Jump to content

Talk:Guru/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Guru
(Redirected from Talk:Guru/archive5)
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Zappaz statement of action until mediation

I have read the article again, and I simply cannot accept it as it is. My statement of action from now on in this article until page protection is enacted and a period of mediation instituted will be as follows:

  1. I will revert my three times in each 24hr period until page protection and mediation take place.
  2. I will delete any libelous text from this page, unless properly NPOVed not stated as facts.

I will not tolerate anti-religious bigotry, and the use of WP for advocacy against or for any subject. --Zappaz 22:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A request for mediation was filed in regard to a dispute. It was answered by mediator Stevertigo, talk

Thanks Stevertigo. I kindly request page protection, and also request an indication on how to proceed with the mediation. My preferred method would be via email. You can email me via the link on my user page. Thanks. --Zappaz 23:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Article has been protected, according to requests by Willmcw and Zappaz. -SV|t 23:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. Something is wrong with the format of the page. I think those two templates together are messing up the format... --Zappaz 00:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz wrote
I will not tolerate anti-religious bigotry
Authorative referenced attributed criticism is not bigotry. And besides the neutral observations made by the pscychiatrist Alexander Deutsch are not criticism, they are only perceived as criticism by people who have an unrealistic romanticized view on the guru-disciple relationship. Andries 08:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz wrote,
He asks for mediation and continues to revert edits. Apalling behavior.
As usual Zappaz makes pot kettle black accusations against me. His last edits are a de facto revert due to multiple edits by him.[1] Andries 08:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Another argument for the bad reputation of the word guru

I was just reading the magazine What is enlightenment founded by the American guru Andrew Cohen that is quite pro-guru magazine and the Aug-Oct. 2004 issue nr. 26 contains the following in the section Pulse: news and gossip from an emerging culture page 28.

"Want to know just how far the word guru has fallen into disrepute in the spiritual world? The organization of one of the most renowned, controversial, and susccessful Indian gurus of the last century has decided that their late founder ..... is not a guru. Osho, once known as Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh, was the popular seventies spiritual teacher most Americans known for his notorious commune at Oregon, his predilection for Rolls Royces, and his many Western students [..] "Not only is Osho not a guru, his whole approach is to demolish the guru game", reads the official ashram website. [..]Indeed, Osho was a force of personality unlike anything the spiritual world had seen in some time, and love him or hate him he was a guru -fully completely, unabashadley. Pulse has been told that that kind of subversive talk - guru-talk - is off limits..."

The excerpt is yet another proof that the word guru has acquired a negative connotation in the West. Note that several former prominent editors of the magazine are now critical former followers of Andrew Cohen. Andries 09:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

We are in agrement: the word guru has acquired a negative connotation is the West. That is super clear! . But that has nothing to do with our dispute. Read the dispute summary on the Request for mediation page. --Zappaz 15:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
And please desist from publishing libelous accussations against anybody including gurus in this page. Wikipedia and these pages are not a tabloid to spew uncorroborated allegations made by non-notable individuals. --Zappaz 15:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
No, I won't stop it. Please stop removing the list from the talk page. Gurus are public figures and hence deserve scrutiny. This list of allegations (some of them very well documented or even facts) are important to understand the controversy regarding this article. Andries 17:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you will. This page is not a place to list acussations. Provide links to the articles where these controversies are exploredm if you wish. You can make your point that way . What you are doing is innapropriate it and you bloody well know it. -Zappaz 18:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
here is the list that Zappaz tries to censor on this talk page. User:Andries/guru#Why_gurus_are_controversial_in_the_West Andries 18:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I cannot censor anything. This is WP. BTW, that page is now under VfD. --Zappaz 19:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Mediation issues

1. Zappaz claims that the inclusion of Andries' list on this talk page constitutes "libel." Incorrect - The list of pertinent and properly sourced accusations does not constitute libel — in the talk page or even in the article. If included in an article without proper context and balance, such a list could most likely be considered POV. Wikipedia should neither be glowing nor overwhelmingly debasing in how it portrays the character of people. (Note: If the list were copied verbatim from somewhere else, there may be an issue of copyviolation, even on the talk pages.) 2. Andries claims that the removal of his list was inapropriate "censorship." Correct - its not appropriate to remove material from the talk pages in the manner that Zappaz did. Wikipedia policy regarding talk pages is do not revert or remove text from the talk page unless it contains vandalism, threats, or in extreme cases, insults that violate Civility. I am restoring the list, as it was inappropriate to remove it. These are my views on the matter as I currently understand it —other mediators may disagree. -SV|t 19:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Is libel allowed on Talk pages? --goethean 21:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Stevertigo: hese allegations are libelous, uncorroborated and dangerous. How can you allow uncorroborated accussations of murder, sexual abuse, pedophilia and alcoholism, remain here? I ask you to re-consider. Thanks. --Zappaz 22:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


You also say that the list is properly sourced, but it is not. Many of the allegations stated there are not sourced or attributed. --Zappaz 23:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, I will try to source the accusations a bit better but that takes some time. Accusations of murder are corroborated by Basava Premanand's book voluminous about SSB Shambles in Sai Baba's bedroom Robert Priddy's book The End of the Dream. Accusation about pedophilia are treated in the respective article about Muktananda and Sathya Sai Baba. Accusation of alcholism are treated in Stephen A. Kent's book (2001) From Slogans to MantrasAndries 23:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I just added some needed comments to Andries list, so I can live with it. I still think it is bad practice, but I abide by the decision of the mediator. Thanks. --Zappaz 23:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation?

Is this mediation? I understood that mediation is handled differntly: that the mediator hears each side separately and then mediates to bridge disputes.

Can we move on from the discussion about Andries list and re-focus on the article instead? Thanks. --Zappaz 23:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Why gurus are controversial in the West (restored)

(I posted this here because user:Zappaz keeps removing it from the talk page of guru talk:guru because he considers it libelous. In contrast, I think that gurus are public figures and deserve scrutiny and the list of accusations is important to understand the subject.)

These are the most notable gurus in the West and seven of 10 twelve (58%) were involved in serious scandal and controversy. But still user:Zappaz says that a large section of criticsm in the section about gurus in the West is against NPOV guidelines. This is a list of the most notable and popular gurus in the West and not a selection of controversial ones. Allegations and controversies are in bold and in some cases mere allegations and not proven facts.

  1. Aurobindo relatively uncontroversial
  2. Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche a lama (Tibetan Buddhist religious teacher) alleged alcoholic, drinking alcohol means breaching one of the formal vows of Buddhism [2] [3], als desribed in the book by Dr. Stephen A. Kent From Slogans to Mantras
  3. Jiddu Krishnamurti groomed to be a world spiritual teacher by the Theosophical Society Adyar but publicly renounced this role in 1929 secret mistress accuses him to be egocentric [4]
  4. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi now lives in the Netherlands failed promises i.e. claims of yogic flying, demolishing protected monument in Vlodrop, false claims to be science though it a meditation technique based on a Hindu sect (lost court cases about that), broke vow of celibacy as described in an article by the NRC Handelsblad [5]
  5. Muktananda alleged sexual abuse of girls and women though claimed to be celibate. Allegations by ex-followers. [6] He did not reply to the articles in the magazines about these allegations. According to former followers his "reply" was to send guards to silence people who made these accusations. Andries 10:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Prem Rawat, formerly know as Guru Maharaj Ji who settled in the USA. Note: Maharaji dropped the title "guru" from his name in 1980. alleged financial exploitation of followers, alleged false suggestions of personal divinity, alleged never admitted this and now blames his followers of putting too much faith in him insted of making apologies for misleading them [7], alleged alcoholic, alleged meditation teacher who did not meditate himself, allegedgely using his power and authority for sexual gratification . (Note that these accussation are made by an alleged hate group [8] formed by critical ex-followers that call themselves ex-premies. See Criticism of Prem Rawat)
  7. Prabhupada who founded ISKCON/Hare Krisna in New York, an organization based on the Gaudiya Vaishnavism sect of Hinduism relatively uncontroversial as a person but appointed eleven regional gurus as his successors who became very controversial and nearly all involved in scandal and his teachings were very strict and dogmatic, believed that moon landings were a hoax [9] See also his radical ideals if you can read German de:Bhagavad_Gita_Wie_Sie_Ist [10]
  8. Paramahansa Yogananda settled in the USA and wrote the book Autobiography of a Yogi relatively uncontroversial
  9. Meher Baba who had conspicuous followers relatively uncontroversial though his claim to be the avatar of age was a bit exaggerated
  10. Bhagwan/Osho/Rajneesh settled temporarily in the USA extremely controversial for his unorthodox teachings and sexual liberty
  11. Sathya Sai Baba alleged sexual abuse of boys and young men though claimed to be celibate, false miracles e.g. resurrection and materialization proven among others by footage and by Erlendur Haraldsson in his book Miracles are my visiting cards, claims of omniscience proven to be untrue by skeptic Dale Beyerstein, alleged accomplice of murder as desribed in the books by Robert Priddy and Basava Premanand, complicity through blackmail of the police of high ranking Sathya Sai Trust member and younger brother of SSB in the unresolved murder of 6 people [11]
  12. Dalai Lama relatively uncontroversial

So that means that 3 5 out of 10 12 notable gurus in the West are relatively uncontroversial as a person. This proves my point that gurus in the West are very controversial. Andries 21:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you win on this point as the mediator has decided that I was wrong in removing this list. Nevertheless, you have found that half of the "notable" gurus are controversial, some of which are only controversial in the eyes of ex-followers, like you. Nevertheless, the list proofs only one thing: that there is a controversy in the West about some gurus. Nothing more. We can cover that in two sentences in the article and proide a "See Also" section for readers to explore the articles on these figures. --Zappaz 23:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I think this article is an excellent place to treat the general question whether there is a reason for it that so many gurus are involved in serious scandals and controversies. If even the word guru itself has acquired a negative connotation then this is worth exploring here. Andries 23:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You also "forgot" to add other notable gurus:

Adding these two, your statement about a majority of notabhle gurus being controversial, fall appart. --Zappaz 23:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

they were not listed as notable gurus in the West that I have read. And besides, Ramakrishna is now accused of having wandering toes towards his followers' genitals during meditation according to Jeffreyu Kripal's book Kali's Child Andries 23:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
This is just absolutely nuts.... one or two people's allegation is all what it takes, right?. What a crazy and f*ked up world we live in.... --Zappaz 23:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but the postive stories directly about Ramakrishna also come from a few people. It is natural for a belief system that hinges around the reliability of one person that the testimonies of only a few people are important. I did not read Kripal's book but I heard that it is well documented. (amended) Andries 23:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
What about the testimonies of the millions and millions of followers of these gurus combined? These don't count in your opinion? That is the main contention in this dispute. The allocation of a large portion of the text to criticism of these gurus by anti-cultists, skeptics and apostates. Shall we then add to the article favorable testimonies in the correct proportion? Shall we Andries? --Zappaz 23:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Positive articles from mainstream scholarly sources are, I think, okay. Kripal's book deals with testimonies of his direct followers of Ramakrishna. If you want to give a rebuttal then you will have to do that with other testimonies of his direct disciples or scholarly rebuttals of Kripal's work. I don't know whether Alexander Deutsch is a skeptic, apostate or anti-cultist. I am quite sure that Jan van der Lans is neither of all that. There are no testimonies of apostates in this article (amended) Andries 23:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

But there are on your list! So this works only one way, right? Apostate testimonies are OK and sufficient to sustain an allegation of crimes as dramatic as murder and pedophilia, but a follower's testimoy does not count. What a perverse logic, don't you think? --Zappaz 00:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

well, if the follower was in the room at the same time as the sexual abuse took place, yes, then the followers' testimonies counts. Andries 00:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Since the analogy to Catholc priests has been raised before, let's apply it here. Should the article Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal include long lists of testimonials from parishioners who were not molested that attest to the good character of the accused (even condemned) priests? If there are a hundred loyal parishioners and only five accusers, are we required to devote 20 times as much space to the parishioners comments? Or should it simply say that many of the priests were defended by their parishioners who could not believe the charges, and that many priests who were charged were found not guilty. -Willmcw 00:19, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Will, that logic does not work. None of these gurus, as far as my research goes, have been accused in a court of law of anything illegal or improper. The Catholic priests controversy manifested when people accussed priests of abuse in lawsuits and that where either settled or that resulted in convictions. This is not the case here. --Zappaz 02:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Will, I think it is to some extent a good analogy but these gurus have their own organizations, and are deified, and have followers who follow them as a person and foster their devotion to these gurus. And because followers have so many good experiences that they attribute to the deified guru, they cannot believe these blasphemous accusations and the people who witnessed the hypocrisy or experienced the abuse or believe in these testimonies are branded as liars and apostates. In short, it can be even more dramatic than the sexual abuse by priests. Andries 00:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

These are good questions, Will. The problem we are having here is one of purpose. If we stick to the simple and basic, that is to describing the controversy without getting into details, we will be square within NPOV. The moment we start writing extensive text about allegations and/or the controversy itself in this article, we need to thread carefuly otherwise NPOV gets easily compromised. I would strongly disagree that it is OK, to say guru so and so is accussed of sexual abuse and murder by ex-follower so and so or by an obscure Dutch scholar put forward by Andries, without allowing a full rebuttal and context for these provided, and without stating that millions of people consider these accussations to be untruthful and unreliable. This is the problem we get into when we go beyond describing the controversy. That description can be general, all inclusive, and can be made in one or two well-written paragraphs. We can then provide a "See Also" section in which we invite the reader to explore the articles on these controversial religious leaders, in which these allegations are fully exposed, hopefully within NPOV. Note that these are only a few of the issues with this article. For Andries is all about how to make any guru to look as bad as possible (in particular his own ex-guru, SSB), and put in bad light the guru-disciple relationship that for 1.3 billion people is sacred. Andries finds that it is not enough to write essays against gurus on the Internet, he wants Wikipedia to be a place in which he can "warn" the public about "unreliable" gurus. He has stated this at least twice in these very pages. That is what I oppose here: the use of WP as a platform for advocating for or against anything, the core source of this dispute. -Zappaz 02:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  1. My version contains only mentioning of the three most notable scandals and controversies. That is, I think, very, very moderate given the list that I compiled above. Governments haver taken actions against all three of them Rajneesh (jail), Shoko Asahara (death sentence), and Sathya Sai Baba (warnings by the USA and the European Union).Andries 07:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Soko Ashara is not a guru.
  • Government actions against SSB? Hopefully one day that will be achieved, but not at this point.
  • You are wrong. The EU refuses the cooperate with SSB affiliated organizations after a motion was accepted by the European Parliamment and the US State department warns visitors to Andhra Pradesh. Andries 17:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that a Japanese newspaper called Asahara a guru, does not makes him one.
  • Refusing cooperation is a very mild "action"

--38.119.107.72 18:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I was referring to the article itself. You can chose to feature a few samples of the controversial gurus, and a few samples of the non-controversial ones such as the Dalai Lama and Vivekananda (certainly notable if one is to judge by his article). That could help with NPOV, don't you think? --38.119.107.72 18:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
When I am writing in "Criticism in the West" then it is logical to list the rotten apples and not fine ones. Andries 19:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I though that the disputed section is called "Guru in a Western Context". If you change the name of the subhead from "Criticism of the guru in the West" to "The guru controversy in the West", you can describe the controversy by writing both about the "good apples" and the "bad apples" (not in these terms, of course). --38.119.107.72 23:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is possible to rename that section and mention that there some gurus are relatively uncontroversial but it won't change much. By the way, I read that Vivekananda visited brothels [12] but that may be just a rumor. Andries 07:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. None of the Dutch scholars are obscure.

see Jan van der LansDo you think Kranenborg is obsure? Andries 07:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  1. I think it is okay if there is a rebuttal by mainstream scholars of all the criticisms by Jan van der Lans, Anthony Storr, Alexander Deutsch etc. If you can provide that then that would be fine. Andries 07:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Never heard of Lans. Kranenborg is somewhat known. Why only these Dutch people? There are hundreds of scholars of Hinduism, some of which more notable than these. You could research some of these as well, and present their alternative POVs. --38.119.107.72 15:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
.72, What authors do you suggest who have written about gurus? Mark Juergensmeyer, Agehanda Bharati? I have read several English language scholars but few go as deep about gurus as Kranenborg and Jan van der Lans. The latter was one of the authorities in NRMs here and cited e.g. in the book Cults and NRMs page 237 edited by Marc Galanter. Jan van der Lans is also extensively quoted by Dr. Paul Schnabel in his dissertation about NRMs.Andries 17:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Never heard of Dr. Schabel either. Is he also Dutch? I heard of Galanter, is he not an author that writes mainly about cults and about alcoholism? I am not an expert in Hinduism or Buddhism. I would suggest you ask some of the editors that worked on the main articles of these religions for some ideas. One author that I have read is Eknath Easwaran, but not sure if he wrote specifically about gurus. --38.119.107.72 18:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, Dr Paul Schnabel is a Dutch sociologist who wrote an influential dissertation about NRMs. He is now one of the top civil servants in the Netherlands and head of the SCP. Yes, Marc Galanter wrote a lot about cults but now more about alcoholism. Yes, I have read some of Eknath Easwaran and I do not think that his works can used as a source here because it is not scholary enough. His words fail to impress me because I have read soooooo many Hindu books. Andries
  • I Googled Schnabel and he does only show on pages in Dutch. It seems he wrote a dissertation for his doctorate about the subject. If he was influential he would have been translated. I am surprised that you consider Easwaran "non-scholarly". If one judges by the number of books and citations in peer reviewed articles, Easwaran is widely read and cited. --38.119.107.72 23:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The original question was whether Jan van der Lans is a good source and I used the fact that Schabel had cited him often as a reason to show that van der Lans is a good source. I do think that what Schnabel wrote is of excellent quality even if it has not been translated into English. As the link shows [13], Jan van der Lans was a prominent professor in the psychology of religion so it is okay to cite him in this article. Andries 06:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I read I think one book by Easwaran and now find that unimpressive and not scholarly enough. May be there is more but I haven't read it. Do you have a title? Andries 06:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)-
  1. Hinduism is the most innovative, diverse, dynamic free-market religion in the World. And yes, in a free market things will sometimes go terribly wrong. If there is one place where this difficult, complicated and sometimes painful issues should be treated in Wikipedia then it is here. Andries 08:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Editing controversial articles is never easy. Tried writing "for the other side"? Sometime it helps. 38.119.107.72
  • .72 I am willing to write for the enemy normally but not when there are people around who challenge every slightly negative word and ask references for every little thing that I write. Then I have to focus on finding references which takes an enormous amount of time. The intense controversy regarding this article was inevitable given the fact that people have so widely divergent experiences and perceptions of gurus. Andries 17:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that WP is a very wide platform, is not encumbered by the limitations of a paper encyclopedia, and as such many subjects can be covered in detail. But be careful not to cross the line into advocating. Sometimes it is a fine line. --38.119.107.72 15:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. The question is not what my motivation is, but whether what I write here is accurate and within NPOV guidelines. Andries
  • Yes, that seems to be the dispute: are you or are you not writing within NPOV principles? and are you or are you not crossing the line into advocacy while attempting that? --38.119.107.72 15:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the best and most objective way to test whether I engage in advocacy is to check whether the criticism that I inserted is from authorative, referenced attributed sources and whether the other side of the coin is also represented in the article (though the latter is not only my responsibility). Andries 18:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • As any editor worth his salt will tell you, you can editorialize anything. Here we are trying to edit NPOV articles and editing within NPOV is not just about citing your sources.
Editorialize: to insert personal opinions into an article or statement that is supposed to be an objective statement of facts. --38.119.107.72 18:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • .72 With regards to your commments about editorializing that was somehow lost on the talk page. No, I have not inserted my personal opinion here (editorialized) but I have to admit that I am very much interested in avoiding fake gurus. Andries 19:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I chose three of David Lane's seven points to assess gurus that I considered most important because I recognized those three from my own experience. It will be clear that I think that Zappaz did more editorialzing than I. Editorializing by Zappaz include,
  1. Zappaz made a sub sub section, instead of a sub section, of an important subject and he gave it an euphemistic title "Finding a true guru" which should be "Finding and assessing a guru". That is, I think, against NPOV guidelines. Andries 08:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Extensive unsummarized long quote by Feuerstein in a more prominent place than other POVs though Feuerstein's view is highly subjective and more subjective than all the other POVs of David Lane, Storr, Jan van der Lans. Beside the quote contains an assertion that is at best an unjustified generalization and probably untrue in most cases i.e. "They [gurus] are not even about morality." Hindu and Buddhist gurus generally consider morality very important. Andries 08:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
But still with regards to my motivation, I want to repeat that I am not anti-guru but that I do have a problem, like many people, to distinguish reliable gurus from unreliable ones. And Zappaz, you came here with the stated purpose of defending new religions against what you see as bigotry and prejudice. You did from the very start. You started defending a guru (Prem Rawat) that I think no unbiased, intelligent person would defend. In contrast, I have edited a multitude of subjects. I tended to gravitate to new religions etc. when you started to give whitewashed portrayals of unreliable gurus and new religions. Andries 07:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I had enough. I hereby declare I will not edit this article for 30 days. --Zappaz 08:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Pity. You were doing a good job. --38.119.107.72 15:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I can see that discussion has been continuing, and that the participants are explaining themselves with some articularity. I hope that I was able to clear up some of the NPOV issues. "The list" as I understand it should be understood to be a list of controverisal accusations, that merely reports on the accusations. It would be preferable, as Zappaz has refrained from editing this article for a time, that Andries do similar, and gain consensus for his work before adding it to the article. WP:RFC is available for this purpose as well. Once the parties in a dispute become willing to enter dialogue and to submit to consensus regarding controversial matters, then the article's development can continue with some moderation. I would appreciate hearing back from anyone on any further particular matters of dispute. Regards, -SV|t 00:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Steven wrote,
"The list" as I understand it should be understood to be a list of controversial accusations, [..] that Andries do similar, and gain consensus for his work before adding it to the article.
I had no intention to add the list to the article. The list was just meant as proof on the talk page that there is considerable controversy and criticism of many notable gurus in the West which, I think, should be reflected in the article. I only wanted to add three of the most notable examples of controversy and scandal i.e. Rajneesh, Shoko Asahara, and Sathya Sai Baba in the subsection "Criticism of gurus in the West". See User:Andries/guru#Criticism_of_gurus_in_the_WestAndries 07:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I intend to re-submit a RFC about this article that includes the following points (amended)
1. a) Should the article mention Indian Skeptics who challenges gurus and godmen? b) Should the Indian Skeptics have their own sub section? {Compare User:Andries/guru#Debunking_of_gurus.2C_godmen_and_fakirs_by_skeptics with Guru#Guru_in_Hinduism}
2. a) Should the information about finding and assessing a guru in Hinduism mentioned in a sub sub section or in a sub section. b) Should this (sub) sub section have the name "Finding a true guru" or "Finding and assessing a guru"? {Compare Guru#Finding_a_true_guru with User:Andries/guru#Finding_and_assessing_a_guru_in_Hinduism}
3. Should the quote by Dr. Georg Feuerstein about the alleged differences between East an West mentioned in its own subsection together with Jan van der Lans remarks about the alleged differences between East and West or should Dr. Feuerstein's quote merged in the section "Gurus in a Western Context?
{Compare Guru#Guru_in_a_Western_culture_context with User:Andries/guru#Alleged_differences_between_Eastern_culture_and_Western_culture}
4. Should the sub section " Criticism of the guru by Western secular scholars and theologians" mention the three most notable scancals and controversies i.e. Rajneesh, Shoko Asahara, and Sathya Sai Baba?
{Compare Guru#Criticism_of_the_guru_by_Western_secular_scholars_and_theologians with User:Andries/guru#Criticism_of_gurus_in_the_West }
Andries 13:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC) (amended)
5. Should someone dedicated to anti-guru advocacy be writing the Wikipedia article on Gurus?
--goethean 15:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean, and others, I repeat it does not make sense to accuse me or anybody of advocacy without being concrete and detailed. I really do not see any advocacy in my edits. All criticism is from reputable, referenced attributed sources. And besides, if I was not here then other people would be adding critical material to the guru article in due time because there are simply widely divergent polarized opinions about gurus. The controversy about this article was inevitable. (amended) Andries 15:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Any fool can see that your edits are anti-guru advocacy. Your own comments on this talk page admit as much. For example:
I know from personal experience that Feuerstein's way of reasoning as expressed in that article can lead to disasters. Andries 17:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why would you say that? If all that you want is an accurate article, why wouldn't you say: "Feuerstein is incorrect in his description of gurus." or: "Feuerstein's facts are wrong."
The only possible answer is that your presence here is in order to keep people from following gurus. Which may be a very admirable mission, but it is not the mission of Wikipedia. In fact, to the extent that your mission conflicts with the writing of the article from a neutral point of view, your mission and that of Wikipedia are in conflict. --goethean 15:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not like Feuerstein's long quote but yes I admitted after some protest that Feuerstein's POV belongs in this article. Yes, I know from experience (not just believe) that Feuerstein's perspective can lead and has led to disasters including suicide, and sexual abuse in the case of SSB. I repeat that I am not anti-guru though it will be clear that there are some that I do not like, but I do have a problem to distinguish the good ones from the bad ones. How do my edits break NPOV and are advocacy? You have not answered that question which is the only important one, probably because you can't. Andries 16:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I prefer the comments and question by anon .72 that are at least about the article and not about the motivations of the people contributing to this article. Andries 16:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
No doubt. That's because you are obviously writing in bad faith.
You never answered my question. If your goal here is to write a neutral article, why would you complain about the effects of Feuerstein's words, rather than their accuracy? --goethean 16:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean, I know from experience that what Feuerstein wrote is dangerous nonsense but if I was writing in bad faith and only wanted to warn people against gurus then I would never have allowed Feuerstein's quote in the article. Can we get back to discussing the article instead of disucssing my motives?Andries 16:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of the concerns raised by Goethean and Zappaz, re: advocacy, I would want to address the issue of "building consensus". I have responded bullet by bullet to the points made by Andries, and proposed several alternatives for reaching NPOV on the "Western aspects of gurus" section. These proposals are thoroughly ignored in the proposed RfC. Building consensus start by listening and incorporating other points of view into your own thinking, for the purpose of achieving NPOV. If this is the attitude of editors in this article, I am not surprised at Zappaz's expressed frustration. Nevertheless, after reading the proposed RfC, I gather that the nuances of these edits wil be lost to most if not all editors. I myself find it difficult to understand what are the differences. I would be surprised if anyone will respond to such RfC. --38.119.107.72 16:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
.72, I did listen to your concerns and I gave a detailed reply to all of them. I am still waiting for your replies. Andries 16:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
.72, Why don't you add a point to the RFC that you consider important? Andries 16:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment on the term "Western"

Andries, your association of "Criticism" with "Western" is IMV not proper. 1. I think that simple "Criticism" is fine, and a treatment on the main Guru article about the nature of Western criticism towards Gurus in general is justified. Note, the West (or any Imperial power) has always been critical of any foreign leaders, and their related movements. This is a simple aspect of keeping the heirarchy of power in place, and to circumvent any local persons from becoming "upstarts." This kind of dismissal goes to the very basis of Western cultural prejudice toward foreign people who may potentially bring to dissenting or different views to prominence.

2. This is very different from general accusations and criticism, which are not all attributable to "the West" or to Western loyalities. Certainly some issues depend on the views of the culture to which they are being presented: hence a damning accusation among Western societies might be dismissed as a minor issue in the local culture. 3. This does not mean that the criticism itself should be categorized as exclusively "Western," because thats the viewpoint from which particular accusations are most condemning. This wiki itself could be said to be "a Western context" and therefore a Western POV - (this will change as non-Western views are better represented) but in this context the use of "Western" is redundant categorization - "(west(west(thing))" in addition to improper and confusing. Regards, -24.4.80.239 19:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

.239. I fully agree and I have been saying from the start that the separation of criticism in "Western" and "Eastern" is strange, artificial and may be even somewhat culturally prejudiced. This has been a major issue and I still think that the separation is wrong but the main contention is now, not the separation anymore, but the amount and the prominence of critical information. I would appreciate if you got a userid and then discuss more about it. Andries (amended) 19:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
This wiki itself could be said to be "a Western context"
I disagree. This encyclopedia is not a Judeo-Christian or Anglo-American project, representing a Western POV. Read NPOV#Anglo-American_focus

Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?

Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British citizens working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia may reflect a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on.

≈ jossi ≈ 22:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I consider myself more a Hindu than a Christian though I grew up in the Netherlands. I can sing bhajans and chant mantras quite well and feel far more kinship with Hinduism. I think the differences between "Western perspective" and "Eastern perspective" is nonsense and sometimes an intended mystification for propagandistic purposes. I oppose making a separation beteen these Eastern and Western perspectives in the article. Andries 22:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC) (amended)
What you consider yourself, Andries, is inconsequential. We are not discussing what "Andries thinks" or what I think. This is not a personal thing. This is an encyclopedic article. *baffled* ≈ jossi ≈ 22:21, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Can you enlighten us, Andries on the meaning of your : is nonsense and sometimes an intended mystification for propagandistic purposes. What do you mean, exactly. ≈ jossi ≈ 22:24, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I mean that the difference between Eastern and Western is exaggerated and I also mean that some people unconsciously portray the East as mystical and hence attractive. A good example are Lobsang Rampa's books on which Agehananda Bharati commented with a well written article Andries 22:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC).
Alas, it is not for us to judge that! As editors, we just need to present the facts, not our interpretation of these. This is what I was referring to when I wrote about the difficulty of editing NPOV articles that are controversial when we have strong opinions about a subject. As for the East/West conversation, I think that in 'this specific article, such a distinction is called for, unless you create a separate article to deal with the controversial aspects of this subject (that, fyi, in my view have been blown out of proportion), in which case that distinction will be unnecessary and indeed artificial. --38.119.107.72
.72 wrote
Alas, it is not for us to judge that! As editors, we just need to present the facts, not our interpretation of these.
We have to judge because we have to choose a structure for the article. To what extent do we do that on the basis of an Eastern Western distinction? I admit that we cannot fully avoid the distinction but I believe that the we should keep it as small as possible. Andries 05:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
.72 wrote,
the controversial aspects of this subject (that, fyi, in my view have been blown out of proportion)
I do not understand how you can say that taken into account the list that I compiled that is ugly for the majority of the gurus and the negative connotation that the word has acquired. But if you want to restore belance in the article then I recommend that you add favorable material. As user:Willmcw said, the way to restore balance in an article with a lot of sourced criticism is not by removing the criticism but to add more favorable material. It will be clear that I strongly oppose to removing critical material from this article. Andries 20:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Let me introduce you to the concept of cybersmearing. The list that you compiled (with the exception of the jail sentence), are all "allegations" ( A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof). Allegations, when described in the juicy terms that you have used, is sometimes a nasty way to criticize an opponent. The dilemma you put us in, is how does one "balances" such statements with "favorable" materials. This concern applies not only to the list in question, but to large portions of the article in its current shape.
Let me give you a graphic example. Consider this statement:
  • Mr. So-and-so has been accused by Abc and Xyz of being a pedophile and a sexual abuser
  • Friends of Mr. So-and-so say that these are lies, and that So-and-so is a nice person that would never be involved in such behavior.
Replace now Mr So-and-so, with your own name and read it aloud three times. How does it feel? Imagine now that this gets posted on Wikipedia (if you are notable enough) or on a discussion forum, for all to see. Suddenly the burden of proof that you are not a sexual abuser, is not on the accuser, but on you! Sad, but true. That is why it is called "Cybersmearing": The damage to your oponent is already done, regardless if the allegations are proven to be false.
In these cases, the idea of "balance" of "favorable material" is just a nice idea but not implementable. Allegations such as these are good for newspapers, online editorials, etc. but do not have a place in any encyclopedia. You can end up stating that your edits are NPOV, when the actual result when looked at from the perspective of the article as a whole is not NPOV.
My point is that selective editing of an article, in which allegations of improperness are displayed (rather than facts), in which commentary rather than facts are used, and in which selective citations that highlight just a certain aspect are presented (i. e. editorializing), makes NPOV very difficult, if not unattainable. --38.119.107.72 23:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • .72 People who chose the profession of gurus are public figures and hence chose to have their public lives and private lives scrutinized. Strict morality is according to Hindu scriptures a prerequisite for being a guru. So your suggestion to replace the name of a guru with my name is totally inappropriate. Andries 11:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
oh, and another thing, do you realize what it means to get sexually abused by your guru? Here is an (uncomfirmed) well written story for you to read [14] that explains it a bit. Sexual abuse accusation are nasty and frustrating for all parties involved because they cannot be proven and falsified but still they are important. Andries 11:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
And besides I only wanted to show the most notable scandals and controversies which in all cases have resulted in government actions. See my alternative version User:Andries/guru#Criticism. To use an analogy, should we remove the allegations of sexual abuse by Michael Jackson from Wikipedia until he has been convicted? Michael_Jackson:_2005_trial If you really think so, then I propose you put that article on Wikipedia:Vote for deletion but that will be a futile attempt. Many of these male gurus are surrounced by sycophant followers and have total authority and power of these followers. No wonder that gurus, may be out of ordinary boredom, cannot always resist resist the temptation to abuse this power. (This scenario is of course one of the many possible scenarios that will lead to what followers perceive as abuse and betrayal.) The controversy surrounding gurus is a notable controversy. Even the relatively pro-guru magazine What is Enlightenment? admits this (see comment on the right) Hence the controversy should be treated here. Andries 11:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
.72 wrote [...] selective editing of an article, in which allegations of improperness are displayed (rather than facts), in which commentary rather than facts are used, and in which selective citations that highlight just a certain aspect are presented (i. e. editorializing), makes NPOV very difficult, if not unattainable.
.72 Then, I repeat, please select citations that highlight another more positive aspect. And besides, the controversy with regards to Rajneesh, Chandraswami, Swami Premananda, Sathya Sai Baba, and Shoko Asahara that I want to insert are facts at least I can write them as such by highlighting the government actions against them, not just commentaries. And the more positive Hindu view on gurus is also a mostly a commentary, e.g. the section "Devotees view on Guru and God". Do you want to remove this view too? Andries 14:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
In other words, what I wrote is not editorializing and is within NPOV. Andries 10:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
By that argument, an article on gurus that consisted of nothing but allegations against gurus would be NPOV. That's absurd. --goethean 15:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean, I do not understand your point. This article has an extensive treatment of the Hindu POV of gurus. I only want to insert a small, small selection of the many scandals with gurus. Andries 15:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
. 72 If you are serious about removing editorializing then I suggest you first complain about the worst case of editiorializing in the article, i.e. the long unsammarized quote by Feuerstein, very prominently placed as if it s more important and authorative than other commentaries. Andries 16:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
...because as everyone knows, your unknown, untranslated Dutch anti-guru critics are far more important than an authority on Indian religion that actually takes Hinduism seriously. You might as well go ahead and delete the Feuerstein quotation. There's no attempt at neutrality in this article anyways. Here's an idea: let's move the the article to Andries and his Dutch anti-guru authors rant against Hinduism. --goethean 16:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean, I translated quite a big portion of Jan van der Lans on the talk page of one of the Prem Rawat related pages. Kranenborg, David C. Lane (ex-Charan Singh), and Jan van der Lans take or took Hinduism seriously. Both Jan van der Lans and Kranenborg interviewed dozens of followers of (quasi-Hindu) groups. I consider myself a Hindu. For nine years the Bhagavad Gita was my daily bread. Andries 17:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Feurstein's quote seems pertinent, as it describes the controversy without taking sides. It is quite extraordinary to realize that after all these extensive exchanges, your position remains unmovable within your own understanding. It seems that it is difficult for you to incorporate into your thinking any of the concerns raised by Goethean, Zappaz and myself. I can understand the reasons for this, as it seems that these controversies have affected you personally. In these cases, in which an editor has such a personal involvement, it is sometimes better to relinquish editing to other editors that are more neutral (if your intent, of course, is to get this article to NPOV status). My suggestion to you is that you could provide the information/data/sources in your Talk page, and ask an editor of your choosing to edit the article itself. Nevertheless, I feel I have contributes as much as I could to this discussion, and wish you best of luck with the article. --38.119.107.72 16:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
. 72 Feuerstein does take sides, he mystifies the discussion by asserting that there is a magical mysterious difference between Eastern and Western culture that, in my view, does not exist. I hope that everybody from my detailed replies can see that I do understand Goethean, .72, and Zappaz but I just continue to disagree. Andries 16:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Feuerstein's quotation does not employ magic; there is a difference between magic and mysticism.
Andries: are you happy that you have driven another would-be editor away from this article with your insistence on enshrining your one-sided advocacy in this article? --goethean 16:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I gave a detailed reply to all the concerns raised by .72. And I invited .72 to insert more positive material to balance the article. But s/he refrained from doing so. Andries 17:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
To summarize what .72 said (since you don't seem to have read their words) you have proved that you are completely incapable of writing on this subject neutrally. This article will not achieve NPOV until you recuse yourself from it. --goethean 17:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean, add more positive material if you think that article is too negative. Andries 18:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Your position is that you can add an unlimited amount of anti-guru verbiage to this article, and if we want to retain any sense of neutrality, your response is: "add more positive material". I can't spend 12 hours per day adding material to this article like you do. This article can't be 100 pages long, which is what it would need to be to balance your anti-guru dissertation. And on top of that, you want to delete the Feuerstein quotation, because he's not anti-guru. You have no ability to contribute neutrally to this article. You need to recuse yourself. I cannot deal with you any more. This article should be protected so that you can no longer use it as a anti-guru pulpit. This conversation is over. Because you have proven that you are working in bad faith, I will revert any change that you make. --goethean 18:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Diksha

We have now two differing definitions of disksha in the article

  1. Guru gives diksha, which means heightened awareness.
  2. diksha (initation)

The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and relgion (Shambala 1994) says that diksha means initiation, so does Feuerstein's Encyclopedia of Yoga. I propose to change the first definition into

  1. Guru gives diksha (initiation) that, they saw, as leading to heightened awareness of spiritual truths.

That is more or lesss in correspondece with my paper encyclopedia. I think this can be changed now if everybody agrees because it is unrelated to the main contention i.e. the amount of and prominence of skeptical and critical material. Please advise. Andries 07:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

As Stevertigo has mentioned above, it is preferable for you to pause your editing of the article until constructive dialogue with other editors has been achieved. --goethean 16:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
If you ask "if anybody agrees", please wait to see if there are any objections.--38.119.107.72 16:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Definitions of diksha:
  • A unique process and a ceremony of initiation into Sadhnas, which a Guru performs on his disciple. It is in fact a procedure of bestowing the divine powers of a Guru to the disciple, through which he progresses continuously on the path of divinity. There are a number of Dikshas mentioned in the scriptures for achieving various goals eg Kundalini Jagran Diksha (for the awakening of the Kundalini), Baglamukhi Diksha (for the annihilation of the enemies), Panchanguli Diksha (for knowing the past and future of a person) etc.[15]
  • spiritual awakening of a disciple by the grace of the Master. [16]
Please do not use the website of siddha yoga as if it were a scholary impartial source for this article. Andries 21:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • diksa (Sanskrit) [from the verbal root diksh to consecrate or dedicate oneself] Preparation or consecration in exoteric matters for a religious ceremony; or the undertaking, equally in exoteric matters, of religious observances for a specific purpose, as well as the observances themselves; also initiation. As a proper noun, Diksha or initiation is personified as the wife of Soma (the Moon). Diksha again signifies preparatory training of the neophyte for initiation.[17]

Archiving

Andries: please do not archive material that is pertinent to the current discussion. The limitations of page size do not apply to Talk pages. Before deleting please state that you plan to do so and allow time for editors to raise objections. Usuallly afive-day warning is good practice. Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ 21:50, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


I want to re-introduce the paragraph about Indian Skeptics that Zappaz had removed just before the article was protected without giving a reason ever or anywhere on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andries/guru#Debunking_of_gurus.2C_godmen_and_fakirs_by_Indian_skeptics. Please advise. Andries 21:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections to re-introducing the segment "Debunking of gurus, godmen and fakirs by skeptics", as a subheading of the "Guru in Hinduism" main heading. It will be good to add some date information about when Basava Premanand toured the villages and in which part of India. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I could add it under the section heading "Guru in Hinduism" though I prefer a a section "Criticism" where the criticism both in and outside India is combined. I dunno when exaclty Premanand toured around the villages though I saw him doing that in the BBC docu Secret Swami first broadcast 2004 and also on the BBC radio. He is now quite old and lives in Podanur, Tamil Nadu. Narasimahiah is Bangalorean. Rationalis Prabh Gosh (not mentioned) is from West BengalAndries 06:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

List of Hindu gurus

Can we make an article List of Hindu gurus and move there the "list of notable gurus" to make space in this article? (Btw, I do not make edits in bad faith. I am sincerely convinced that the material that I added and want to add is good NPOV information and I do listen to all the replies here on the talk page but I simply find them unconvincing.) Thanks. Andries 20:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea about the List of Hindu gurus article. Sam Spade 22:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, Andries definitely needs more venues in which to bash Hindus. --goethean 22:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL, I donno anything about that! I'm not a "hindu-basher"! Just wanting to comment on the new page idea.. Sam Spade 22:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, Andries' contributions to wikipedia consist solely of painting Hindu gurus in as negative a light as possible. His version of NPOV includes gathering and publishing unsubstantiated allegations against Hindu gurus, and then defending his actions on the grounds that gurus are public figures. He also tries to minimize any text that presents Hinduism in a positive light. He spends all of his time fighting with any editor who tries to make this page more neutral or balanced. This page is currently under mediation because Andries cannot be reasoned with. Thus, I would strenuously oppose Andries adding any articles to Wikipedia that have any remote reference to Hinduism. The more that Andries contributes to Wikipedia on Hinduism, the more negative Wikipedia's presentation of Hinduism will be. --goethean 22:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, if your right, I suppose a RfC or other Wikipedia:Conflict resolution would be in order, but lets focus on getting this page unprotected and improved here on this talk page, ok? Sam Spade 22:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Goethean wrote,
includes gathering and publishing unsubstantiated allegations against Hindu gurus
Goethean is wrong that I make unsubstantiated allegations. There is a source for evertyhing that I wrote. See the list. Andries 07:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
He also tries to minimize any text that presents Hinduism in a positive light.
I do not like Feuerstein's long quote because it is nonsense. There are better ways to defend Hinduism than inserting this quote. And besides, I admit that Feuerstein's POV should be represented in the article but it should be treated as just one of the many POVs, and not given special prominence. I won't oppose to other more sensible ways of putting Hinduism in a good light.Andries 07:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I would strenuously oppose Andries adding any articles to Wikipedia that have any remote reference to Hinduism. The more that Andries contributes to Wikipedia on Hinduism, the more negative Wikipedia's presentation of Hinduism will be.
I have edited many, many articles on Hinduism and only in this I inserted somewhat critical material. See e.g. Bhagavad_Gita_As_It_Is and Bhakti_movement to which I made substantial contributions. Besides I consider myself a Hindu, but it is true that I do not like naivety and romanticized views of Hinduism. The controversy with regards to this article was inevitable because of the widely divergent polarized opinions about the subject. I was not the only one who inserted critical material: Pgreenfinch was ten times worse than I but his edits were not attributed, referenced and sourced form reputable sources so they were eventually removed. Andries 07:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Guru and Priest: systemic bias against Hinduism in Wikipedia

Before responding to this statement, Please compare the guru article to the priest article.

Upon examining the priest article, I have changed my stance on the structure of the guru article. The Priest article doesn't contain a single critical word on priests. I found no essays on "Criticism of the priest by Eastern secular scholars and theologians", "Assessing a priest's authenticity", "Priest in an Eastern culture context." I found a distinct lack of anti-priest dissertations by unknown, untranslated Dutch or Indian authors. Therefore, just as unsympathetic attacks on the Catholic church or on priests by Indian authors would be described in the articles on the particular anti-Catholic Indian authors, the critical information in the present article should be re-located to articles on each of the anti-guru authors. While it is true that there is an article on the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, that article is linked to from neither the priest article nor the clergy article. And in following the format on Catholic priests, any specific scandal on gurus may have an article dedicated to it, but those articles should not be linked to the "guru" article. Critical information on individual gurus or scandals should be relocated to the articles on those gurus. The difference in the two articles amounts to systemic bias against Hindus. Pursuant to correcting this systemic bias, when the article is unprotected, I will remove the critical information on gurus from this article. The larger wikipedia context shows it to be inappropriate.

Additionally, the following tag should be attached to this article:

--goethean 16:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, I think the comparison between guru and priest is wrong for several reasons
1. to use Hindu terms, a priest is a "guru" in a certain parampara/lineage (Catholic apostolic succession) but with some differences. Kranenborg called Jesus a satguru but he did not call a priest a guru. It think a better comparison would be Swami of the Ramakrishna math. Andries 16:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
2. priest is not deified and doesn't request bhakti/devotion or surrender to him. And normally he won't even allow it. Andries 16:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
3. priest can never be self-proclaimed and cannot propagate his own belief system.Andries 16:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
4. priest has a bishop who has to be obeyed. In many cases a guru has nobody above him. Andries 16:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
5. Hinduism is a vast, diverse, complex evolving religion far more than Christianity. It is a free market religion and yes sometimes things have gone (and still go) terribly wrong. That justifies the sections assessment of the authenticity and criicisms. Andries 16:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
6. A priest does not ask for unquestioning obedience. He does not have that kind of authority. Andries 16:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
7. Paul Schnabel wrote in his dissertation that the traits and role of a guru as exisisting in Hinduism was virtually unknown in the West with the exception of some Rabbis in the Jewish sects though of course they were never called gurus. ~~

In andries defense, when I hear the word "guru", it has negative connentations, due to scandals both east and west. Likewise, when i hear "catholic priest", sex scandals also come to mind. Both articles should contain links to scandals and criticism, rather than neither. I agree w goethean's emphasis on inter-article balance, but would ask him to be far more forgiving w Andries, who (correct me if I'm wrong) had a personally unfortunate guru experience. Sam Spade 17:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, thanks for your comments, the fact that I personally had an unfortunate experience with a guru should of course not matter for this article but what does matter is the fact that almost all people (Dutch, German, French) whom I ask neutrally confirm to me that the word guru has acquired a negative connotation due to scandals, exploitation, and authoritariansim. This notable controversy should be treated in this article. Andries 17:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
It is crazy to say, as Goethean seems to be doing, that a guru as Andrew Cohen is in his function comparable to that of a priest. Andries 17:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Sam, I take the opposite view. Just as someone who had been personally victimized by a priest shouldn't be allowed to use Wikipedia to write endless diatribes against Catholics or Catholic priests, it is similarly inappropriate for Andries to use this article as a vehicle for his obsessive anti-Hindu sentiments.
I do not say that Cohen is similar to a priest. What I say is that it is an example of unacceptable cultural bias to have an article on gurus that fixates on scandal and criticism from an alien, Western perspective while the article on priests is completely uncritical. You may want to read up on your Medieval history if you think that the history of the priesthood (or the pope, for that matter) is any less spotty than that of the guru.
I can't deal with Andries any longer. I can't spend 12 hours per day futilely trying to reason with him. He has an axe to grind, and nothing will keep him from abusing this article in service to his agenda. He cannot be reasoned with or dealt in any way with except by force. I, like each editor that has tried to combat his irrational behavior, give up. --goethean 17:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean wrote,
He [Andries] cannot be reasoned with or dealt in any way with except by force. I, like each editor that has tried to combat his irrational behavior, give up.
Sam, I ask you as a relative outsider, when you read the talk pages including the archives do you think that He [Andries]] cannot be reasoned with? Andries 18:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't look at the talk pages --- Andries basically ignores them. Look at Andries' contributions. Every time that Andries contributes to this article, every single day, month after month, it is in a anti-Hindu vein. No matter what anyone says on these talk pages, it makes no difference to Andries. His mission here at Wikipedia is to spread as much anti-guru sentiment as much as he possibly can. He truly does not give a rip if he threatens the neutral point of view of the Wikipedia. In his mind, his mission transcends the importance of the Wikipedia itself. He is here solely as an advocate. Unless he can be reigned in, behavior like his will spell the end the usefulness of wikipedia. --goethean 18:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, I do not ignore the talk pages. I agreed many times with removing contents that I had written because of missing references. Andries 18:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
The fact is that there can never enough anti-guru text in this article to suit you. No matter what happens on the Talk page, your solution is to (1) add more criticisms of gurus to this article and (2) minimize sympathetic descriptions of Hinduism by Hindus or by Western scholars who understand Hinduism on its own terms. Your objective is to maximize unsympathetic criticisms of Hindu gurus by secular, Western, unknown, anti-guru scholars. But this is all academic because I can't spend my life countering your one-sided partisan edits. You are a menace to this article and to the Wikipedia's treatment of Hindus.
I have contacted several Hindu Wikipedia editors, asking them to contribute to this article. Guess what they said? They said "I think I'll wait until it quiets down." But it will never quiet down, because your entire life is dedicated to advocating your POV in this article. That is how you are suppressing any decent contributions by people who know the first thing about Hinduism to this article. This article will flourish when you walk away from it, and not a moment before. But you are emotionally incapable of walking away from it. You are in the way of Wikipedia attaining a neutral point of view on Hinduism. --goethean 18:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Other contributors can work on the article guru/temp while this article is locked. I am working on the article User:Andries/guru Andries 19:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean, I repeat, I am not anti-guru and certainly not anti-Hindu. I just do not know how to distinguish between reliable gurus and unreliables gurus. Andries 18:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

A quote from a relatively pro-guru magazine (What is enlightenment?)

Even this pro-guru magazine treats the question why so many gurus are involved in scandals. So a neutral encyclopedia should certainly treat this question. (see comment on the right) Andries 18:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

"WIE Issue 9:

Our Student/Teacher Issue Spring–Summer 1996

The fact that many spiritual teachers have fallen into financial and sexual scandal raises important questions. What are the causes of corruption? What is true purity? Includes interviews with The Guru Papers authors Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad, and Brother David Steindl-Rast."

What is a Guru?

Thats easy, a real guru is apparently infailable. So when they mess up, I guess their not a guru. Just my laymans oversimplification ;) Here is Swami Sivananda's defintion of a guru:

"The guru is God himself manifesting in a personal form to guide the aspirant. Grace of God takes the form of the guru. To see the guru is to see God. The guru is united with God. He inspires devotion in others and his presence purifies all. The guru is verily a link between the individual and the immortal. He is a being who has raised himself from this to That, and thus has free and unhampered access into both realms. He stands, as it were, upon the threshold of immortality; and, bending down he raises the struggling individuals with one hand, while with the other he lifts them up into the imperium of everlasting joy and infinite truth-consciousness. The true guru is Brahman himself. He is an ocean of bliss, knowledge and mercy. He is the captain of your soul, the fountain of joy. He removes all your troubles, sorrows and obstacles. He shows you the right divine path and tears your veil of ignorance. He makes you immortal and divine, transmuting your lower, diabolical nature. He gives you the rope of knowledge, and takes you up when you are drowning in this ocean of births and deaths. Do not consider him to be only a man, for, if you do, you are a beast. Worship your guru and bow to him with reverence. Guru is God. A word from him is a word from God. He need not teach anything. Even his presence or company is elevating, inspiring and stirring, his very company being self-illumination. Living in his company is spiritual education. Read the Granth-Saheb (the holy scripture of the Sikh religion). You will come to know the greatness of the guru. Man can learn only from man, and hence God teaches through a human body. In your guru, you have your human ideal of perfection, the pattern into which you wish to mould yourself. Your mind will readily be convinced that such a great soul is fit to be worshipped and revered. Guru is the door to liberation, the gateway to the transcendental truth-consciousness. But, it is the aspirant that has to enter through it. The guru is a help, but the actual task of practical spiritual practice falls on the aspirant himself. The guru's tender smile radiates light, bliss, joy, knowledge, peace. He is a blessing to suffering humanity. Whatever he says is Upanishadic teaching. The guru knows the spiritual path. He knows the pitfalls and snares on the way. He gives timely warning to his students. He showers his grace on their heads. All agonies, miseries, tribulations, taints of worldliness, etc., vanish in his presence."

Pretty extreme expectations, eh? Thats why i don't have a guru, unless maybe you count machiavelli ;)

Lets simplify this whole discussion. goethean is vigorously pointing out that Andries has a POV. He suggests that Andries has a goal: promoting anti-guru text. I imagine that might be true, but their is nothing inherantly wrong w that. Everybody has opinions, and everyone edits based on their own paradigms. Andries and myself had a few disagreements over the long time I have been aware of him. I have not known him to be anti-hindu, but I have found him to have strong opinions about sensitive religious matters which were seemingly inflexable. here is the key: Does he edit in good faith? Is he intellectually honest? Does he cite what he writes? Does he behave in a civil manner on the talk page? I think he does. Sam Spade 20:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Andries will respond civilly on the talk page, but he doesn't really care what you say. He continues to advocate for his POV in the article no matter what. If you edit the article in a pro-Hindu fashion, he will revert your changes. This is not being responsive. --goethean 20:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I support Goethean proposal about the article format. The articles of each guru already contains extensive criticism (including the obscure Ducth scholars that Andries peddles right and left.) We just need a summary of the controversy and links to the relevant articles. The article could also benefit from expansion in all other sections. Less is more. Regarding Andries, the problem is that he does not listen to other editors. He is in anti-guru crusade, and in a war you don't listen: you fight. He doesn't argue for the purpose of achieving consensus. He fights. He doesn't incoporate other people's ideas into his. He fights. Consensus and NPOV are sacrificed in that fight. Can you spell advocacy? ≈ jossi ≈ 20:19, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I can see some of this failing to communicate thoroughly and progress, we never did talk about nazi mysticism, which was an article he vigorously objected to and then disappeared from quite awhile back, only to much later disparage and then fail to follow up on. How about we clarify what we want him to respond to (just a hint, not blanket personal attacks). Like:

  • What % of the page do you think should be devoted to criticism?

or

  • Should there be a balance between criticism and praise? If so, how should that be achieved?

or

  • How notable a citation should we expect from opinionated critics?

Or throw your own ideas out, but lets try to set goals and achieve them, focusing on an answerable question or two. Sam Spade 20:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade wrote,
What is a Guru? That's easy, a real guru is apparently infallible. So when they mess up, I guess they are not a guru.
Very very true, Sam, at least for gurus of the 2nd and 3rd type according to Kranenborg's taxonomy and very important for the treatment of this subject. It has hardly anything to with a priest.
from the book the "Guru papers" by Kramer and Alstadt (p.88) [18]

"People don’t want a second-rate guru; they want the one who seems the best. Since purity is the standard measurement – the gold or Greenwich meridian time of the guru world – each guru has to claim the most superlative traits. This is naturally a breeding ground for hypocrisy, lies, and the cultivation of false images of purity. Gurus are thus forced to assume the role of the highest, best, the most enlightened, the most loving, the most selfless, the purest representative of the most profound truths; for if they did not, people would go to one who does. Consequently, it is largely impossible for a guru to permit himself real intimacy, which in adults requires a context of equality. All his relationships must be hierarchical, since that is the foundation of his attraction and power."

Andries 20:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


I believe that this article should focus on gurus as they are seen from within Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism. A section on gurus in Western culture is ok, but it should not be half the article. Consider how important the Hindu view of Catholic priests is: not at all. --goethean 20:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Criticism and Praise? We need neiher. I fully agree with Goethean. This is an encyclopedia. State facts, expand the sections on gurus in the different traditions. Add a section on the guru/disciple relationship. Have a section on "Western context", describe the controversy in a few paragraphs and provide links to articles about notable gurus in the West in which criticism is fully explored already. Sweet and simple. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:32, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
I largely agree w goethean. However if there is enough content on western guru's, or anti-guruism, or whatnot, a spinoff page would be appropriate. Its meerely a matter of agreeing on a name. Sam Spade 20:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Jossi wrote,
The articles of each guru already contains extensive criticism (including the obscure Ducth scholars that Andries peddles right and left.)
Not all gurus. Besides this is the right article to deal with structural, general matters. None of the Dutch scholars that I cited are obsure. Andries 20:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Jossi wrote,
Regarding Andries, the problem is that he does not listen to other editors. He is in anti-guru crusade, and in a war you don't listen: you fight. He doesn't argue for the purpose of achieving consensus. He fights. He doesn't incoporate other people's ideas into his. He fights. Consensus and NPOV are sacrificed in that fight. Can you spell advocacy.
I do listen and give a detailed reply to what is being said. How can I give a detailed reply when I do not listen? I oppose a whitewashed view of gurus which I think is against NPOV. Andries 20:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
You don't oppose a whitewashed view of gurus. You oppose any view of gurus that is not your own. That has been the main complaint against you in this page and the reason for the page protection. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:42, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Jossi, that is not true. I invited many times people to add more positive material. I have to admit that I opposed Feuerstein's quote initially but later I admitted that his POV should be represented. Andries 20:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
...and now you want it cut down because you disagree with Feuerstein: "Feuerstein's views are nonsense". In fact, Feuerstein's view represent the beliefs of a typical Hindu. --goethean 20:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not like Feuerstein's quote, I have to admit, and it is not even Hindu I think, but it certainly deserves no more prominence than other POVs. Andries 20:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't change the subject... this is not about this quote or that quote. The issue at hand is not positve material vs negative material as you portray it, Andries. That has been argued quite extensively already. In fact the contention manifest in you when you look at the article from an advocate point of view. If you looked at it as an encyclopedic article on gurus (what this is, actually) you will never think of positive material and/or negative material. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:54, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Jossi, if you want to keep the article encyclopedic then I think the section "Devotees view on God and Guru" and the long quote by Feuerstein quote should be removed first. Have to think about the rest. Andries 20:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Removing Brahmanand and Kabir poetry on a quintesential aspect of "guru" ? ???????? ≈ jossi ≈ 21:08, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Jossi, yes, it is poetry and not important Hindu scripture. Andries 21:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
That's inane, but I can provide plenty of material from Hindu scriptures. --goethean 21:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I think it is better to summarize the poetry and insert more important Hindu scripture about the role and function of the guru. Andries 21:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
The story from the Mahabharat about the Eklavya who wanted to be an archer and learnt it from worshipping an idol of his guru, Acharya Drona, because the guru himself refused to teach him. The guru later told him to cut off his thumb. May be that is good content. [19]Andries 21:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
That sounds fine. You can go ahead and start building an article from scratch at Guru/temp. I have to go but will contribute later. --goethean 21:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't fall for it, Goethean. This last conversation is another ploy by Andries to dismiss the real issues discussed in this page and an attempt to go back to business as usual. The fact is that this article is in dispute and protected. Forget about discussing Kabir vs. Mahabarat at this point. That is not where the article will make it or break it. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:49, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Please Jossi, try to assume good faith. I am sincerely interested in Hinduism. Though at the moment more from an intellectual interest than as a source of inspiration. Andries 21:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade quotes Sivananda about the role of the guru,
"The guru is God himself manifesting in a personal form to guide the aspirant. Grace of God takes the form of the guru. The guru is united with God. He inspires devotion in others and his presence purifies all.T"
I think we should digress on the guru as an object of projection and attachment. I can find something about that. Andries 22:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely believe that the timing of this conversation is way off. We cannot discuss these aspects of the article until there is consensus about how to resolve the current dispute. Business is not as usual! ≈ jossi ≈ 23:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Do you then believe that we will ever agree about the controversial issues? I think it is better to be constructive and discuss improvements that everybody agrees with. Andries 23:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree w this last. Sam Spade 14:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

If you believe and commit to find an agreement to the dispute, that is satisfactory to all editors involved (i.e. consensus), I have no problems continuing with enhancing other areas of the article that are not disputed. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:33, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

proposal

I propose that we immediately unprotect and cut the excess text out of the current article on the main space, reducing it to purely descriptive, neutral, encyclopedic, minimalist text that we can all agree on. I have put a proposal at User:Goethean/guru. I am open to more cutting if any of that text is unacceptable to any editor. I feel that much of the text of the current article was due to an "arms race" of pro- and con- positions that made the article grow beyond any useful proportion.

I further propose that no additions are made to the article that all editors do not agree with. If we are still in disagreement regarding what text can be aded to the skeletal article, we can re-protect the article in its minimalistic format.

I have notes towards a new article at User:Goethean/guru/extra, but don't panic! Those are just my notes and will only be added to the article through unanimous consensus. Please note: I am currently being ignored at the discussion at the Human article — I am the only user there who objects to the current version of the article. The administrators there won't even let me put a POV tag on the article, even though the article takes an anti-religious stance. My point is that I am quite sensitive to the rights of the outnumbered minority on Wikipedia. I will not take advantage or bully through the use of majority rule. I find that to be reprehensible. --goethean 16:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page, but will be watching and re-protect if necessary. Mkweise 17:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I will wait to act until more express agreement with my proposal. --goethean 17:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean, your version do not treat the fact that gurus acquired European and American followers and the notable controversy about gurus and the difficulty to assess their authenticity. Andries 21:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Thats because he is excluding controversy. Assumably it will go on some spin-off page. Any ideas on the title? Sam Spade 22:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
What's so difficult about making a simple, objective statement about the existence of a controversy without expressing a POV? I just went back 2 1/2 years in the article history to look up how I originally covered that aspect:
"The word has acquired a negative connotation in western countries, likely due to the prominence of several self-proclaimed "gurus" in the US during the 1960s and 1970s "New Age" movement (see e.g. Osho), who used Hindu terminonlogy without having much else in common with mainstream Hinduism."
I fully agree with Goethean that this article should deal primarily with the primary meaning of the word. Controversies regarding individuals are best dealt with in their own articles. Value judgments on the merits of religious faiths, OTOH, clearly have no place in an encyclopedia at all. Mkweise 22:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I doubt anyone disagrees with that. Sam Spade 23:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I have been lurking for the last few days and now that I see other editors joining-in with good intentions to move forward, I chose now to break my self-imposed silence early than stated. I can only say that stepping back and just observing the discussion for a few days was a liberating experience for me. Highly recommended for those of us that get too close to the action, so to speak.
Regarding the proposal on the table, I think that there is good encyclopedic material in the current article (that I researched and added myself), that is not included in Goethean's minimalist version, but I support his proposal as a starting point. Regarding the spin-off article, I would want to warn that a POV fork will not be acceptable. If a spin-off article is constructed only to disparage gurus, that will not work as it is against policy. If the intention is to explore "gurus" in a Western context, and provide a description of the controversy while presenting fairly the opposing POVs regarding this subject, then I am all for it. Note that I will oppose duplication of material already present in other articles, and would propose, that we make it a rule that were possible, a link to an existing article be used rather than duplicating text. I would propose Gurus in the West as the title for the article. As per Andrie's concern about "assessment of the guru's authenticity", that aspect can be explored in each one of the sections (Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism), as it is a central aspect of these religions. So, in summary:
  • I support Goethean's minimalist version, as a starting point;
  • Support the creation of a new article Gurus in the West in which we explore gurus in a Western context in an NPOV manner and without duplication of text available elsewhere in WP;
  • Propose we evaluate existing text in current version of Guru as per its encyclopedic value and restore it only if consensus is achieved (with support from RfC's if necessary). We can do this slowly, block by block of text, giving ample of time to editors to comment;
  • Propose we engage in researching and expanding the Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism sections, to include aspects of the guru/disciple relationship such as finding a true guru, assessing guru authenticity, etc.
--Zappaz 23:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Welcome back, Zappaz. I have to be honest and say that in my heart, I do not welcome an article on Gurus in the West, because I genuinely feel (like Mkweise seems to) that it is impossible for us to do in a truly neutral way, and that ultimately it will make peaceful, constructive edits more difficult. The way that I would handle both Zappaz's and Andries' estimable work would be to put, for example, the Feuerstein text at the Georg Feuerstein article. I would put the Deutsch material at the Alexander Deutsch article. I feel that all of Andries' preferred scholars are significant enough to merit Wikipedia articles, and each of their ideas can go in each individual article on each scholar. Additionally, all of these articles can be linked to from the Gurus in the West article (which I would prefer to consist solely of links to the articles on individual scholars). Or (my preferred version), there would be no Gurus in the West article, and each of Andries' scholars would be linked to from the Guru article. I would prefer them to be labelled as "See also:", but it would also be ok for them to be linked from a section entitled "Analysis of Gurus in the West" or somesuch. Thus Andries' scholars would get plenty of showcasing. I feel that they would not be ghettoized or exiled. And wikipedia itself would not be guilty of or responsible for criticizing, assessing, or analyzing gurus. And none of the work would be lost. I am open to other proposals. --goethean 00:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean, your version do not treat the fact that gurus acquired European and American followers and the notable controversy about gurus and the difficulty to assess their authenticity. Andries
I would support the addition of a section heading, and a short, objective sentence or two which neutrally describe this phenomenon in our pared-down article (a la Mkweise's text), with subsequent links to your scholars as I outlined above. --goethean 00:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Goethean's last proposal, i.e. no Gurus in the West article, minimalistic version, short summary on controvesial aspects, and See also links to scholars' articles and other relevant articles. Also support Zappaz's proposal on restoring worthy material slowly and by agreement. ≈ jossi ≈ 01:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the title "Gurus in the West"; "Guru in New Religious Movements" is much clearer. Nor do I like the idea of a separate article for that - it fits in nicely as #4 behind
1 Guru in Hinduism
2 Guru in Buddhism
3 Guru in Sikhism.
Andries: please let's have no more vague generalizations like "Some gurus have been accused by ex-followers..." - that's as rethorically offensive as it is logically correct, just like "Some Arabs are terrorists" or "Some women are whores." Mkweise 01:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I have added the section "Gurus in new religious movements" to User:Goethean/guru. --goethean 02:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

MkWeise wrote,
Andries: please let's have no more vague generalizations like "Some gurus have been accused by ex-followers..."
Then should we mention the controversial ones by name i.e. Osho/Rajneesh, Sathya Sai Baba? Should we write "Danish Radio and the BBC produced and broadcast TV documentaries in which the guru SSB was portrayed as a a charlatan who sexuall abuses his male followers?" And (this is made up because I dunno the details) "ABC TV in the USA produced a documentary in 1985 in which the 93 Rolls Royces at Bhagwan's disposal, the liberal sexual freedom, and the salmonella poisoning were highlighted and condemned inappropriate and immoral" Andries 07:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, definitely mention the notable controversial ones by name and briefly summarize the accusations against each. Details and references belong in each individual's own article, which should of course be linked. What must be avoided is throwing orthodox Hindu and Sikh gurus (including ones with a following in the West) in one pot with convicted criminals like Osho. Mkweise 15:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
To add my two cents, I think that Mkweise's suggestion is sound. -Willmcw 22:03, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Mkweise, I agree with naming the controversial ones see user:Andries/guru#Criticism but I think that Zappaz and Goethean oppose this. Andries 15:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with a neutral description of the facts. The problem is that we have one excessively prolific editor who is fixated on presenting only the negative facts. --goethean 15:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
There are positive things i.e. psychological and emotional advantages but they are difficult to present as facts unless you have access to research (that I remember having seen somewhere). We have to describe all important aspects of the subject here, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Andries 21:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
That statement is extremely ironic coming from the king of all POV warriors. --goethean 21:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean, I am aware of many positive aspects of following a guru but they are subjective and I don't know how to write them in the article. Andries 21:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm well aware of your manifest insufficiencies as an editor. You haven't proposed any real solution to the edit war here. There's no way that you are getting free reign to write the guru article again. Do you have an alternative to my proposal for this article? --goethean 21:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not have a solution or the edit war. I do not accept removal of encyclopedic information from reputable sources that took me years to collect. Here is my alternative user:Andries/guru Andries 21:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
First of all — as you know — no information will be removed. It will be relocated to each scholar's subpage, which actually renders it more accurate, instead of misrepresenting it as the most essential research on a topic in Eastern religion. You can put your Original research on your own website. --goethean 21:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I think your proposed solution is strange and wrong and above all I do not see any original research in the critical comments(or analysis/assessment of authenticity) that I inserted. If you think that there is original research in my alternative version then please tell me where. Andries 22:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
So, basically, what you're saying is that there is no limit to the proportion of text that is critical of gurus that an article can have before it ceases to be neutral. Is that fair? --goethean 22:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean, I made two proposals to make more space in the article for more positive comments i.e. List of Hindu gurus and Scepticism and rationalism in South Asia.

Andries 22:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

You want an article which will allow you to advocate against gurus in an unlimited fashion. I'm not sure what possesses you to think that that will result in an article with a neutral point of view. It won't. It is a recipe for massive edit war, the disenfranchisement of editors who want to edit harmoniously rather than fight with you or join you in your anti-guru crusade. Additionally, it will result in greater systemic bias against Hindus in Wikipedia. --goethean 22:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Some time ago I had asked a policy for the amount of critical comments allowed in an article on religious matters but I did not receive a reply. My proposed version does not contain an unlimited advocacy against gurus. Andries 22:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean and Jossi, the statements about gurus, prophets and religious leaders by Eileen Barker, Jan van der Lans, Reender Kranenborg, and Anthony Storr cannot be moved to the articles of these persons because they are supposed to be biographical articles. What could be done to reduce the proportion of criticism without breaking any Wikipedia guidelines or deleting valuable content is to create an article Scepticism and rationalism in India (or Skepticisim) or Scepticism and rationalism in South Asia and move there the section User:Andries/guru#Debunking_of_gurus.2C_godmen_and_fakirs_by_Indian_skeptics Andries 08:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
MkWeise wrote,
What's so difficult about making a simple, objective statement about the existence of a controversy without expressing a POV? I just went back 2 1/2 years in the article history to look up how I originally covered that aspect: [..]
Mkweise, your original wording was about 1/3 of the article. The article has grown and so has the description of the controversy. I do not see a problem with that. Your original wording was removed because Zappaz asked references for them that nobody could not give, though to me they seemed common knowledge that did not need to be referenced. Andries 10:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
the statements about gurus, prophets and religious leaders by Eileen Barker, Jan van der Lans, Reender Kranenborg, and Anthony Storr cannot be moved to the articles of these persons because they are supposed to be biographical articles. --Andries
That's just a dodge. Many, many wikipedia articles on contemporary scholars include plenty of information about the content of their work.
Another idea: We could move the material to, for example, Eileen Barker on gurus. I oppose the creation of a single article dedicated to criticism of gurus. It will result in another edit war. --goethean 15:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I have moved the shortened version of the article to Guru/temp. --goethean 17:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Naming the controversial gurus?

Do we all agree with naming the gurus with notable scandals and controversies (e.g. Osho)? Willmcw, Mweise, Andries, Goethean agree. Does anyone oppose naming them? Andries 22:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree. I would agree to a list of all gurus — not just the scandals — but at this time, this group is not capable of a neutral description. This group is dominated by an anti-guru crusader and anything that it produces will be distorted by that crusade. --goethean 22:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
What do you think that gurus give bliss and enlightenment, moksha, liberation, sweet surrender? May be it is truth but many, many people can testify that there is also another truth and that one is of exploitation, deception, extravangancy, abuse of power, fake miracles, cognitive dissonance, self-deception both by folowers and the guru, rationalizations of ordinary or immoral behavior, traumatic experiences etc. etc. Andries 22:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the medium to address neither of these two opposing views. My teacher showed a way to have a direct experience of love and peace within me (that I may chose to associate with bliss, enlightenment, sweet surrender, God, etc.) and I love him and respect him deeply for that, but that is a personal experience and Wikipedia is not a place, for neither me to sing the praises of my teacher, not for a critic to disparage him. This is an encyclopedia, not a testimonial. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
But we can write down the fact that there are notable controversies and scandals with certain gurus (Chandraswami, Osho, SSB, Shoko Asahara) Andries 23:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Shoko Asahara is not a guru. Check his article. The word guru does not show even once. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:00, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
This is the third time we discuss this here. Asahara is often called a guru among others by Encyclopedia Britannica, Japanese media and CESNUR. [20]lAndries

Keeping things in perspective

Look, more than a billion Hindus follow the direction of a guru and believe that they benefit greatly therefrom. The vast majority of gurus lead austere lives and work tirelessly for the benefit of the communities they serve. This is a central element of Hinduism, and never makes headlines.

The number of people who've had a bad experience is tiny by comparison, and AFAIK *all* of them concern the same half-a-dozen-or-so NRMs.

Thus, I believe a paragraph listing the few controversial organizations (or their leaders) by name and summarizing the controversy is warranted. Obviously the details of each case should be left to its own article to cover. And most importantly, it must be careful not to create the impression that "false" or controversial gurus are anything more than a handful of isolated cases. Mkweise 02:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Mkweise. I agree with your assessment: one paragraph listing the few controversial ones with a summary of the controversy. I am glad to see other editors helping out with this article. '--Zappaz 03:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Mkweis wrote,
Look, more than a billion Hindus follow the direction of a guru and believe that they benefit greatly therefrom. [..]The number of people who've had a bad experience is tiny by comparison
The paragraphs with criticism are mainly in the section about gurus in the West which is fully justified because there the word has acquired a negative connotation. Besides I do not agree with what you write. The BBC called SSB India's most popular guru. SSB is a total fraud. [21] And besides when you look at the list that I compiled of gurus in the West there is good reason to think that SSB is not an exception. Even Feuerstein's 3-page entry on gurus has two paragraphs on the controversial aspects and some more somewhat critical statements. Andries 07:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
This article is about a religious concept, of which SSB is a non-representative example who is covered in his own article. Moreover, the purpose of an encyclopedic article is to describe its subject—not to argue its merits, let alone quote everything critical anyone ever wrote about it. Mkweise 16:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Mkweise, there is a notable controversy about gurus. Not to describe this controversy here would be against NPOV guidelines. And the critical comments that I cited are an extremely small selection of what is available. For example, the whole book Storr is contained in one paragraph. Andries 16:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
There is no controversy about the concept of guru. The controversy regarding SSB is not relevant enough here to warrant much more than a link to the article about him. Mkweise 16:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Mkweise wrote,
There is no controversy about the concept of guru.
I disagree. There is a lot of controversy about the concept of guru. The proof is scattered around these talk pages. Andries 16:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there is ample proof that you disagree with everyone else here. Thank you for pointing that out once again. Mkweise 17:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Look at the priestv article. There is plenty of controversy over priests, but not over the concept of the priest. And the priest article reflects that lack of controversy. And your personal anti-guru crusade does not constitute proof that the concept of the guru is itself controversial. --goethean 16:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean,
  1. I do not agree. There is a controversy surrounding the concept of guru. Plenty of references for that. Even the magazine What is Englightenment acknowlegdes this. And if there is no controversy around the concept then why did Andrew Cohen write a book "In defense of the guru principle"? (Thank God he is realistic enough to see this)Andries 16:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Does the Catholic church drop the word "priest" like the followers of the guru Osho/Bhagwand do? Andries 16:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. The concept of priest, I repeat, are not comparable. A better comparison would be prophet. Andries 16:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, exactly. Imagine if the article were to summarize or quote every Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh text that had been written in praise of gurus over the past four thousand years or so. It would have to be be thousands of pages long in order to attain a neutral point of view. --goethean 16:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Mkweise and Zappaz. One neutral paragraph describing, rather than resolving the controversy, per NPOV guidelines; all other anti-guru text moved to individual scholar pages or to Andries' user pages. --goethean 15:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Let me chime in here: the original hard rule was (still is) has been to disallow POV1, POV2, POV3 etc. type articles, instead of the 1 article, all POV represented, as we do. This is intended to force discussion and compromise. A compromise on the facts? No, on the manner and tenor by which the article is written —most of which is a "simple" issue of logical organization. Geothean: "One neutral paragraph describing rather than resolving the controversy" is correct, but where in NPOV does it say only "one" paragraph? What if there are several? Because articles dont develop uniformly, there may be a perception that "excess" critical material makes for a biased article if the criticism is prominent. This is not often the case IMHO, and rather than fighting over what to exclude, just add more and more information. What if the article is too large? A split is generally based on what would make a reasonable second article, and calling that new article by the title "criticism of" doesnt mean that is going to be a biased treatment — that article too must be written NPOV. To remove material on the claim of "POV" is quite often censorship. SV|t 17:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
You're missing the point here. Andries' version is akin to a detailed discussion of Nixon's guilt or innocence at President of the United States that takes up half the article. Mkweise 17:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Mkweise, I don't understand the point you are making. The only guru who is discussed in detail is Baba/Jeff and the reason for that is because he is one of the very, very few who was studied by a psychiatrist while he was a guru and gave a retrospective account of his time as a guru after he resigned. Andries 18:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
In addition to adding inappropriate amounts of research that is unsympathetic to gurus, Andries routinely removes information which is sympathetic to the Eastern understanding of the guru. He then reverts any edits which disagree with his POV. --goethean 19:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean wrote,
Andries routinely removes information which is sympathetic to the Eastern understanding of the guru.
The only information that I have removed once or twice was Feuerstein's long quote with a extensive explanation on the talk page but I later admitted that Feuerstein's POV (that I consider nonsense) should be represented. Andries 19:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
In response to SV's comment, I don't have a problem with a few paragraphs describing the controversy. The problem shows up when a complete section is written with the stated intention of "alerting the public about the dangers of gurus", by making all gurus look bad, based on a selective examples some of which are based on apostates testimonies only or based on the writings of a few selected anti-guru scholars. I disagree that removing material on claims of POV is "censorship". I counter that with the fact that adding selective material on a subject, with the stated intention of advocating for or against a controversial subject is not allowed by the NPOV principle. That is at the core of this dispute, and Andries is at the center of it, like it or not.≈ jossi ≈ 19:46, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Where is my stated intention? You seem to confuse my desire to understand and analyze with an intention for advocacy. And what does Goethean do? He complains all the time, not because, the content is unencyclopedic, no, because he thinks the content it is too critical thoug he admits it is "research". That is advocacy. Andries 19:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
That is the problem, Andries: a desire to understand and analyze a traumatic personal experience like you had with a guru, is not what Wikipedia is designed for. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Jossi, what content that I or anyone else inserted in the article is unencyclopedic? That is the only question that matters. Andries 20:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Now you are back to your claim that there is no limit to the proportion of anti-guru text that can be in this article before it ceases to be neutral. --goethean 20:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I did not claim this. I wanted to write that you can add more positive material to the article to balance the article but I suddenly get a deja vu feeling. I dunno why. Andries 20:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Deja vu indeed. The dispute about "pro content vs anti content" in the context of "add positive material" after "adding negative material" was discussed in-depth already and some pretty good arguments made by both sides. No agreement was reached, that is why we are back discussing this...≈ jossi ≈ 17:35, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I oppose a distinction between gurus of NRMs and Hindu gurus

Many Hindu gurus are founders of NRMs in the West. Some Hindu gurus are founders of a NRM in India. What is the basis for this distinction except from Goethean's desire to remove critical comments fromt the guru article? I have not seen scholars making a distinction between them. Andrew Cohen was a disciple of a Hindu guru but a founder of an NRM. The NRMs and Hindu gurus are too intertwined to justify separate articles. Andries 16:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe that I am not the only editor who does not want the article on an Eastern religious doctrine dominated by unsympathetic, tangentially-related sociological analysis. --goethean 16:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean, give one good reason referring to the NPOV guidelines why sociological analysis should be separated from religious view points. You only created a POV fork which you more or less admitted yourself by using the words "unsympathetic, tangentially-related sociological analysis". Andries 17:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Guru (Sociology)

I have moved Andries' sociological analysis of gurus to Guru (sociology). --goethean 16:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

So where is your proof that there is a separate concept "guru" in sociology, different from the word guru used normally? Max Weber saw guru as one of the forms of charismatic authority but he did not use the term guru in a different way as Hindus . Andries 17:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I have been out of town for a while, and I am rather surprised that a well established meaning of guru as a leader using psychological means to convince its "adepts" is not recognised as it is. No need to have (a) separate article(s) such as guru in sociology, in psychology, in social psychology, in education, or whatever, which is completely redondant as the guru theme is in itself, in all cases, a psycho-sociological theme, based on personal influence on other people. --Pgreenfinch 21:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, right... 1.5 billion people are all psycologically influenced gurus, and another 2.3 billion psycologically influenced by television. How ridiculous! ≈ jossi ≈ 22:57, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you are right to see how ridiculous and extensive is the phenomena, not to say how dangerous. Maybe it is one of the crucial factor explaining what we see happening in this world in this century, whatever the attempt in the past to bring some rationality in human and people behavior. Btw, some gurus are / were secular (look at the two destructive ideology of nazism and communism which used the same methods as some extremist religious gurus, with the results that were seen in the XXth century. History tends to repeat itself, the "wish to believe", the exploitation of greed, fear and mimetism always come back and throws its shadow other plain facts, if we are not wary enough. --Pgreenfinch 12:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey, at least Pgreenfinch is explicit about his advocacy.... --goethean 16:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Pgreenfinch' POV is a defensible one and this POV of a considerable minortiy should be represented in this article, but you chose to remove it though it was referenced and attributed. (Btw I do not agree with Pgreenfinch' habit to write essays about this subject in this article or elsewhere in Wikipedia.) Andries 16:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
That's a fair description of your position, if by "be represented in", you mean "dominate." --goethean 17:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see here, apart an attempt to deride a position you don't like, a justification for censoring a referenced and attributed text. Some lack of attention that did not allow you to read fully what Andries said above? Don't worry, such lapses can happen to everybody ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 11:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Guru in Hinduism and Buddhism cannot be separted from guru (sociology)

These are the most notable gurus in the West and nine out of twelve come from a Hindu or Buddhist, or Sikh tradition. Question mark signfies that they do not come from a Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist tradition. So it is strange to make a separate article on gurus in NRMs or in sociology. Andries 17:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

  1. Aurobindo Hindu
  2. Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche Buddhist
  3. Jiddu Krishnamurti  ? Theosophy
  4. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Hindu
  5. Muktananda Hindu
  6. Prem Rawat Sant Mat tradition according to Reender Kranenborg (According to user:Jossifresco, Prem Rawat does not belong to any "tradition")
  7. Prabhupada Hindu
  8. Paramahansa Yogananda Hindu
  9. Meher Baba ?
  10. Bhagwan/Osho/Rajneesh ? syncretic
  11. Sathya Sai Baba Hindu
  12. Dalai Lama Buddhist

Only four of the nine cited scholars and scientists are sociologists. So the title is wrong. Sociologists are David G. Bromley, Stephen A. Kent, and Eileen Barker. David C. Lane is a philosopher, sociologist, and religious scholar. Jan van der Lans is a professor in the psychology of religion. Georg Feuerstein is an Indologist, , Reender Kranenborg is a religious scholar and theologian, Anthony Storr and Alexander Deutsch are psychiatrists. Andries 18:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

May be we could create and article Founder of cults and new religious movements ? Just and idea. Andries 19:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Forget it. That is another attempt to smear people by labelling as leaders of "cults". For-get-it. Ther re already articles that explore each one of these notable gurus. Why do we need yet another one? If you have criticism specific to any of these gurus, please add it to ther own articles. As Goethean, I oppose a "blanket" anti-guru or anti-religious stance in this (or any) article. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
well, may be these founders of new religious movements and cults have something in common and that should be treated there. It is to solve the complaints by Zappaz, Goethean, Mkweise about the amount of critical information here which seems anti-Hindu to them. Andries 06:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guru/Archive_5&oldid=623792360"