appreciate it if you made corrections to the article instead of only deleting things that may not be 100% accurated and verified. Andries 10:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I re-inserted the link to the New Yorker article because your objections to the article sound to me excessively skeptical. I will try to find the original article. Andries 10:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversy section is not according to Wikipedia guidelines

The controversy section should describe attributed detailed criticisms, not an unattributed (probably personal) very general interpretation and speculation about the causes for this controvery. Unless it is attributed and sourced the controversy section seems to me like Wikipedia:no original research and will be deleted and rewritten. Andries 10:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not disagree with the analysis, but the controversy section should at least start with more concrete accusations and not with an analysis of the causes of the controversies without mentioning them. In general, this kind of unattributed opinions and comments have no place in Wikipedia. Andries 10:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This section was added by me to contain material originally added by anonymous user 163.1.207.79 on, 24 June 2005. I agree it is a defence without citing the accusations to which it is responding and should not remain on Wikipedia without more work. I will try to redraft it. Lumos3 16:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree too, I will delete the section.TheRingess 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed the header also.TheRingess 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have inserted a Criticism section to replace this which summarises the main critics and cites the 2 principal articles. Lumos3 22:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Good job. In my opinion you have presented a neutral POV of the criticism.

I suggest the following changes to remove passive voice:

The Siddha Yoga leadership has been accused by some former members...." can be changed to "Some former members have accused..."
These accusations were first made public by William Rodarmor..." can be changed to "William Rodarmor first made these accusations public..."
"These were repeated and extended..." can be changed to "Lis Harris repeated and extended...."
"An organisation called Leaving Siddha Yoga exists..." can be changed to "The "Leaving Siddha Yoga" Organisation exists..."

Went ahead and removed passive voice and moved articles into the references section.TheRingess 23:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC) [edit]

Sign your posts?

It would be helpful if people could sign their comments on this page so we could track the conversation and see where one person's comment leaves off and another person's takes up. To sign a post type four comments. 71.195.206.168 02:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You mean four tildes: the ~ symbol. Indium 02:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I didn't know about signing posts. BTW, after reflection I agreed with Andries that I was being excessively skeptical regarding the disputed link. It's still my contention that any link to an article used as a source in any entry, should be a link to the original version. However the material on the LSY website was not used as a source for anything in the article, but just as a reference for anyone wishing an alternate viewpoint. So I reinstated the link. I do take slight (very sligh, LOL) exception to the categorization of my edits as nothing more than deletions, as I have cleaned up grammar and edited the article to have a more neutral point of view, but I won't argue it more than this. So no need to argue about it. I agree with the analysis of the controversy section. TheRingess 03:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I felt this article needed a reference section as it describes the beliefs, practices and history of SY. Since SY itself is the main reference for its own beliefs and practices I added a reference to the book "Meditation Revolution". TheRingess 20:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

History Section needs to be changed

Basically I still feel that the history section needs a lot of work.

For example, the line "The group’s success in the west...."

needs to be expanded, clarified and sourced.

What is meant by the word "success"?

When I have some time, I will work on the history section.

TheRingess 01:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Criticism

Perhaps you want to keep an eye on 151.205.115.183. This user keeps deleting all the criticism in this article. Thanks. JHMM13 08:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I was very new to the wikipedia but I signed on and learnt more as suggested.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I made many mistakes when I first started editing. Thanks for your contributions to this article. In my opinion, the history section still needs a lot of work. Feel free to edit it. P.S. Please sign all your comments on this page with 4 tildes, so that it's easier to distinguish who made what comment.TheRingess 17:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Started changing History section

I started a rewrite of the history section, to present more of a timeline of the main siddha yoga events. TheRingess 09:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs

I don't see how a section titled "Beliefs " can be anything other than POV since it is describing what Siddha Yoga beleives. I think the inspired edit by 68.198.7.14 added considerably to the article and should be reinstated. NPOV does not mean an insipid view which offends no one , but that all views on a subject are given a clear exposition. Lumos3 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just briefly, I disagree. I do not feel that the edits were inspired (just my opinion) nor that the beliefs section, is as you call it, "insipid". I am considering renaming it to "Tenets", as it is currently written it is more about the documented philosophies of SY and not what individuals in SY believe about it or the Gurus. The line about the guru is about as brief of an explanation of the concept of a satguru that I've seen, and probably does not need to be expanded since there are already definitions available on Wikipedia about the word guru and satguru. I voiced my reasoning on the users discussion page in order to give them the opportunity to rebut my arguments.

In brief, I think its well understood that in just about every religion there are going to be disagreements about the tenets. For example, I'm Catholic, but I don't believe that the Catholic church is the only church, yet I'm still Catholic. My argument would be that an article on Catholicism does not need to state that some adherents believe that the Catholic church is the only church, some believe that it isn't. Simply because without doing some more research, it's impossible to tell whether or not the difference of opinion is significant, so in my opinion that kind of statement implies original research. Another example, is that some people view Jesus as the son of god and some view him as an interesting fellow, with interesting things to say. Which is a rather obvious statement.

And it still seems to me, that talking about the beliefs of some and the beliefs of others, without specifying who those people are and how the information was obtained, qualifies as original research.

Why not include that some people in SY believe in God, and some people don't. Or that some people in SY believe vegetarianism is essential for spiritual progress and some believe that it might be helpful but probably isn't essential. Some people in SY practice hatha yoga and some don't. Some people in SY believe in UFO's, some people think that they are nothing but hoaxes.

It seems that if we really wanted we could create a separate section that details all of the beliefs that various people in SY might have.

Plus the editor started to make claims about the effect the gurus have on their students. Now that is very POV, and unsourced.

In an attempt to summarize the above, my main objection was that all the edits did was point out that not every member of SY (or non-member) holds the same viewpoint on every tenet.

Also, it's just my opinion (and therefore not a neutral pov} that you can write about an organizations principles, tenets and beliefs in a neutral way by simply stating Organization A believes insert belief here, and providing a source. A non neutral pov would be to judge the belief by writing Organization A stupidly believes insert stupid belief here or by trying to prove that their belief is more valid than other beliefs, e.g. Organization A correctly believes insert belief here.

TheRingess 20:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes to External Links

I noticed that a previous editor asked why I shortened the descriptions of the links in this section.

I just felt that it looked a little nicer without all of the extra verbage.

For example, the official site does not need to say that there is information about programs...etc. That much will be obvious to anyone visiting the site, and since it is the official site, one would expect that information to be available there.

As another example, the student's website description did not need a run on sentence to describe the content.

This is just a personal viewpoint. It's obvious that at least one other editor thinks it looks better with the extra wording included. TheRingess 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Since there exists at least one other article relating to siddha yoga, I've decided to create a disambiguation page as suggested by a fellow editor.

I'm going to create an article called "siddha yoga (disambiguation)"

This new article will simply link to both this one and the shaiva siddhanta article.

At the top of this page I'll put a link back to the disambiguation page.

TheRingess 03:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Siddhanta

Perhaps someone would like to clarify the meaning of 'siddhanta' either in this article or in the disambiguation, for example. According to the encyclopedia and Hinduism dictionary at experiencefestival.com , 'siddhanta' means tradition. I mention this because someone not knowing sanskrit might analogize 'siddhanta' with Vedanta, and think that siddhanta had something to do with siddha yogis per se. Alfalfahay 13:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I only perused the Shaiva Siddhanta article briefly, and am assuming that it explains the meaning of the word, and if it doesn't that's probably the best place. From my brief experience that's usually the preferred method. BTW, it's considered good form to use the edit summary box at the bottom.TheRingess 14:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the word "siddhanta" should be explained in the Shaiva Siddhanta article.

The article on "Siddha Siddhanta" from experiencefestival.com may also be helpful in the disambiguation and in elucidating the meaning of "siddhanta". I am by no means a scholar of these fields. But from what I have read, the living tradition of Kashmir Shaivism was largely wiped out during the Islamic invasions and the tradition remains today mostly in the written literature. If that is the case, then Muktananda's Siddha Yoga might more properly be considered to belong to the Nath Sampradaya or Siddha Siddhanta tradition.

"Today there are perhaps 750,000 adherents of Siddha Siddhanta Saivism, who are often understood as Shaktas or advaita tantrics. ... This sect is also most commonly known as Natha, the Gorakshapantha and Siddha Yogi Sampradaya. Other names include Adinatha Sampradaya, Nathamatha and Siddhamarga." http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Siddha_Siddhanta/id/62050 Alfalfahay 14:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is an article on Kashmir Shaivism, and that one lists Siddha Yoga as one of the current schools. Debating whether or not Siddha Yoga belongs more to one school or the other is probably way beyond the scope of this article and would require some citations from literature published in the reputable journals in the relevant field. BTW, it's considered good form to use the edit box at the bottom to summarize your edits, not so much on discussion pages but definitely on article edits.TheRingess 14:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What may not be out of scope for this article would be some sort of point by point comparison between SY and other schools of Hinduism, or for that matter Buddhism or Zen, or Christianity, etc; without trying to draw any conclusions or argue a certain viewpoint. Though it would have to be very, very well sourced and would probably not be a trivial task even if only compared to other Schools of Kashmir Shaivism. This would also open it up for other editors to do similar research. Just a thought. TheRingess 06:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the WP article is listed under "new religious movements", I am not sure that comparing it to long established "indigenous" religions would be especially interesting to more than a relatively small audience. Personally, I think tracking the history of SYDA through the popular press in the 70's and 80's could possibly be more interesting. However, I do not have convenient access to a library with free access to online archives of such periodicals, nor do I now have the desire to do that much work. For instance, it would be interesting to track the timelines and relationships of Richard Alpert and Werner Erhard to SYDA during the first 2 of 3 world tours by Muktananda in 1970 to 1981. Alfalfahay 04:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The question as to whether or not any section in any article would appeal to a large or small audience is pretty much irrelevant. Wikipedia's guidelines pretty much state that anyone can edit any article by adding or deleting material. Material can be pretty much deleted if it is not verifiable, not from a reliable source or copyrighted (to name just 3 criteria for deleting material). As far as I know there is nothing in the guidelines about only adding material that appeals to a broad audience (since the question of whether or not, now or in the future, who a subject might "appeal" to, let alone answering the question of what exactly is meant by appeal. I've often thought that a section detailing famous students, would be a good section, as long as every name listed specified a source and there was a disclaimer that the list might be out of date. So such a section would be a maintenance nightmare. And such a section would always raise issues of neutrality. And as you pointed out, detailing a person's involvement, by tracking down sources, is a tremendous amount of work. And probably, that kind of information more formally belongs on the respective articles about the people Just some thoughts. TheRingess 04:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Question of audience size is only relevant to me as possible author in regards to the issue of whether writing such an addition to the article would be worth the effort to write it.

I still argue that Pearce's book and Sharon Janis' book are *verifiable* and probably at least more informative if not also more reliable than the material on the SYDA site or in "Meditation Revolution". Alfalfahay 05:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Tenets, Aphorisms

In the TENETS section, perhaps "God dwells within you as you" should be replaced by "Honor your Self, Worship your Self, Meditate on your Self, God dwells within you as you" in order to reflect more accurately the statement on the SYDA web site. http://siddhayoga.org/teachings/essential/essential.html I do not intend to edit such a change myself, since I am not sure whether the existing brevity should be kept as a matter of style. BTW I agree that analysis of the details of SY lineage is beyond the scope of the article and of my own qualifications. Alfalfahay 16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to make the change.TheRingess 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the aphorisms. I removed the link to Pearce. It wasn't clear from the sentence what Pearce's experience had to do with the tenets. I'm not sure where a statement like "Pearce wrote about his experience..." belongs. The tenets section as it stands seems to be fairly well referenced, since all statements can be verified through either the Meditation Revolution book or the website. I'm not sure that links to experiences are appropriate either, unless we have a very, very reasonable assumption that they have been fact checked, which would seem to be the case of Pearce's. Long story short, I would suggest expanding Pearce's quote and placing it in another section. I'll leave it up to other interested editors. BTW, Wikipedia's style guidelines about internal links say that you should only link to a term the first time it is used. So no need to link again to Muktananda. TheRingess 01:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is currently no other section besides "Tenets, shaktipat" where a reference to Pearce's book would be appropriate. Adding a reference to Pearce's book in the References section would probably be deleted on the grounds that it doesn't relate to anything in the article, although, in the case of shaktipat, that is patently untrue. I personally heard Pearce give at least one talk in South Fallsburg during a SY intensive and/or evening program. Pearce's book is, AFAIK, mainly about "shaktipat" from the SY point of view. I believe that Pearce also gave talks on behalf of SY in neutral public venues outside of South Fallsburg. Therefore I do not see any good reason for removing a reference to his work. Furthermore, there are serious allegations that 1. the SY archives from which the authors of "Meditation Revolution" did their research were intentionally "truncated" by members of SY staff, and that 2. the text of one or more articles in the book was changed AFTER the peer-review process was complete. Furthermore, I gather that none of the university academic authors of "Meditation Revolution", (besides Sally Kempton?) personally met Muktananda, unlike Joe Pearce. Therefore, I conclude that one possible additional motivation for removing a reference to Joe Pearce's book could be a tendency toward revisionism of SY history. That is, to remove those facts about SY history prior to the circa 1985 period of controversy, which facts might lead an inquirer to want to investigate more fully. The articles favorable to SY in Hinduism Today were written by SYDA staff on behalf of SYDA. At the time of writing of Sharon Janis' book "Never to Return" and Joe Pearce's book "Bond of Power", I believe neither was on SYDA staff nor wrote in any official capacity for SYDA. Nevertheless both books are positive about SYDA and not overly biased. Therefore I believe such books give a more rounded, more representative, and more believable picture of SY and SYDA than mere SYDA web pages and SYDA written press articles *alone*. I wonder if WP guidelines really state that referenced books *must* be peer-reviewed scholarly books? If fact checking is a rigid requirement, then perhaps Sarah Caldwell's article should be allowed, but the LSY web site should be removed unless one can provide sworn affidavits and court records to substatiate such. Alfalfahay 03:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Some helpful links that might answer your questions (and this is by far not an exhaustive list) are: guidelines for citing sources, guidelines for verifiability, and wikipedia's guidelines for external links. Also keep in mind that no one "owns" any article on Wikipedia. If an edit of yours is deleted, you can always reinstate it. If you feel that a fellow editor is unjustly deleting material or adding it and you feel you cannot reason with them, then there are arbitration processes in place. One of the great things about WP is that every edit remains in the database, so if any editor is acting in bad faith and vandalising an article, then their will be plenty of evidence. You might also wish to read wikipedia's guidelines on assuming good faith. My reason for deleting the Pearce reference, was that 1) it provided no new material 2) it did not seem to fit in the tenets section as the statement itself did not refer to the tenets, it was simply a statement that Pearce wrote something. You might wish to create a new section that might be more appropriate for the Pearce material. TheRingess 05:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Practices section, additions?

MEDITATION, CHANTING, SELFLESS SERVICE, STUDY AND CONTEMPLATION, DAKSHINA, HATHA YOGA are listed as Siddha Yoga practices here: http://www.siddhayoga.org/practices-siddha-yoga.html Perhaps "study and contemplation" and "hatha yoga" should be added to the list of practices in the WP SY article. In addition, the WP SY article's discussion of practice of Satsang might be considered as "original research" according to WP guidelines. Perhaps a book reference or online reference might be in order on "satsang". If "satsang" is included as a practice of SY, then I suggest that "intensives" should also be considered as such, viz. a "practice", since the SY "intensives" could rather accurately be described as ceremonies or rituals of initiation or shaktipat diksha. The fact that shaktipat diksha (initiation) is considered to be a sine qua non of SY would further recommend its addition here, or somewhere in the article. The use of the word ritual or ceremony is not intended to be derogatory in my use of it here at all, even tho' many in the West and elsewhere place such a connotation on these words. The SY practice of "sadhana circles" may or may not be widespread in SY, but its functions and purposes are probably adequately covered under "study and contemplation" and "satsang". Since I am not currently a follower of SY teachings, I do not intend to contribute these additions, however I thought they should be considered in light of the guidelines of WP and the official statements of SY. Alfalfahay 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't do it, probably no one else will. Happy Editing!!!!TheRingess 00:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I just disproved my own statement. I tightened the wording on Satsang to remove most of what would be original research. I also gave a reference basically the SY glossary page. I agree that it isn't a practice per se, maybe there could be a new section called programs in which both the intensive and satsang are included, but I'm too tired.

It also might be worth pointing out here, that according to WP's guidelines anyone can edit this article regardless of whether or not they follow the SY teachings. That kind of goes without saying. TheRingess 00:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

References, "Meditation Revolution"

According to WP:CITE references not specifically cited in the body of the article should be listed under "Further Reading". I believe this applies to the book "Meditation Revolution". Also, according to Wikipedia Tutorial (Keep in Mind) and WP:NPOV I do not yet see any good reason for excluding some reference to Pearce's book or Janis' book, and actually some justification *for* including them in some reference or further reading section. One of the claimed goals of Wikipedia is to be informative, I believe. Just because there apparently does not exist an anti-SY book with an ISBN is not a reason to exclude mere "further reading" references to Pearce's book or Janis' book (pro-SYDA) in the name of avoiding "undue weight" on the pro-SYDA side. Alfalfahay 06:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I see no reason to discount any book about SY from a Further Reading section.TheRingess 06:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

History, Gurudev Siddha Peeth date

The 1992 Hinduism Today article is not clear on whether SYDA considers the property given to Muktananda at Gavdevi to have been an Ashram *before* 1961, namely Shree Gurudev Ashram. Therefore I merely changed the founding date to cover the range 1956 to 1961 as a temporary adjustment. Perhaps somebody else will nail this down. To the best of my recollection the name change to Gurudev Siddha Peeth happened around the year that I started to study SY, that is, 1977. Alfalfahay 08:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

History, other swamis

I do not believe it is necessary to give references on all these swamis in this article. Currently, it is rather easy to find references on search engines to substatiate the statement that these people have claimed or are claimed by others to be disciples of Muktananda qualified in some way to teach yoga and meditation. Leave it up to the reader to decide whether he wants to find out more. Certainly it would be a disservice to newbies to remove these names since it would then require extensive searching on their part to come up with these names. Alfalfahay 08:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is according to WP:V. Search engines turn up a lot but we have to know that a source is reliable and the information has been fact checked. It is up to us to determine that not the reader. Also we should establish significance. I mean the co-guru stepping down seems to be fairly significant in the history. But why the other swamis? Why was their departure significant? I think that will be hard to show without lengthy, lengthy research. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a search engine. TheRingess 14:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

TheRingess actually suggested the topic of other swamis. It is certainly a fact that Adi Da, Chetananda, Shankarananda, Master Charles, Sally Kempton claim Swamihood, discipleship, teaching authority or "one of the above", as can easily be verified on their web sites. I intentionally phrased my language in terms of claim, in addition to actuality. Furthermore, there are many other swamis who actually gave up their vows and/or left SY completely, so the fact that these swamis claim some kind of authority from Muktananda puts undue weight on the pro-SY side. I accept this undue weight because most of the others who left are probably embarrassed to admit in public that they were SYDA swamis. In 1982 there was a video from SYDA showing the simultaneous initiation of about 20 [?] new swamis. I suspect that video has been destoyed or hidden from SY archives since it is very likely that most of them left SY. I believe TheRingess is putting undue weight on the WP guidelines that favor deletion of information, most likely because the deletion and ommission of information favors the SYDA effort at revisionism of its history. I don't claim that TheRingess is necessarily actually working under the guidance of SYDA, just that he is using the WP guidelines as a weapon to reduce the amount of information in this article. It is fairly clear that the more informaion, even pro-SY information, in the article, the more likely it is that someone will be able to pick up a thread that allows him or her to uncover additional positive or negative info. Furthermore from SYDA point of view, Nityananda is just another of the swami not authorized to teach SY (SM), neither more or less, just like the other mentioned swamis. Sally Kempton is a different case since her exit from SYDA employ was apparently amicable. If this were an article on the Catholic Church, for example, I'm sure that it would be acceptable under WP guidelines to mention the fact that Martin Luther was a schismatic priest and that John Calvin was a former teacher or professor in a catholic institution of higher learning of some kind, I don't remember the details.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlfalfaHay (talk • contribs) .

I believe that I suggested that there be a section about famous students, past and present. Not just about swamis. As I see it, one of the problems with your addition, was that there was very little context, within which an average reader could understand the addition. Why not list all swamis past and present? Where is there a definitive list of those swamis? Why put it with the Nityananda entry? Did no swamis leave before or after. I suggested that a potential new section might be Famous Students. I also pointed out that each entry would have to be carefully sourced and a caveat added that the list might be out of date.TheRingess 00:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And my opinion also, from an organizational standpoint, would be that it reads a bit better if significant details about significant events in the history are given their own line. So details like swamis moving away to start their own schools should be on their own line using a link as a source. That was the primary reason I deleted the lengthy Nityananda entry. TheRingess 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

History, Muktabodha

I believe it is important to point out that Agama Press is an imprint of Muktabodha Indological Research Institute because of potential conflict of interest in researching SYDA with a situation where SYDA sponsors the Institute. However, if it is *not* pointed out that Agama Press is only a publishing imprint for the USA then the impression is left that Agama Press is the main imprint. This is probably not true since it seems that subsequent publications of the Institute are *not* being printed in USA. Alfalfahay 09:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You duly pointed it out here. It's probably not necessary (and even potentially slanderous) to point it out on the article page, unless there are specific documented example in which a conflict of interest was proven. Also an intelligent reader will probably be able to figure out for themselves what books they read or don't read. TheRingess 14:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not make myself clear. "Gurumayi founds the Muktabodha Institute with its own publishing imprint, Agama Press" could be changed to "Gurumayi founds the Muktabodha Institute with its USA publishing imprint, Agama Press" to make it more accurate. However, even that would be misleading becauses the main imprint now is probably something else. However, the modification of TheRingess is technically correct and therefore could remain as is. Unnecessary back and forth changes in the article itself make the page history too big and clumsy. Since this article "belongs" to the TheRingess, I do not want to "challenge" unnecessarily. I think it's quite obvious that my intent in mentioning Agama Press is an imprint of Muktabodha was to give enough information for the reader to be able to detect the possibility of a conflict of interest. I am obviously anti-SY and I only think that it is my obligation to present any negative info accurately. I'll leave it up to others to present positive information. I strongly suspect that there is enough evidence in the recordings of the 1999 scholarly meeting (recordings of talks available on LSY) discussing "Meditation Revolution" to prove conflict of interest, but I am not interested enough to prove it.

BTW I'd recommend to pro-SY editors to leave out references to books by Pearce and Janis, even tho' positive, because they are probably not sanitized enough and could open up some leads to additional negative info. Alfalfahay 17:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

libel, slander, conflict of interest are WP articles. The latter does NOT imply wrongdoing. This is just a technical side comment. Not recommending any change to article. But as a side comment, it appears to me that "Meditation Revolution" is *by definition* a conflict of interest. Furthermore, I believe WP guidelines may discourage but do not prohibit it. For example, a famous person could write an article about himself. Acknowledging himself as author, i.e. admitting conflict of interest without any necesary implication of wrongdoing, should be enough to keep the article within guidelines. Otherwise, if WP policy actually forbade conflict of interest then probably the only place legitimate to mention it would be in "Further Reading", or mention/quote it with caveats. Alfalfahay 17:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, according to Wikipedia's own guidelines, this article does not belong to anyone, let alone me. Secondly, regarding the tenets and practices, holidays, and documented history, I personally see no reason why the Meditation Revolution or SY website would represent a conflict of interest in those areas. Perhaps a fellow editor might suggest a reputable source other than the SY website or the book that describes the tenets and the practices accurately, then we could use that as a source. I say that, because I don't know of another (which is a long way from saying one doesn't exist). Perhaps, if this were a discussion forum and there was a debate regarding allegations or controversy, then I would agree that using Meditation Revolution as a source might represent a conflict of interest. However, as far as the material stands, neither the book nor the SY website are used as sources for the criticism section. The main sources, for the brief criticism section are articles published in reputable newspapers and magazines. And there does seem to be a reasonable assumption that the articles were checked and reviewed.

I apologize if I appeared to be claiming that TheRingness was engaging in conflict of interest as a violation of WP guidelines by using "Meditation Revolution" and/or SYDA web site as references. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DOES NOT ENTAIL WRONGDOING or violation of WP guidelines. By the use of the words "side comment" my intent was to indicate that my remark did not apply to the SY article itself. Instead my intent was to claim that "Meditation Revolution" itself, or at least its production, constituted "conflict of interest" but not necessarily violation of any other scholarship standards. I claim there were two forms of conflict of interest in the creation of "Meditation Revolution" 1. some (or the majority?) of the authors were adherents of SY 2. the work was sponsored by SY. Conflict of interest does not entail wrongdoing. Therefore the authors may have acted in good faith. There are claims that Swami Durgananda did actually include discussion of Muktananda's alleged sexual issues, which discussion was claimed to have been removed AFTER the editorial review process was complete. To me this indicates at least some effort at good faith on the part of Swami Durgananda wrt this issue, but not necessarily by SYDA. There are also allegations that the archives of SYDA were intentionally mutilated by SYDA therefore rendering research on them questionable even if the intent of the authors was unbiased. I do not believe there is an actual WP guideline requirement that references not contain a conflict of interest, because under WP guidelines, e.g. in an article such as a famous person writing about himself, a conflict of interest WOULD be permitted provided there was not UNDUE WEIGHT on certain views about said famous person.

To give another example, the mere fact that I am an opponent of SYDA and post any info about SYDA in this article, automatically constitutes conflict of interest, even if the information is apparently positive. However conflict of interest does not in and of itself constitute violation of WP guidelines in any way. If that were the case then many articles in WP would not exist or would be skeletons.

As an editor I am definitely intentionally engaging in conflict of interest because I am an opponent of SYDA. However that does not necessarily make the info I post a violation of WP guidelines. Perhaps TheRingess. unlike me, is not intentionally engaging in conflict of interest (WHICH DOES NOT IMPLY WRONGDOING ANYWAY). If ones interest in a field is merely scholarly curiousity, then one might be free of "confict of interest". Alfalfahay 04:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Now regarding your allegations about my motives for editing, you do have recourse. Given the discussion here about "conflict of interest" I am probably not the best person to recommend the links and the processes you might go through. I am sure that tbere are many admins and fellow editors, without any conflict of interest, that would be more than willing to help you investigate possibilities. As far as I can tell, and this is just my opinion (as with everything I state here), this page is not appropriate for discussions about my or any other editors motivations. In my opinion, those types of discussions belong on user discussion pages or in arbitration. You might wish to look at wikipedia's guidelines about keeping good faith and that if you feel that I acted in bad faith, many people will be more than willing to listen and to examine the evidence. TheRingess 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the interest or stamina to continue editing this article. It seems as if it would require days or weeks of arguement just to get some small bits of easily verifiable relevant information into the article. Perhaps I misinterpreted the motives of TheRingess. However, it appears to me that the main thrust of many edits of TheRingess has been to interpret the WP guidelines in the strictest way possible, turning recommendations into absolute laws, such that the net effect is to make the article LESS INFORMATIVE. Another possible motivation for that thrust might be desire for "tightness" which sometimes is a laudable goal. BTW it would be historically interesting to track down articles in the press about the relationship between Richard Alpert and Werner Erhard and Muktananda, but a lot of work too. To find out why the scene of Muktananda was cut from the Sun Seed movie in the early seventies, etc. I intend to stop editing this SY article unless something unexpected comes up to change my mind. And, I am not expecting any reply to these remarks which are mainly an apology to explain that I was not accusing anybody of "conflict of interest" merely because of the references to Revolution or SYDA *and* an apology for assuming that I "knew" the motivations behind the edits of TheRingess. Alfalfahay 04:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

One good thing to do, that not everyone is aware of is to place the {{helpme}} tag on your discussion page. Someone usually "shows up" fairly quickly and they could possibly answer any questions you might have. TheRingess 01:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Next Archive

The current version of this talk page is getting rather long. So I think it might be time to archive. Sept. 24 or 25 would probably be a good time since that should be time enough for all interested editors to read and respond to the current topics under discussion. Just a heads up. TheRingess 14:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Siddha Yogis of the Siddha Yoga lineage

In case anybody wants to add a section about the other "predecessor" siddha yogis (whose pictures are sold by SYDA), I spent considerable time collecting links to sites about them and posted small excerpts and links at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/siddhayoga , which is a group whose archives are PUBLIC so nobody has to join to see all messages, Aug/Sept 2006 time frame. I am not suggesting this article link there. Just as a resource for editors, if so desired. I have no interest in SY. Therefore I have very little stamina left to continue trying to edit this article. I am fearful of an organization like SYDA that mutilates it's own archives, and I think others should be wary. Alfalfahay 16:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable students

As per my own suggestions elsewhere, I started this section. And started it with Pearce, using as a reference the Bond of Power book.

I'm not really sure how much this adds to the article.

I'm using the word notable here in the way that I understand fellow Wikipedia editors use it.

In other words, when determining when someone should be added to this section we should probably go by the guidelines set forth in WP:BIO.

I would also suggest that we keep each person's entry somewhat short, 1 - 3 sentences, just for readability's sake.

TheRingess 06:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

After some consideration, I decided to delete this section. I thought it would probably raise too many neutrality questions vis a vis, who is included and why. I also think that the article probably needs to be a little longer before this kind of a section would really add to it.

This of course doesn't mean other editors can't reinstate it or write a similar section if they feel so motivated (that goes without saying but sometimes it's not obvious to newcomers).

TheRingess 00:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mahasamadhi

The concept of Mahasamadhi (and Samadhi) is an integral part of Hinduism. It is also traditional to refer to a Guru (Swami) as having taken (attained) Mahasamadhi - as opposed to died. Samadhi and Mahasamadhi within Wiki provide the details behind the meaning of these terms. The latter,in particular, illustrates the significance of the word Mahasamadhi in contrast to the word death. The concept of Samadhi is an integral concept in Raja Yoga and is the final stage in Patanjali's eight limbs of Yoga. Also, if one visits the shrines of many saints in India - these place are referred to as the Samadhi shrines (not graves or deathbeds). A search of Wiki with the word "Mahasamadhi" will show many examples of the term as used in this context. Wikipost (talk) (contribs) 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree with any of that. I feel that it's irrelevant in the context of this article and have listed my reasons below. Hopefully we can get some more opinions on this matter.TheRingess 05:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Requested (not necessary anymore)

There seems to exist a brief, minor disagreement, between myself and another user over the phrasing used to describe Muktananda's death. The disagreement is over whether or not we should use the phrase "takes mahasamdhi" versus "dies".

My contention is that it's recorded and verifiable that Muktananda died on October 2, 1982. And that the entry in the history section should read simply "1982 October 2 - Muktananda dies". It also has the added benefit of being simple and direct.

Another editor wishes to replace the phrase with "Muktananda takes mahasamdhi".

I contend that this phrase is not desirable for several reasons:

"Takes mahasamadhi" is not a common English phrase. For an average reader to understand what mahasamadhi means they are forced to go look it up in another article. Since this is not an article full of technical jargon, there's no real reason why they should be forced to go look anything up. So the phrase actually detracts slightly from the article.
If you look up mahasamdhi you find the following sentence: "The difference between physical death and mahasamadhi is that death is not conscious and mahasamadhi is." There are certain established, recognized procedures for ascertaining that a person has physically died. They are accepted worldwide (no heartbeat, no brainwave activity, no breath, etc.). I know of no universally accepted standards for determining that a person "consciously died". And even if there were, I know of no sources that would meet WP:RS that actually verify that Muktananda died consciously. I can only conclude that in this context, the phrase "takes mahasamdhi" represents a particular belief. Hence, the phrase is neither verifiable nor neutral. The best that might be said is "His students/follower/devotees believed that he took mahasamadhi". Which would be find, if it was used as additional material, not just the sole entry.

TheRingess 05:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and written a compromise that I hope is acceptable. I left in the phrase "Muktananda dies". It's clear, concise, to the point and easily understood by an average reader. I included "According to siddha yoga literature he took mahasamadhi". This makes it clear to an average reader that it represents a belief and not a statement of fact. It still links to mahasamdhi, so that an average reader can learn more.

I hope that this is acceptable.

TheRingess 06:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - appreciate your input, time and effort !

Wikipost 06:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad we could come to a consensus. Thanks for being willing to listen. TheRingess 06:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging Shree Muktananda Ashram here

This is regarding the suggestion to merge the new Shree Muktananda Ashram article into the Siddha Yoga article.

My original intent in creating Shree Muktananda Ashram was actually as a support for a possible article on the Bhagawan Nityananda Temple. There is a whole Wikipedia category on Hindu temples in the U.S. and I think the Bhagawan Nityananda Temple at Shree Muktananda Ashram should be included, not just for the benefit of people in Siddha Yoga, but anyone looking for the opportunity to visit. There are plenty of Indians in the states now, some of whom must be devotees of Nityananda but not necessarily part of Siddha Yoga. The point is, that Shree Muktananda Ashram might have significance for some people outside of Siddha Yoga, so it should have its own article.

Shree Muktananda Ashram is not only significant for the Nityananda temple, but for its place in the history of Sullivan County, NY, and its community involvement there. These are separate from its significance for Siddha Yoga.

MahaDave 14:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Let's leave the tags up for a couple of days, and if no one else objects, we'll take them down. TheRingess (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good. I know you want to see the Siddha Yoga article expanded and improved. I'll put some effort into other ideas for that.MahaDave 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

shaktipat intensives

A few days ago I added some text about the significance of Shaktipat Intensives in Siddha Yoga, namely that they are one of the most important distinguishing features of Siddha Yoga (which they are). Someone removed this piece of text. Maybe I'm too thin-skinned, but was there are particular reason for removing this passage? Ditto, where I added a passage to the page on Shaktipat, saying that Gurumayi is one of the gurus who purportedly have the power of shaktipat. This passge has also been removed. Once again, why? I didn't mind when people removed some external links I added to some pages, because I didn't fully understand the policy on external links, but in this case it was perfectly legitimate text that was deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilrobertpaton (talk • contribs) 11:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Hello Neil. Don't take the removal personally. I'm the one who removed the material for several reasons.

In my opinion, it represented original research or original material. It was not a statement of fact, but a conclusion (or synthesis of ideas) drawn from facts that the average reader might not have access to. You did not specify a source, please read Wikipedia's guidelines of attributability.
Your placement of the statement ruined the footnote for another sentence.
The information in this statement probably does not belong in the intro.

Perhaps, you could rewrite your material in a new section. Please read the attributability guidelines above. Did you mean that the intensive distinguishes Siddha Yoga from all other schools of yoga? Did you mean that it distinguishes SY from Christianity? Did you mean that the intensive distinguishes itself from all other practices in SY. I think that you should check the facts on how often intensives are held, my understanding from the SY website, is that currently there is 1 a year.

Don't draw the conclusion for the reader, present the facts, and let them draw what conclusions they will.

I cannot speak about the shaktipat page, I didn't remove that material. You can look through the page history to see who removed it, perhaps you might ask them directly.

BTW, welcome to Wikipedia. TheRingess (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

more on shaktipat intensives

Regarding the frequency of Shaktipat Intensives: they are definitely held more than once a year. Last year I went to two intensives myself, in June and October. They have always been held more frequently than one per annum. Not much point running a page like this one if you can't even find out the most basic facts. What a wank. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilrobertpaton (talk • contribs) 09:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry about that miscount. Actually, I don't run this page. I have no formal authority over this page or any other page for that matter. I have listed myself as a maintainer, meaning I am someone interested in helping anyone who wishes to contribute to this article. There is absolutely no implication that I am in charge of anything. This article is on my watchlist, along with several dozen other articles, some related, some not. When changes are made to this article, I try to double check them to ensure that the material added meets Wikpedia's two basic content policies: attributability and neutrality. The only authority that I have, is that authority granted to all contributors, the authority to question material that I believe doesn't fit the above guidelines. This does not imply that I have the final say in what gets added to or removed from the article. The community values and encourages polite discussion and consensus building when disagreements over content arise. I still believe the material that you added was original research and have not changed my mind. Thank you for pointing out below that one of the statements lacked a source, I provided a link to the mission statement, if you think that the material is still OR, then please feel free to rewrite it or remove it. If you feel you cannot discuss the material with me or any other interested editor, then there are alternatives ranging from a simple request for a 3rd opinion, to mediation resolution and finally, in extreme cases, to an arbitration ruling. Welcome again.TheRingess (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

original material or statement of fact?

You stated that my statements were "original material...It was not a statement of fact." Let's have a look at one of your own statements on the tenets of SY: "The central tenet of Siddha Yoga is that the goal of seekers is to find the Self, inner conscious, in all humans, and in everything." Are you saying that all seekers have this goal, without exception? As a Siddha Yoga devotee for fifteen years, I have never come across the statement that the goal of seekers is to find the Self. It would be ridiculous to make a general statement that all seekers have the goal of finding the Self. General statements like this are not made in SY. This statement looks more like an "original conclusion" than a statement of fact. You have not attributed this statement to anyone or specified a source. What factual foundation is this statement based on? In short, judge yourself by your own standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilrobertpaton (talk • contribs) 09:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I did not write the statement you reference. You can look through the history and see who did. I have never objected to it because it seemed supported by the SY Mission statement. Since we cannot place copyrighted material on this page, the original contributor rewrote it. I agree that it needs a reference, and am going to add it.TheRingess (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

deleting people's contributions

Hi, Me again. What I was getting at is that, if one person goes around deleting people's contributions, we can all do it. The statement I referred to was just a good example of something that could be deleted because it doesn't specify a source and is questionable at best. Why haven't you deleted that statement the way you deleted mine? Personally, I don't delete other people's text; I don't like it when they do it to me, so I don't do it to them. We can all do it to each other if we choose to, but where would it end? As a newcomer to Wiki, I have come to the conclusion that some people have a territorial attitude to certain articles, ie they think the article is their property. They don't like other people trespassing on their "property", so they delete the new material. Needless to say, this is completely against the spirit of Wiki. No-one owns an article. Sorry -- I keep forgetting to sign my entries. Neilrobertpaton 08:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegations such as you are making, are taken very seriously on Wikipedia. Let me state unequivocally, because the tone of this conversation is becoming combative rather than collaborative, I DO NOT, NOR HAVE I EVER CLAIMED OWNERSHIP OF THIS ARTICLE OR ANY OTHER ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA. Is that clear enough? I will not address that issue any further, in the same way an innocent man will not confess to a crime he did not commit. Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

I have treated you civilly and never once doubted that you added this material in good faith. This is why, when I deleted it, I stated a policy that is one of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to a reliable source. See WP:ATT. From that policy arises the policy of no original research.

Regarding the other piece of material, I never deleted it, because to me, it seemed to be directly related to the SY mission and vision statement. Thank you for pointing out that it lacked a clear reference. You are the only editor so far that has objected to the inclusion of that piece. You may either remove it for that reason or seek consensus about it.

On March 7, according to the history of the article, you added two pieces of information to the article.

One line was: "For more information on Siddha Yoga, plus photos of the guru, see http://siddha-yoga.tripod.com" This was removed by another editor, not me, citing that it was Brochure language. Also it's nothing more than a link to an external website, so if it belongs, it belongs in the external links section. But first, it should pass WP:EL

You did not notice, that your contribution to the article ruined the formatting for the paragraph. There is a reference supplied in the first paragraph that supports information contained there. After your contribution, it looked like the reference supported the new material but it doesn't.

You also added: "The most important distinguishing feature of Siddha Yoga...". I didn't copy the entire line here because I take no issue with the rest. Another editor actually corrected the lack of information on shaktipat by placing material in the practices section. I believe this statement represents original research. What material did you use to arrive at this conclusion? If you don't provide a reference, how can an average reader determine if it's accurate? Did you mean that shaktipat is how SY distinguishes itself from all other religions or just some of them? What about other religions that also believe in shaktipat? Did you mean that in the philosophy of SY that shaktipat is considered more important than any other practice/belief? If that's the case, we should be able to find material in their literature or website to support this conclusion.

The statement also seems to represent a non neutral point of view. If we asked a number of students/non students what the most important distinguishing feature of SY was, would they all answer shaktipat?

I ask those questions so that you can understand where I'm coming from.

Here is a statement from WP:ATT

Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources.

TheRingess (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the following statement OR?

A fellow editor believes that the following statement contained in the tenets section represents original research.

The central tenet of Siddha Yoga is that the goal of seekers is to find the Self, inner consciousness, in all humans, and in everything. The aim of Siddha Yoga is to help every human being realize and experience that they and all other humans have an inner Self which is perfect and divine, and that a reachable goal is the end of human suffering and the attainment of supreme bliss.

Basically, I believe that it is supported by the SY mission and vision statement. I did not add the material originally so do not know the actual source the original contributor used. It does seem to me to be a rewording of the mission statement. I have added the link to the appropriate page as reference.

TheRingess (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems appropriate to me, though I would recommend sourcing the four bullet points and the philosophical base statement that follows. Vassyana 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for 3rd Opinion

The discussion starts in Talk:Siddha Yoga#shaktipat intensives.

Requester's statement: Basically I feel that I have laid out my arguments regarding deletion of a specific sentence. I base my argument on my belief that the deleted material was original research. I feel that I am too close to the material to be objective about statements the other editor has made regarding "ownership" and "territoriality". I can benefit from a review by a neutral 3rd party. My goal is to determine how I might have behaved as they describe or violated WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF. I can then act to correct any wrong done.

TheRingess (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in demanding adherence to WP:ATT and enforcing WP:NOR in sometimes controversial area of Wikipedia. You have made no accusations and launched no insults, so I think you're within bounds of CIVIL and AGF. It may have been more kind to slap it with a fact tag and notify the user it needs a reference, but that is not necessary. I would recommend you take that kind of action in the future, provided the information added is not obviously biased, poisonous or detrimental to the article. However, you did nothing wrong that I can see. Vassyana 04:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

More on deleting other people's contributions

I apologise if my comments were taken personally by The Ringess or anyone else. My comments were a personal impression and were not directed at anyone in particular. I stand by my impression - and it is just a personal impression - that some people seem to think they own certain articles. For example, I added some text to the article on Rose Byrne, but a few days later it was gone. It was completely relevant, accurate and legit. Why was it deleted? The only explanation I can think of is that someone thinks he owns the article. As I said, if we all went around deleting things that look "questionable", there would be nothing left. Wiki would be a collection of blank pages. Wiki has given us the privilege of being able to delete as well as add. Perhaps we shouldn't have that privilege. I for one don't intend to use this privilege, unless I see something that is grossly out of place, ie inaccurate, pornographic or otherwise abusive. Once again, my apologies if my statements were taken personally. Neilrobertpaton 09:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of WP:OWN, but rather a matter of people demanding adherence to WP:ATT and WP:NOR. You will find in biographical articles and controversial articles that these standards are interpreted even more strictly. Hope that helps. Be well! Vassyana 15:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What we need around here

What we could use on Wiki is a general discussion board, where we could discuss general matters pertaining to Wiki. The matters I've been talking about lately are of a general nature, not restricted to Siddha Yoga. Does anyone know if there is a general discussion board? Neilrobertpaton 10:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Found it already; it's called the Village Pump. Neilrobertpaton 10:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

shaktipat intensives

I have added a couple of sentences to the passage about shaktipat in the Practices section. It is sourced directly from the SY website, so I trust there won't be any controversy about it (I hope). Neilrobertpaton 10:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

I uploaded two pix today, but can't find them anywhere. Can anyone see them? Neilrobertpaton 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The images you included have a very clear copyright notice. Please read WP:COPYVIO. In essence, wikipedia does not allow copyrighted material. If the copyright notices were placed in error, please remove those notices.TheRingess (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

again

found them Neilrobertpaton 12:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilrobertpaton (talk • contribs) 12:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

reference to Gurumayi as the the current guru

In the second paragraph, the article states that "As of 2007, the guru is a woman, Gurumayi Chidvilasananda (born June 24, 1955)." My thinking is that it would be more appropriate to say, in whatever wording is appropriate, that Gurumayi became the guru in 1982, and that she is still the guru as of 2007. Does this make sense to you all out there? I respect the rules about how things are worded, so if you agree that this would be an appropriate edit, what wording might be best to say this? Would it be appropriate to say "Muktananda appointed (or named or ?) a woman, Gurumayi Chidvilasananda as his successor in 1982, and she is the current guru as of 2007"? Any other suggestions?

If you don't agree that this would be an appropriate edit, why do you disagree?

Namaste

Adventurer96 06:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)adventurer96

I agree that it would be appropriate to say that Gurumayi became guru in 1982. The exact wording probably doesn't matter that much. I was thinking of expanding this part of the article, maybe along the lines of, "The current guru, Gurumayi Chidvilasananda, took over from Swami Muktananda in 1982. Her book, "Ashes At My Guru's Feet," describes the initiation session that she underwent as part of this process. Under her stewardship, SY has expanded to the point where it includes over 600 ashrams and centres all over the world." What is the verdict? Neilrobertpaton 10:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds cool. I think the wording is good and I like the elaboration about the initiation session and the growth of the organization.

Namaste

Adventurer96 05:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)adventurer96

If no-one has any objections, I'll proceed with the changes described above. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Better to discuss it now than have an argument later. Neilrobertpaton 09:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. How about linking to the list of Ashrams and Siddha Yoga Meditation Centers

http://www.siddhayoga.org/community/centers/index.html MahaDave 17:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See the wikipedia policy Be Bold. Lumos3 09:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative to expand the intro. Do read the link that Lumos3 provided. I think you should include the information that Muktananda also appointed her brother, and that he formally renounced his position in 1985. That information is also included in the History section, so both sections are in synch.

I also like the idea of adding information about her initiation process. I think you shouldn't mention the book first. I think it looks better in the form "She described her initiation as...." or "Her initiation included...." (with Ashes cited as a reference) It's more informative and more interesting that way. In short, don't say that the book describes the process, include a description and use the book as a reference.

TheRingess (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I have expanded the text as proposed and agreed upon. I hope everyone likes the results. Let us know here if you have any reservations. Neilrobertpaton 09:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to make those changes. I would suggest that we move Gurumayi's initiation description into the article about her, although I have no real strenuous objection to it's inclusion here.TheRingess (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaving Siddha Yoga

I would like to bring up the subject of the external link to Leaving Siddha Yoga. I personally feel that this website is biased against Siddha Yoga and does not present a neutral or impartial point of view. SY has no right of reply and it seems to me that this link is inappropriate. What do others think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilrobertpaton (talk • contribs) 09:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

That's a good subject to bring up. In my experience, the two policies that govern inclusion/exclusion of links are policies/guidelines on external links and guidelines on neutrality. According to the npov policy, neutrality means that an article should represent all significant viewpoints. As such, the LSY website does seem to represent a significant viewpoint. It is also referenced as a source for some of the statements on this page. Perhaps it does not represent an impartial viewpoint, but the neutrality guidelines seem to suggest that it doesn't need to. To include the link to the official SY website and not include a link to the LSY website might could be interpreted as a violation of the neutrality guidelines. I have removed other links in this section, favorable or critical for other reasons. For example, there are 5 or 6 yahoo groups that in one way or another discuss SY. Some of them require membership, in general, we don't link to websites/groups that require membership. The others seem to contain a lot of spam, and for that reason, cannot serve as reliable sources. For other websites, we have to be careful to not give one viewpoint or another undue weight, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. In general, regarding external links on Wikipedia, the idea seems to be that less is better. A common phrase is "Wikipedia is not a link farm" (see what Wikipedia is not). From what I've seen recently, the trend seems to be instead of an article having more than just 2 or 3 external links, editors are adding the {{dmoz}} which basically provides a link to a category in the open directory project. I hope that helps.TheRingess (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaving Siddha Yoga again

Further on the same subject, I'm not sure Neutral Point Of View requires that we present every view on the subject. For example, if you did an article on the history of Christianity, you wouldn't feel obliged to cover every point of view on the subject: atheist, agnostic, existentialism Marxist and so on. Neutral point of view doesn't require that. I also think there may be an issue of undue weight with LSY. Given all the sites on SY (including mine), why give special treatment to LSY?

Debate invited. Sardaka 08:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (formerly Neilrobertpaton)

As the principal collection of articles critical of Siddha yoga the link would be essential reading to anyone who consulted an encyclopedia to find out more on the subject. I don’t believe that its inclusion offends any of Wikipedia’s principals but its removal almost certainly would. Lumos3 09:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality guidelines state that we should include all major viewpoints, not every single viewpoint. Read guidelines about undue weight. Once we start including every website we find on the web about SY we run the risk of giving undue weight to minority viewpoints. We also run the risk of giving one viewpoint more coverage and look like we are endorsing a given viewpoint over every other. Wikipedia is not a link farm and it's not a search engine. Right now the external links has the two major websites about SY, if a reader wishes more info, they can go to google and read more and decide for themselves which links are helpful.TheRingess (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

History

The article is missing the history of the movement in any detail.

Early development in India
Muktananda’s early visits to America and other western countries.
Establishment of first ashrams in the west and their locations.
Involvement of celebrities. Lumos3 10:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for bringing this up. Some of this was mentioned in the peer review. I tried to start a section on celebrity involvement. The trouble was finding independant sources where the celebrities mentioned that they were involved. For example, I believe John Denver was, but have yet to find a publication in which he himself discussed his involvement. I think Harris mentioned him, but I don't remember. We would also need a disclaimer to the effect that their current involvement might not be known. I added your suggestions to the To Do List.TheRingess (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Involvement of celebs is highly problematic, especially if they haven't gone public on the subject themselves. John Denver was definitely into SY. I saw an article in which he talked about Muktananda, but you'd never find it now. There is a memorial tree to him at Fallsburg. Meg Ryan is another. I saw her at Fallsburg in 2003, and the women in the accommodations office said they'd seen her before. But, since she has obviously chosen not to go public about it, it might be unfair to out her. Don Johnson is supposed to be another, but I'm not sure this celebs thing is really legit. Sardaka 12:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

History section

Since some people have suggested that the history should be expanded, I have worked out a few paragraphs that do this. I thought I would put it up in the next few days and people can comment. Then we can take it from there. At this stage I'm only concentrating on the early years, from Nityananda to Fallsburg. Sardaka 09:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Made some changes to the first sentence. Sardaka 10:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hindu?

I changed the first sentence to something I thought was more suitable, but I see someone has changed it back to the first version, in which SY is described as practising traditional Hindu practices. I doubt very much if SY would say they are practising "traditional Hindu practices". SY is an autonomous organization and they have never, to my knowledge, described themselves as Hindu. I know someone who was hauled over the coals at an SY ashram for telling someone it was Hindu.

I suggest we try to clear this up now. Does anyone have any evidence that SY is officially a Hindu organization? If not, can we get rid of the Hindu label forthwith?

The opening sentence could say something to the effect that SY is a spiritual organization teaching Indian philosophy and spiritual practices, for example. Sardaka 09:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you click on the History tab you can find out who made the change and contact them on their talk page. SY does say that their philosophies are based on Kashmir shaivism and advaita vedanta, both of which are considered by many to be branches of Hinduism. On the other hand, removing one word is not a big deal. I'm not concerned either way. Why not just drop the word Indian as well. Are the practices necessarily Indian? If you contact the person who objected on their talk page, you might get a little farther. Don't get into a revert war over a minor detail.TheRingess (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed the first sentence again. If anyone disagrees with the change, please talk about it here and we can clear it up.

Sardaka 09:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes

As I said I would do previously, I have rewritten the first few paragraphs to provide more detail on the early history of SY, since it was generally agreed that there was a need for more history. Comments are now invited and we can take it from here.

Sardaka 10:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. It needs some cross linking to other articles. Weave it into the web of knowledge across Wikipedia. Lumos3 10:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work. This fragment seems a little vague to me "...who had been dedicated to the spiritual path". Which spiritual path was he on? The sentence also makes it sound like there is only one spiritual path.TheRingess (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nityananda

I thought it was worth mentioning that no-one knew where Nitya came from or where he was born, which I put in the first or second sentence, because it is relevant info, just as his birthplace and DOB would be relevant if we had them. Should I put it back in?

Sardaka 12:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed them because the linked article Bhagawan Nityananda, gives his place of birth and approximate date. Therefore, somebody does know. IPSOS (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hindu? Moi?

I rang the manager's office at Fallsburg and was assured that Siddha Yoga is not Hinduism. Indian origins, yes, but it is not Hinduism. Unfortunately, I forgot to ask about Gurumayi herself, but presumably the answer would be the same. I'm still waiting to hear from info@sy for their version of it.

The reason I keep harping on it is that, if SY is not Hindu, then we're misleading people who read the article.

The new historical material is developing really well.I see someone tracked down the Time article with Muktananda in it. Good work.

Sardaka 10:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the opening sentence accurate? Are the practices of SY "traditional Indian practices"? If so, how are they different from Hindu practices or meditation/chanting practices from other countries? My thought is that if SY isn't Hindu, then it's probably not any more accurate to call their practices "traditional Indian practices". However I can't think of a way to reword the intro. Thanks for taking the time to contact the manager's office. In my opinion, the best way to resolve this question is to ensure that we write an accurate and informative article about the history/practices/tenets of SY. Then an interested reader can decide for themselves how SY is similar to and/or different from not just branches of Hinduism but all religions/spiritual paths.TheRingess (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be misleading people not to mention Hinduism, a very broad and loose term anyway, since every SY practise and text I can think of is drawn from Hinduism. Traditional Indian practices is completely inadequate. See Source 2 of the article , "What Westerners call “Hinduism” is an extremely diverse group of beliefs and practices who's main common characteristic is their presence in India. " Lumos3 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have always had a problem with the word "traditional" in the opening sentence. The key characteristic of SY is shaktipat, and it's probably debatable whether shaktipat can be described as traditional. How about I delete "traditional" and we can see how we like it?

Sardaka 11:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the first sentence to make it clear that Siddha Yoga is a part of Kashmir Shaivism. This is supported by the SY literature and website and I know of no published material that contradicts that. I think this is more accurate and more informative than calling Siddha Yoga "a spiritual organization". I'm not sure that "branch" is the most appropriate word but can't think of a better one, perhaps "school" is more accurate and more informative. We could also expand the sentence to include a mention of advaita vedanta. We can also continue to expand the rest of the article so that an interested reader can then learn how SY differs from other schools of Kashmir Shaivism, Advaita Vedanta and other religions. TheRingess (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Kashmir Shaivism

I understand the need to honor everyone's input, but the term 'Hindu Kashmir Saivism lineage' is a pretty awkward construction in my opinion. I'd like to suggest either 'Guru in a lineage of the Hindu tradition of Kashmir Shaivism', or 'Hindu Kashmir Saivite lineage' as a replacement. I also want to add the caveat that Gurumayi has never called her lineage a Kashmir Shaivite lineage that I know of. Swami Muktananda said only that Kashmir Shaivism is the philosopy that most closely resembles Siddha Yoga. Kashmir Shaivism is only one of the traditions referenced in Gurumayi's teachings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MahaDave (talk • contribs) 02:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

I like your suggestions regarding the wording and I suggest that you go ahead and correct the grammar. Personally, I'm not sure that we can say that Gurumayi has never called SY a Kashmir Shaivite lineage, as this implies access to knowledge a casual reader might not have. In other words, how would a reader verify that.

To me the real objective here seems to be to come up with an accurate, brief description of SY (for the introduction of both articles only, since the real meat of the article should be detailed enough for a casual reader to gain a beginning understanding).

In my opinion, calling SY a "spiritual organization" is too vague to be helpful, although one can argue that the rest of the article would explain that meaning.

I also don't like referring to the practices/tenets of SY as "Indian yogic practices" because that is also not very useful. After all, most if not all of the world's religions have substantial adherents in India. So which of those many denominations are we really referring to?

Here's a brief quote from the SY web site:

The Siddha Yoga teachings spring from the timeless scriptural traditions of Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta, as well as from the experience of the enlightened Siddha masters.

.

In my opinion this supports the statement that Siddha Yoga is not only a branch of Hinduism, but is closely related to Kashmir Shaivism.

However I realize that statement says the teachings spring from those two traditions and doesn't explicitly state that Siddha Yoga is a school of Kashmir Shaivism.

My personal suggestion is that we remove our focus on the word Hindu and put it on the process of createing together, a description that we all feel is accurate, neutral, useful and supported by the available literature.

Any ideas?

Note: I copied this entire section from the talk page for Gurumayi, as I believe it to be relevant.

Since I seem to have a lot of time on my hands this evening, I'd like to present an analogy that I feel is relevant.

The following line is from the Sufism article.

Sufism is a mystic tradition that found a home in Islam and encompasses a diverse range of beliefs and practices dedicated to Allah, divine love and the cultivation of the heart.

To me this opening sentence is very well written. It establishes that Sufism is a branch of islam and yet makes it clear that Sufism itself is not exactly the same as Islam.

To me, this presents a direction I think we should be heading in. The introduction needs to quickly establish the essential roots of SY (which to a casual observer would be Hinduism). Then the rest of the article should go on to explain enough that the reader can decide for themselves how SY distinguishes itself from Kashmir Shaivism in general, hence from Hinduism in general and therefore from all of the other world's religions.

We can support the argument that SY is not merely only a branch of Kashmir Shaivism by showing the reader which other traditions Gurumayi and Muktananda quote, honor and/or borrow from and which specific philosophies/teachings are different from the general philosophies of KS and Hinduism.

It's easy to see why a casual reader might form the impression that SY is nothing but a Hindu sect since the article uses Sanskrit terms that are not in wide use amongst other religions. (e.g. ashram, swami, guru, guru gita, mantra, swadhyaya, mahasamadhi, gurukula, etc.).

TheRingess (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To say that SY is a part of Kashmir Shaivism is misleading. The SY literature makes it clear that SY is related to KS and Vedanta. To say that it is part of KS is quite another matter; it makes it sound lke SY is nothing but a subdivision of KS.

Another thing: for the sake of attribution, I inserted a reference to show that the role of KS and vedanta are stated clearly in Kindle My Heart. This is the sort of attribution that we are expected to do, and is the natural thing in an encyclopedia. So what happens? Someone deleted the reference. Would the person who deleted the reference like to explain why we should not have a reference like this on the page?

I really wonder sometimes.

Sardaka 09:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The history tab would answer your question. I will since I removed it for practical reasons. The section already had a reference to the essential teachings page that supports all of the statements in the section, not just the statements about the aphorisms, so an extra reference at the end seemed unnecessary.TheRingess (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I really wonder too. Was Nityananda Hindu? Muktananda? When does a clearly Hindu paramapara based on clearly Hindu texts and practices become non-Hindu? It seems perfectly appropriate to list other influences. It seems downright against common sense to not acknowledge that Shaivism is Hindu, that Kashmir Shaivism is Hindu, that bhakti is Hindu, that the Guru Gita is Hindu, etc. IPSOS (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Shaktipat Intensive

I think there should be a more prominent mention of the Shaktipat intensives. The website makes it clear that it is an important part of SY practice, but at the moment there is nothing about it. There used to be a mention of it, but the gremlins removed it.

Sardaka 09:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I removed that section. The brief material that was in that section is now in the History section. It seemed to me to be redundant to have that section. The section was not so much about intensives but about shaktipat. It's just my opinion that the shaktipat section should have more information than what is contained in the history section.TheRingess (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation?

I know that most if not all of the SY literature is copyrighted. There is a passage in the history section that seems to be copied verbatim from the book Ashes at my Guru's feet. Does anyone have an argument that this is not a copyright violation? Is its usage here "fair use"? TheRingess (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The quote from Ashes is fair use. It's perfectly acceptable to quote short passages providing we give credit and don't pretend that the passage is our own writing.

Anyway, quoting this passage was your idea in the first place. Originally, I made a reference to this passage without quoting directly. You suggested quoting the passage and putting the name etc in the References.

Can't agree that the passage in the History covers the subject of Shaktipat Intensives. It covers the phenomenon of shaktipat, but not Shaktipat Intensives as such. Since they are a central plank of SY, it would be worth touching on them.

You shouldn't be in such a hurry to delete other people's contributions. If we all went around deleting each other's contributions, the aricles would be in shreds. You might also make people feel that it's a waste of time contributing if someone else is going to delete it all. You might end up being the only one left, and you'd have the articles all to yourself. Maybe that's what you want.

It has certainly worked on me. By now I'm getting tired of the wankers who keep stuffing up the SY articles, so I'm going to take my bat and ball and go home. You won't have me getting in your way anymore, so you're one step closer to having it all to yourself. (Don't worry about replying. I won't be listening anymore.)

Sardaka 13:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, my words were: "I also like the idea of adding information about her initiation process". I then went on to say to use the book as a reference. I did not say add copyrighted material. I have reinstated the material Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text supports its inclusion.TheRingess (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

History

Controversy section is not according to Wikipedia guidelines

Sign your posts?

History Section needs to be changed

Deletion of Criticism

Started changing History section

Beliefs

Changes to External Links

More On External Links

Disambiguation

Siddhanta

Tenets, Aphorisms

Practices section, additions?

References, "Meditation Revolution"

History, Gurudev Siddha Peeth date

History, other swamis

History, Muktabodha

Next Archive

Siddha Yogis of the Siddha Yoga lineage

Notable students

Mahasamadhi

Third Opinion Requested (not necessary anymore)

Merging Shree Muktananda Ashram here

shaktipat intensives

more on shaktipat intensives

original material or statement of fact?

deleting people's contributions

Is the following statement OR?

Request for 3rd Opinion

More on deleting other people's contributions

What we need around here

shaktipat intensives

Images

again

reference to Gurumayi as the the current guru

Changes

Leaving Siddha Yoga

Leaving Siddha Yoga again

History

History section

Hindu?

Changes

Nityananda

Hindu? Moi?

Kashmir Shaivism

Shaktipat Intensive

Possible copyright violation?