Talk:Siddha Yoga/Archive 5

Template:WPHinduismOldpeerreview

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:

1. "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.
2. 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.

1. 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.
2. Your placement of the statement ruined the footnote for another sentence.
3. 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)