Talk:S. N. Goenka
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
I tried to verify this article and had some trouble with finding neutral and authoritative sources. Can you help please? I am making allowances for linguistic differences; this is a bit effusive in tone (in my view) but that is not uncommon. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the sources are few simply because Goenka is not at all a "mediatic" personality, nor does he write books and still less seek publicty. Nonetheless he is very well known in India and among Buddhists in general. A more complete article on him is possible, but it may be some time in coming. Mu 23:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Although he doesn't write books himself, there are books outlining his teachings, such as, 'The Art of Living: Vipassana Meditation as taught by S. N. Goenka' By William Hart. This underlines his importance as a teacher in this area. - Solar 17:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- S.N. Goenka is a prominent teacher of Vipassana Meditation. He has played significant role to spread the teachings of the Buddha not only in India but throughout the world. His organization has more than hundred centres around the world and thousands of new meditators graduate every month. He does write books--mainly Hindi and perhaps English books too. Undoubtedly, the article on S.N. Goenka deserves importance. Skr 16:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- S.N.Goenka is indeed a "mediatic" personality, but, only for the cause of Vipassana as a tool for the benefit of mankind. He has written and contributed to many books on this subject. A search on amazon wil reveal his name as the author of (used) books for sale through the site. There are also many other books available. New copies can be purchased from specialist bookshops or on the net from the research institute. He has also given lectures at the U.N. and the World Economic Forum meeting in Davros. A website for his contribution to Vipassana is http://www.vri.dhamma.org/ or http://www.dhamma.org/. Much more detailed information about his books, lectures, newsletters is available from these sources.
-
-
- While it may be that the article on the subject is a bit effusive, I do think that an entry must remain on this subject. The work he has done to propogate Vipassana is significant. -- Thaths 23:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- JzG - could you please explain which parts you find effusive?
There is opposition to Goenka and his teachings. e.g. http://www.vipassana-cult.co.uk and http://www.factnet.org Although this is vehmently opposed by his supporters I think that the page should reflect a small opposing view of his methods (i.e. that they are not true budhism).
- NOTE - He never claims to teach "Buddhism" or "true budhism" or whatever... in fact he claims he does NOT teach Buddhism, but he teaches a meditation technique that can be used by anyone Buddhist or non-Buddhist, regardless of gender, race, nationality, creed, etc... just like Yoga can be practiced for a physical exercise, the meditation he teaches is a mental exercise. Although he talks about the teachings of the Buddha, he is NOT referring to Buddhism.
-
- I don't remember S.N. Goenka claiming to teach buddhism. He does it in another way: he claims to be teaching pure dhamma. This is in fact another way of saying that he is teaching what the Buddha taught. Besides, he quotes buddhist scriptures. He has an aparent non-sectarian aproach but in fact he beats all organized religions in a hard way. Furthermore, if I remember it correctly, he claims that the technique he teaches remained secret trough 2500 years and now its spreading. This should be added to the article, maybe in a criticism section.
-
-
- Agreed, he does claim to teach what the Buddha taught, at least the essence (he does so openly, in many interviews) -- except I don't think he says it "remained secret"; more like it was preserved by few people (monks) -- "secret" implies they were trying to hide it from the public, which I don't think was the case. If I remember it correctly, one of the reasons why it was preserved by so few is it had been "mixed" with other things (e.g. added other objects, philosophies, etc) and became less effective -- so people stopped practicing and it was lost to more people. Not that it was secret. And the article does say now it's spreading (but not as criticism).
-
[edit] NPOV
There seems to be no clear reason given for a NPOV tag to remain on the front of the article. The only mention I can find in the discussion is talk of a rather dubious link to a site that stretches credibility with its definition of a cult. The policy here is to include opinions that have support, but two or three unknown websites does not amount to notability IMHO. Allegations against an individual or group are very serious and I would only support inclusion of such ideas if they can be backed up with evidence of abusive behaviour by S. N. Goenka and/or his organisation beyond isolated incidences that may have nothing to do with Goenka. If we include all negative allegations against people regardless of the source we are walking the road to tabloid journalism. I will be removing the NPOV tag, if anyone feels that it should be replaced, please list the reasons here as is policy, and give clear actionable changes to be discussed that you feel break NPOV policy. - Solar 09:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy Section
This section is one of the worst I have seen in Wikipedia, it includes no citations and is written from a single POV. It requires major clean up and references; otherwise I think the best course of action would be to remove it totally until such time as some repeatable sources of criticism come to light. I would like to come to a consensus on what other users feel about this section before I take any further action on it. - Solar 14:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- As no one has commented and in line with policy on biography (see the top of this page), I am removing the controversy section. - Solar 16:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
