Talk:Satguru

Merge discussion

Propose to merge this into Guru. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Satguru" and "Guru" really don't have the same meaning in those traditions that make a distinction, e.g., Sikhism & Surat Shabd Yoga, even if some other traditions use them interchangably, e.g., Hinduism. How would you preserve this distinction by merging the two articles? I don't support a merge at this time. — RDF ^talk 17:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

By creating a new section on the Guru article, named Satguru and explaining the specifics of this term. What do you think? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well you could merge the Hindu sections about Satguru with Guru, but the Sikh version is not the same. Satguru is a name for god, like Waheguru and is not a learned teacher. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If the redirect goes directly to the section, like shown below, I can live with it. — RDF ^talk 18:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT Guru#Satguru

I don't think that Redirects can include anchors... So we can leave it like this for now. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess you're right, but it was worth a try. I also think the "See also" works for now. — RDF ^talk 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure that Sikhs refer to their gurus as satgurus. Can you confirm this? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes they do, not all, they use various names. Jossi.The darkness/light thing bothers me as what you do is making it too easy. I am not a scholar, but did some research for you, maybe that helps. Since , gu is never darkness in Sanskrit, Guna is "darkness" on the level of consciousness (greed, anger, passion) and ru has amongst other meanings "cutting" , "breaks" , "kill". Since this is not a proof it does make more sense(especially in the translation of the upnanshad). the breaker of guna. The etymology of ru as light must IMO derived from somewhere else, i don't know. Since the basic word gru or guru is meaning the heavy/important man, the other meaning was probaly added out of religious poetry or to give it a deeper meaning constructing such etymologies and is close to, whoever thougt that, what Prabhupada once gave as etymology to Guru. Thomas h 14:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That may be the case, but in folllowing Wikipedia policy, we can only write based on sources we find. Check my last edit to Guru. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

1. removed Sikhism template as this article refers to Hiduism, Sikhism and Surat Shabd
2. removed material that is discussed in the Guru, Contemporary Sant Mat movement and others

≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Satguru always a Sannyasan?

Hanuman Das, I appreciate your respect for Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, but this information that a satguru is never a householder is not true. You need other sources or it ought to be removed. You have sannyasin and satguru confused. I can give numerous citings and examples where this is not so. Gautama Buddha was married for gosh sake.

I do not need other sources. It is cited as something that Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami said. Wikipedia is not a judge of truth; it simply reports verifiable facts, and that is what my cited addition is. It is you who needs to cite a reference that a Satguru can be a householder if you wish to dispute it. I do not need multiple sources to include it. I'd recommend adding one good academic source that says a Satguru can be a householder and leave it at that. WP:NPOV means that you can't exclude multiple viewpoints simply because you don't agree with them or because there are conflicting opinions. That there are conflicting opinions is also a fact and an interesting one at that. —Hanuman Das 21:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Now that I think about it I can't think of a single source that has any mention of this in its definition. But there are so many examples from history (or legend). For instance, Milarepa's satguru Marpa was a householder. Nisargadatta Maharaj was a householder. Also Gautama Buddha. But you are right that Wikipedia is open to disparate views. Jon 21:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly like to see a good reference that confirms you opinion as I suspect you are correct, but it is also possible that the term satguru is misused in popular usage; which also would be an interesting fact to include in the article, if true. Unfortunately, I don't have time to hit the library myself at this time, but I have no doubt that you or someone will find some more infomation on this apparent conflict... —Hanuman Das 21:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman, Thank you for being so kind. The more I thought about it the more I realized you were right that I had no source that says anything contrary to what Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami says. I only had these examples in mind that I already mentioned. I know that Avatars like Rama are sometimes married. This matter is not usually part of the description of a satguru or sadguru, but rather their state is described. It is hard to say for it is hard to say who was for sure a real satguru. We can only rely on lineage or the word of other satgurus. And often they are silent on who else is a satguru. Certainly Sai Baba of Shirdi was, but he was not married. He did smoke however. Perhaps someone else can do the research. Jon 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Note, however, that the statement "The definition of Satguru elsewhere does not however include that stricture" is a negative claim, which is 'true' as far as it goes if you check the definitions elsewhere. As far as others having the 'opinion' that Satgurus can be householders, this can be found in several not-so-authoritative sources. I have here a few I found:

• "Some Masters in the past were householders and had children." [1]
• Sadguru Yogiraj Sri Sri Mangeshda (See bottom sentence) [2]
• Tiruvannamalai, Kanchipuram (page 10) [3]
• "Sadguru must also be married" (Under "Qualities of a Sadguru") [4]

Interesting examples. I note that the first and third do not seem to be speaking specifically of satguru, but rather "Master" in the first and indeterminate in the second. And the first is clearly a Sikh example and I'm sure we can agree that Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami was not trying to speak to Sikh practices. The last example suggests that the rule varies from lineage to lineage, which is what I would suspect. For example, Kriya Yoga lineages seem to allow householder satgurus, while perhaps most other lineages do not.

With respect to the negative claim, I don't think it sufficient to merit inclusion. Kind of like that "Have you stopped beating your wife" question, the answer is not conclusive and the opposite may be true. It's true that some things may be so taken for granted that no one ever mentions them in writing, but I doubt that this is one of them. I'll add Hindu to the Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami sentence as we work to get a clearer understanding of the matter.... —Hanuman Das 02:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Surat Shabd Yoga, Sant Mat, Contemporary Sant Mat movements, Radha Soami, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, and related lineages are well known for householder and even family lineages, such as Shiv Dayal Singh, Baba Sawan Singh, Kirpal Singh, Sant Thakar Singh and many others. 207.69.139.138 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at those links. Yes, you're right what you say. I suppose I need a source -- but will not come down to a definition most likely (as you say yourself) since most definitions are short. However, some reasoning is necessary even in looking at qualified sources in determining if a satguru is a sanyassin. Here's my thinking on this. Wikipedia defines a sanyassin as the last stage of the path as prescribed by Hinduism. But according to Meher Baba in "God Speaks" a satguru is no longer on the path at all, but is rather a perfected master. He is a perfect teacher and no longer a seeker or aspirant. The following exerpt speaks about both sanyasins and sadgurus so it is a good source for showing they are not one and the same thing.

"Throughout all ages, sadhus and seekers, sages and saints, munis and monks, tapasavis and sanyasis, Sufis and talibs, have struggled during their lifetimes, undergoing untold hardships in their efforts to extricate themselves from the maze of actions and to realize the eternal Existence by overcoming life... Emancipation from the grip of life and freedom from the labyrinths of actions are made possible for all and attained by a few, when a Perfect Master, Sadguru or Qutub is approached and his grace and guidance are invoked." ("God Speaks" Dodd Meade, 1955, p.291)

What do we do when we have one man's claim that satgurus are unmarried and all these examples (as mentioned above by me and the other person) where he is wrong? As far as adding the Hindu qualification, what about Nisargadatta Maharaj who was married with children? He was Hindu. Jon 12:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally found a published source that speaks directly on the subject. Bhau Kalchuri's book "Meher Prabhu," Manifestation Inc. 1986. See reference in article. Jon 15:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the paragraph looks pretty good now. Jon 15:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think the only way it could be improved is if a reference could be found with a list of what sects might require sannyasin status vs. what sects allow householder Satgurus. It would be nice to be specific and explicit about it. Surely someone must have published an academic study of guru traditions... —Hanuman Das 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a satguru sort of above these exoteric religious rules? I also read, for instance, that Upasni Maharaj was a married man who became a satguru. In fact he was married three times (all three wives died). [5]

Yes, I agree with you. The exoteric definitions are superficial in a spiritual sense. The deeper meaning of Sannyasi is one who is "virat" - one who has mitigated material desires - therefore has renounced the material world. The symbolism of marriage and the seed desire of kama, or bodily pleasure, is the source of the exoteric definition of renunciate - since one who renounces married life thereby renounces sex and bodily pleasure. However, it is true that we have countless examples of Satgurus that have been married and have children. In the Kriya tradition for example, many of the modern masters were householder satgurus (i.e., Lahiri Mahasaya, Sri Yukteswar, etc..). Even Krishna, who was unequivocally a Satguru as he was the embodiment of Narayan, or Vishnu, had his consort, Radha. I think we can mitigate the quote from Sivaya Subramuniyaswami based on this preponderance of evidence. Hamsacharya dan 01:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a breath

Hey, everybody. Take a deep breath. Not long ago this was a pretty nice clean site. Then it became a magnet for everyone's teaching from their satguru. That's not what this is. Think about it. People read in books or on the net that so and so said he was a satguru or claimed to be one. So they go onto Wikipedia to see what that word means. Do you want to find a bunch of disciples of people arguing over what their "satguru" said about "satgurus?" Or talking about yoga practices or other sanskrit terms. Please please please help us get this site to a point where the researcher can learn about what a sadguru is (not from a contemporary guru either, for then there will be arument). Stick to the tradition only. Please don't make a fool out of such a great tradition by including all the things that you feel your guru would want you to include here. Stay on topic and use traditional vedantic sources. Otherwise you are scaring off people as we look like lunatics. Please. I don't know what else to say. If you, Hamsacharya dan, Hanuman Das, and Baba Louis, will let me I will stream line this and make some suggestions for scholarly sources and the modern guru (he said she said) stuff can be cleared out. This will really help the eastern part of Wikipedia if we can get this to a higher level since "satguru" is really central to the whole teaching of eastern thought. Let's serve Wikipedia users in this way. Jon 12:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand what the problem is. Just two days ago, you said "Thanks. I think the paragraph looks pretty good now." The only thing which has changed is Baba Louis' addition, which it seems you agree with. Also, I don't see any edit warring in this article. I was pleased to collaborate with you and pleased with the resulting paragraph. Could you be clearer about what has changed since you said it looked pretty good? In point of fact, the article should not be a dictionary entry. Contemporary opinions are proper subject matter for an encyclopdia, though perhaps a heading to separate them from the main body is in order. I'd like to see details about what sects require sannyasin status and what sects allow householders. That is also information worthy of an in-depth encyclopedia article. I don't see any problem with the article except that the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath quote is too long and the last half of it is off-topic. But I won't touch it b/c User:Hamsacharya dan gets vindictive when you change his stuff, refuses to discuss it, calls it vandalism, and accuses everybody of being a sockpuppet. I don't need the grief, so could you please make the change? —Hanuman Das 19:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

New Organization

I hope the overall reorganization is something everyone can live with for now. I think it's a page people wouldn't mind linking to and is informative. I am hoping that the "Ancient sources" section will be expanded from other vedic and Buddhist sources. I hope no one's feelings are hurt. The etymology of "guru" belongs under guru and the etymology of "sat" was already stated at the top. A lot of the Gurunath material read a little like original research or poetic license. It may not have been but that's how it read. Better to stick with what has been said or what he said, with quotes and references to maintain the appearance of objectivity and impartiality.Chris 11:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent edit, imo. —Hanuman Das 12:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks good the way it is now. Hamsacharya dan 03:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hope my edits have not disrupted the new organization of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the new organization is helping a lot. NEti 04:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

John the Baptist as Satguru

Please note that personal web pages and/or self published books are not considered reliable sources and should only be used as primary sources about the author or the book. See WP:RS. We need a better citation for that text. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The citation is fine. A quick Google search should have sufficed to show that it was simply a published book which is also available on the web and provide the ISBN... I have done so... —Hanuman Das 19:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is very probable that it is a self-published book, if one is to judge by its Amazon.com entry[6]. Nevertheless, the text in the article now reads with the proper attribution to the author. This is needed as John Baptist as Satguru is not a widely-held belief in Christianity. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

(OT: How is your Sanskrit? I need some help with the etymology of some Sanskrit terms) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

I don't have the right resources for Sanskrit etymology. Sorry. —Hanuman Das 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I may be have been mistaken about this book being self-published. The reason the book is featured so minimalistically in Amazon.com may be related to the fact that the publisher is in India. See [7]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, only a few books published in India really get much representation on Amazon.com. I could tell right away that it was an Indian book when I Googled b/c it showed an ISBN starting with 8. Hard to say how widely available it is in India, but it is certainly published by a book publisher since a self-published book in India is unlikely to have an ISBN... —Hanuman Das 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Satguru Nanak

As far as I understand, Sikhs refer often to Guru Nanak as "Satguru Nanak". See [8] Is there a Sikh here amongst editors that may clarify this? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Sadguru and Satguru

Suggestion: please explain the lexical difference between Sadguru and Satguru. Why are both terms used?

in Sanskrit (roughly):

• Satyam - the truth
• Sada - all encompassing, highest, all-inclusive, all
• Sadashiva - the highest form of Shiva

MahaDave 02:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hazrat Babajan (c. 1806 - September 18, 1931) was a Baloch Muslim saint considered by her followers to be a sadguru or qutub.

Why has this been deleted?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.6 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Sadhguru?

• [9] "Sadhguru

A spiritual teacher who is Enlightened, or has Realized the Self, whose knowledge or realization comes from within rather than from any teachings learned outside." sadhguru have realization only upto its own soul of true self which is of parbhrahma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.255.114 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Jaggi Vasudev

Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.6 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What's up?

There is something really messed up about this article. 90% of it is from Vihangamyoga which is an article without a single reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.47.141 (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a good point.LittleDoGooder (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

§a satguru is a person who is a sage who is enlightened.§--117.193.205.88 (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)'

Sahib Bandgi

Editors please discuss here before adding links to this or any other claimant to the title Satguru. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Satguru Bhakti (devotion to satguru) is the Higest form of Bhakti available to Humen other forms are Sagun (Name and Form) and Nirgun (From less)bhakti. Way to become a Satguru are given in the book 'Kabir Sagar'. Most of the spiritual gurus who claim to be Satguru are in fact cheats, at the best they are shiddhas.For an understanding on the basic differences on devotion and its reach please read on; Pl note Guru here means the satguru.

KNOW BHAKTI MARG

       Human birth is very rare to obtain. We are born not to be born again.      
        Permanent Mukti is possible only in human body even for Gods.

Bhakti- devotion to Satguru who is one with that Param purush who never manifest in this universe and resides in Param Dham Satlok is Sathya Bhakti, attaining Satlok is real salvation. Given below are the three bhakti marg available to all in this universe.

                                 SAGUN BHAKTI- [School Level]
              EXTERNAL WORSHIP OF GODS WITH NAME AND FORM

1) Sathyavathi Upasana: Do sadhana for Gods to manifest (saskhatkar)with Name and Form.

2) Angavathi Upasana: Worship of presiding deities of five elements (Pancha Bhuthas) 3) Anyavathi Upasana: Worship of Incarnations (Avathars) with Name,Forms and attributes. 4) Nidanavathi Upasana: Navavidha Bhakti; sravanam, kirtanam,Smaranam, padasevanam, vandanam, archanam, dasyam and atma nivedanam, towards chosen deity/God. Also included are Manthra,Yanthra and Thanthric worship, Sagun worship gives temporary satisfaction of worldly desires. ( Three worlds-Pathal lok,Bhulok and Swarg lok) Basically it is Thamasic Bhakti. MUKTI FOR SAGUN WORSHIP; 1. Samipaya Salvation : Those who do noble deeds, don’t harm anyone and do acts of charity etc., attain this kind of salvation. After death they find a place in Pitar Lok (Ancestoral Lok). They enjoy the comforts of that place for thousands of years & after the expiry of their period as per their karmas, they again come to this universe. 2. Salokya Salvation : Those who do noble deeds, refrain from taking meat, wine and worship one or the other deity in their life, attain this kind of salvation. After death they find a place in Heaven. But they also have to return to this universe after the expiry of their period as per their karmas (deeds).

                                  NIRGUN BHAKTI- [College Level]
                                INWARD PATH-MEDITATION- DHYAN

Nirgun-Nirakar Bhakti, sadhak concentrates on their own inner-self (Inward path-Dhayan) and is mainly focused on self-realisation as a soul (i.e. knowing about own true-self).This requires a lot of self practice(Astanga yoga). This mode of worship revolves around five different ways of meditation postures defined in Vedas known as : Chachri, Bhuchri, Agochri, Unmuni and Khechri which only concentrates on five speakable words i.e. Jyoti Niranjan, Onkaar (Om-Aum), Sohang, Satt, and R-Rankaar respectively. All the above five words are present at their own particular plexus into every human body. The enterance to experience and to travel into the universe is ‘Sushmana Nerve’ for all the above mentioned postures of meditation. The limitation of Nirgun Bhakti is only up to ‘Dasham Dwaar’ (10th aperture) known as Crown Chakra/Saehstrasaar present on the top of the head. With help of complete concentration, we can see the whole universe inside our physical body and at the same time travels into the higher limits of universe (3Lok’s) through different Ethereal Bodies. Miraculous mind powers (asta siddhi and nava nidhi) gets generated into one’s body. In the past, Yogis, Rishi- Munis, Siddh, Saadhak, Peer, Paegambar, Yogeshvars etc have all experienced these ethereal bodies, which are available to every human being in equal means. By doing Nirgun form of worship, we (a soul) can rather achieve much higher level of salvations i.e. Sarupya and Sayujaya (has longer time duration) as compared to those who are doing Sargun form of worship. It has its reach up to the higher limits of universe such as Dev Lok, Siddh Lok, Brahm Lok and Paar-Brahm Lok. Nirgun Bhakti is Rajasic Bhakti.

MUKTI FOR NIRGUN NIRAKAR WORSHIP; Saropya Salvation : Those who rise over Sargun Bhakti & wander in the limits of Brahm, attain this kind of salvation. They find a place in Brahm Lok. They remain there for lakhs of years but after the expiry of their period as per their karmas (deeds), have to return to this universe. Sayujaya Salvation : Those who worship Nirakar, gets absorbed in Nirakar after death. They ramain their till Pralaya (Dissolution) & after the recreation of the universe, they have to return to this mortal world.

                                 PARA (SATGURU) BHAKTI [PG Level]
                             Path of Sants –Surti Yog-Sahaj Marg
        Guru bin bhav nidhi tarey na koi,joh viranch shankar samm hoi.

None can cross the worldly ocean without the support of a Satguru even though he may be like Brahma, Vishnu or Mahesh (Shiv). Suitable for all who seeks truth/permanent mukti from this jagat/body-mind complex. In Sant-Mat a disciple meditates on Satguru in Eighth chakra (Asta kamaldal) and through him realizes God. Sant Satguru is not a body. He is a true Satguru in a body. Satguru protects and leads a disciple on true path. At the time of blessing the disciple (Diksha) through Paras surti, Satguru gives the disciple the soundless Nam which opens the Adhatmic power inherent in disciple, with this power disciple will overcome influences of the mind and maya. Holy Sanjeevni Nam acts like a ship to take the disciple out of the worldly ocean. It leads him permanently to his real & true abode i.e. Amarlok (4th Lok) safe & sound, world without dissolution. Guru hain badey govind se, Mann mein dekh vichar.Hari sumiray so vaar hai, Guru sumiray so paar. Guru is greater than God because the worship of a Guru can enable one, seek salvation. In reality, words fail to explain the power of a true Saint. But, the sorrowful thing is that we lack the power to recognise a true Sant. In general, we take the person with 1½ft. long beard, 2 ft. of mated hair (Jatayen), 3ft. long dhoti (a cloth for wrapping the body below navel) & saffron dress as a Sant. The disciple has to surrender completely to living Satguru for salvation, it is satwick Bhakti. Guru ko sarr par rakhiye, chaliye aagya mahin. Kahey Kabir ta dass ko, teen lok darr nahin. Kabir Sahib says that a disciple who remains obedient & loyal to his Guru, has nothing to fear from in the entire universe (3 Lok’s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.104.201 (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. The problem, though, is that you are writing to promote the ideas and claims of one particular person or group. If you Google "satguru hinduism" you will find dozens (I found about ten on two pages) of claimants for the title Satguru, and if it were allowed for all of them to promote themselves here, there would be chaos. If you consider the Sahib Bandgi group to be sufficiently notable, you might start an article on them. You will need to look for reputable secondary sources that describe the group and its leader, and not rely on self-published material. Good luck. Let me know if I can help. Rumiton (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr Rumiton with due respect, nothing is known about your understanding of Indian spiritualism, It appears that you are not interested in expanding your awareness on Satguru and sure you haven’t met Satguru who is alive. We cannot make out your geographical location and personal background either. I have found that site mentioned here www.sahib-bandgi.org informative and useful. I am sure readers will take only what they need. It is interesting and pertinent to note that nothing is on sale in this site (Sales promotion). You should not be unduly concerned unless you have found factually incorrect information relevant to status of Sat guru. The truth is among the names mentioned here on this page I find only three names of sat gurus 1) Sant Kabir, 2) Vasistha and 3) Gurunanak others are not, unless you have vested interest. Spiritual misrepresentation of truth is sin. It leads to degradation from divineness of human to animal.

Eight types of gurus and their functions,as per scriptures,

SAGUN BHAKTI

1) Bodha Guru; He teaches the Sastras and encourages the pupil to act upto Sastraic injunctions -Karma and Dharma. 2) Veda Guru; He imparts the inner meaning of the Vedas, establishes the pupil in spiritual truths and turns his mind towards God. 3) Nihita Guru; He imparts knowledge about rites and duties and shows how one’s welfare here and hereafter can be ensured. 4) Kaamya Guru; He makes one engage himself in meritorious deeds to secure happiness in both the worlds.(Karma as per Dharma) NIRGUN BHAKTI 5) Vaachaka Guru; He imparts knowledge of Yoga and prepares the disciple for the spiritual life. 6) Soochaka Guru; He teaches how the senses are to be controlled through various types of discipline. 7) Kaarana Guru/Jagat Guru; He reveals the unity of the Jivi and the Atma- I am brahamasmi. (Mostly Rishis and Avathars) PARA BHAKTI

8) Vihita Guru/Satguru; Vihita Guru clears all doubts, helps in control of mind (and leads to Permanent Mukti/ Salvation).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.136.71 (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC) 

You are still missing the point. Wikipedia requires reputable sources for all its articles. This means respected researchers who have looked into a subject carefully and have written about it in an informed way. Please click on the link and read the section, if you have not already. Ordinary people, now matter how well-read, are not considered to be authorities on any subject; they are just expressing their opinions. So your expressed understanding of this subject, and your dismissal of what seems to be a large number of other accepted Indian satgurus is just your opinion; others find them acceptable. And websites of practitioners of a subject are not generally permissible as sources or links, regardless whether anything is for sale there or not. I hope this makes it clearer. By the way, my interest is in improving Wikipedia, rather than in this or any particular topic. Rumiton (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr Rumiton, namaste(greetings). you give me an impression that you are not aware even remotely about the culture and tradition of India. Especially Indian spirituality. The dumbest thing is that you are asking for proof of profound Indian,spiritual knowledge and wisdom. Most of them are not published in english language. If wikipedia has to only rely on reputable source it means only for scientific and engineering data mostly generated by human mind. But please understand Indian spirituality is beyond the mind, it has to do everything with heart and spirit and it is not logical. Words will fail to explain fully Indian spirituality. I take it that you are focused on projecting or promoting Sivaya Subramuniyaswami of Srilanka as Sadguru, under his holy grace of protection genocide has taken place in Srilanka(Press report). Coincidentally I notice that Subramanyaswami worships lord Shiva of hindu mythology who is responsible for destruction (please do not ask for source of reference even for this on behalf of wiki)a true sadguru does not worship Shiva,Vishnu or Brahma, sadguru is higher than them. I tend to believe that your presence on this page is to protect this name. Let me remind you that you are infact blocking the improvement on this page and truth on the meaning of sadguru. I have quoted the authoritative book of Sant Kabir on this subject in hindi "KABIR SAGAR" (you may also refer to KABIR MANSOOR) printed and published by shri venkateshwar press, 7th khetwadi, Mumbai-400004. The book cost around India Rs600. website- http://www.khe-shri.com email-khemraj@vsnl.com. I have quoted in this discussion extensively from the above book in English translation. If you continue with your stubbornness and block efforts of others in improving this site, I will be compelled to request for a ban on you on this page "sadguru". Expansion is divine, contraction is evil. With best regards sathyam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathyam999 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You have all this wrong. I have never heard of Sivaya Subramuniyaswami of Srilanka, and I am not much interested in religion or "spirituality" in general. The fact that you assume I am from a rival school of thought illustrates the problem we face. We cannot let editors with strong individual ideas prevail in any Wikipedia article, or WP will turn into a war zone. We need respected sources of information. If they tell us contradictory things, then we just acknowledge each view point. If you are not happy with this, by all means take your complaint to WP administration. Rumiton (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr Rumiton if you are not interested in sprituality, why misguide others by your action here.What is your interst that keeps you editing on this page 'Satguru'. which is the higest form of hindu worship. help me understand your purpose of presence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathyam999 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? "...my interest is in improving Wikipedia, rather than in this or any particular topic." Like many people, I value Wikipedia exactly because it undermines the "wisdom from above" practice that religious figures, poor journalists, divisive politicians and third rate educators have in the past thrived on. I can only again suggest that if you want to be an effective editor, you learn some more about the Wikipedia culture. You have got off to an awkward start with some quite hostile and presumptive comments. For your future effectiveness, you might like to look at some subjects like assume good faith and civility. If you check your talk page I can leave a more complete list of guidelines for you there. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirect discussion

A discussion is on at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev#Redirect Sadhguru like Sadguru to Satguru Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 15:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Planning to move Satsang to the new article "Satsangh"

Hi All, planning to move section related to Satsang to the new article Satsangh.Jasperkal (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)