Talk:Techniques of Knowledge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


Contents

[edit] Edits Aug 2006

  • There is no need to put quotation marks around the word followers. Most style guides do not recommend this practice. The sentence beginning with "Eileen Baker..." is almost impossible to understand, and the section about Haan contains repetition and a lack of clarity. I intend changing these. Errol V 12:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't make any sense of the "Eileen ..." section and was tempted to delete it as incoherent, but I suspect that would be too controversial, could someone delete or re-write in English. StopItTidyUp 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tried to break up the text with sections as it's too long, and too incherent. I'm happy for the section headings to be changed, but some sectioning is necessary StopItTidyUp 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted the word 'secret' as POV. They aren't secret, because anyone can find them in two clicks. StopItTidyUp 09:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the word secrest either, but you deleted the opinion of a scholar. In WIkipedia we report what reliable sources say about the subject, we do not connect the dots or engage om original research. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

The last few paragraphs have little or nothing to do with anything that precedes them.Momento 10:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I will remove the last two paragraphs in a few days.Momento 10:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't the techniques outlined here? They are not covered by copyright and so it seems POV to leave them out. I won't add them now as it's controversial, but it deserves debate. StopItTidyUp 09:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Because there are no reliable sources that describe them.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This leads as back to a discussion we had some years ago: If there are no reliable sources that describle the ToK, we should delete the article. --Pjacobi 14:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem in exploring the deletion the article and merging whatever material is not duplicated into the Prem Rawat article. But note, that as there are many reliable sources that speak about these techniques, it may be not a good idea to delete the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, an explorative AfD? Strictly speaking, this should be handled by article content RfC first, but you know that this process is rather broken and only gets enough eyeballs if it's on a topic like Israel-Palestine, Bush, Creationism, Nintendo or other hot spots of enwiki. Most RfC on NRMs I've seem failed to get significant response. --Pjacobi 15:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me do some research first to see if there is any scholar out there that wrote about the specifics of the techniques. WIll take me a couple fo days. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it needs to be one or the other - either it exists and should be described, or it doesn't and it should be deleted, however, it seems that this topic/individual/movement inspires some heated PoV so maybe an admin could kick off a formal debate? StopItTidyUp 14:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi StopItTidyUp (thx BTW for external link cleanup). Fine to see someone still with the mythical belief in the power of admins. If this question would in any way be solvable by unilateral admin intervention, it would have been solved by now. No shortage of admins here (Jossi and me, at least). --Pjacobi 15:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No reason why we should not be able to resolve this, Peter. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The section discussing the sound meditation by Kranenborg ends on the words "assumes the;". There are some missing words. Tgubler 22:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed it. I will correct it. Andries 22:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Peter, found several sources:

  • Lewis, James R. The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions (1998) pp.227-7, Prometheus Books, ISBN 1-57392-226-6
"Initiation into the yoga occurs through a process referred as "giving knowledge" during which an instructor introduces new members to four yogic techniques which reveal the means of experiencing the divine light, sound, word and nectar."
  • Lippy, Charles H., Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience : Studies of Traditions and Movements (1998) pp.1521 , Charles Scribner's Sons, ISBN 0-68418-062-6
[The teachings of Maharaj ji] emphasizes a powerful experience of inner light, sound, sweet tastes and vibrations.

As well as description of the techniques that someone already posted on your talk page from this source:

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

At least a couple seem to be described in the Process section of Contemporary Sant Mat movements without citation. StopItTidyUp 12:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I has been done. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

I have a problem with such a long unwieldy text from Kranenborg. I think the bullets or numbers that I had originaly used make it much easier to read. Andries 16:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree.It is an opinion of Kranenborg and as presented it gives a different impression and undue weight to his viewpoint. Better off in a text block as we are citing all other scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Disagree about undue weight. Kranenborg is well-respected. he is the only one who describes the techniques in such detail. Andries 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts first and only then opinions

I think that factual descriptions of the techniques should precede assesments and comments. In other words, I think it is wrong to place Hunt in front of Kranenborg or Melton. Andries 16:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

These are not "factual", Andries, as these people did not say that they were taught the techniques. These are opinions, same as all the others. Hunt gives context, which Kranenborg or Melton do not.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Disagree, Melton's and Kranenborg's descriptions are far more factual than Hunt. The "context" that you assert Hunt gives is a very subjective interpretation and should not precede factual descriptions in an encyclopedia. Andries 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I will give the article a neutrality warning for this. Facts should precede opinions in an encyclopedia. Andries 16:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
A neutrality warning? You are not addressing my argument above. I find this disingenuous and not in good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is not called Teachings of Prem Rawat. Hunt's emphasis is on the teachings of Prem Rawat, not on the techniques. Andries 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The real "fact" is that neither Melton, nor Your favorite Dutch scholar know about these techniques as these were not taught to them. So, these are as good asn a opinion as any other scholar referenced in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not the way Wikipedia works. Andries 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hunt provides invaluable information that both Melton and Your Dutch scholar omit: that the techniques require "the guidance of a teacher". He also provides context about what these techniques are for. Te reader will be better informed if they read Hunt and then the competing viewpoints of Melton and Kranenborg. Ah... and before you attempt to preach others about how Wikipedia works, you better take a good and serious look in the mirror.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Well Haan wrote this more or less too. Shall we start with Haan then? Andries 16:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
A student before scholars? Not an option. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This student did during two years participant observation and published his results in a university press magazine about relgious movement. This make the source highly reputable and relevant. Is there anybody else who did this? I do not think so. Andries amended 18:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
He was a student that reached certain mistaken conclusions based on is world-view. To call that "highly reputable" is not appropriate. Nevertheless, it is in the article so do no know what is the problem. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment of Haan. He reached his conclusions based on his observations. It seems that several others agree with his observations as can be seen from the comments on this talk page and the talk page of the DLM. His article is one of the best available sources. I did not find a single mistake in his article. I am not saying that Haan is completely without bias, but then who is? Andries 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You are entitled to disagree, of course. Just that I know that his conclusions are totally and utterly wrong. As I said, his reference is in the article, so there is nothing more to discuss. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
But then why do other (ex-)premies write so adamantly that Haan was right? I am sincerely interested in solving this mystery. Andries 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You can contact me via email, if you want to discuss. These pages are not for discussing the subject, but the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
And also, the premies were invited and allowed to give comments on the article before it was published and as far as I know nobody disagreed. Andries 18:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not have the full article, so my assessment is based on the specific comments that you chose to add to this article. For example that the "secrecy" had anything to do with a "life of devotion" and that another reason for such purported secrecy was to discourage people to pursue other paths, both assertions are totally off the mark. All what Maharaji asks is that people make a promise not to reveal the techniques to others, for the reasons that he stated as added to the article. That promise is made by the person in their own heart (no one asks you to sign a document or even declare verbally that you will not break that promise) and the techniques are taught in good faith and with the hope that the person will practice them and benefit from them. Maharaji also says that if you don't like it, to walk away, but not to give up looking for inner peace. You may be paying too much attention to what detractors say, Andries. The fact is that this is a very simple thing. It is often said that the techniques have a buit-in protection mechanism, and these do not work if the person has not discovered first his own thirst for inner peace, has a comittment to give it a fair chance, and approaches the practice of these techniques with simplicity and trust. I can only speak of my own experience. I have been practicing these techniques daily for more that 20 years, and my experience has been beautiful, sweet and simple. In good times and in bad times, I have felt inner peace through this practice. That is all I would say in this page. If you have further questions, you can email me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off topic

I had already requested year ago reference for the assertion that the section Generic references to the kryias, Knowledge and the teacher talked about the techniques of knowledge as practised in the DLM/Elan Vital and taught by Maharaji and other. I am still waiting for it. Unless references are provided I consider the section off-topic. Andries 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved to a separate article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks are u sure that the spelling of the new article title is correct? Kryia or Kriya? Andries
Corrected. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of bullet points

Jossi, please explain your reversion of my edit adding bullet points to emphasize the four techniques. Now they are buried in the text and much less readable. Also, please say why you prefer not having the first section title, which obviates the explicit TOC entry. --Blainster 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The opinion of the Dutch religious scholar and Christian minister Reender Kranenborg does not need to be featured so prominently, as it is only one viewpoint amongst many. There are other viewpoints such as the one presented by J. Gordon Melton. Both these viewpoints should be presented as such, using bullet points gives undue weight to one viewpoint, and that is not acceptable. As for the article's organization, you placed many viewpoints under the section "Description", when there are only two descriptions (Melton's and Kranenborg's). I will attempt to better organize the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I have reorganized the article, and added a couple of new sources. I think that the new organization works better than what we had before. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The reorganization of sections looks improved. Regarding the bulleting of the four techniques, they are described, if somewhat differently, by all the authors as the basis of the system, so they should be emphasized. Why not list them separately, along with the different descriptions of each one? --Blainster 18:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Because you give undue weight to what is the opinion of these two scholars. Note that these two scholars, did not learn these techniques, they are just describing something based on what they have heard. As such, if we list these descriptions, we need to list them as opinions and not as facts, and attibute each viewpoint to each one of them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Haan opinions

RE: Your edit whose summary readeds "Haan never intended to voice his observations as criticism and they were voiced in a neutral tone".

  1. You do not know what an author's motivations were or were not
  2. He was a member of a critical group
  3. The contents are obviously critical

I see no reason why not to include this source under a "Critical views" section. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no indication that they were meant as criticsm and I do not see why the contents is critical. He did not belong to a group critical of DLM or critical of cults. He even had his article reviewed by premies. His observations completely correspond with what has been voiced in other Dutch scholarly articles. Andries 22:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from article

(moved from article. Posted by new user User:Simon King LCPH)

It should not be assumed that the descriptions below are accurate. The techniques can be learned free of charge from Prem Rawat, and those that appreciate what he offers will not divulge the exact nature of these techniques, because they understand the value of the process that Prem Rawat has set up to ensure the techniques are given a proper chance to be appreciated. There is no reason why any interested party should not learn them for themsleves, free of charge. Prem Rawat asks that the specifics of these techniques not be divulged for the simple reason that he is genuinely concerned that people fully understand the process and value of the practice he advocates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simon King LCPH (talk • contribs).

I can't tell - is the writer saying that the knowledge is free or should be free? Is there any information available on the tuition cost classes, etc? It sounds like the writer is conflating two issues, cost and secrecy. We've already got info on the confidentiallity of the knowledge in the article, so that aspect seems redundant. -Will Beback 03:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no charge for Knowledge. It is freely given. [1] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I will try to find some verifiable information that addresses the points made by User:Simon King LCPH. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the price of knowledge ala Rawat

There may not be an invoicable fee for the TOC as Jossi has pointed out, but 10 years in an Ashram, giving all one's labor for Rawat's Mission or enrichment is a sort of fee, all the while abstaining from sex and relationships so that the only relationship is with Rawat. Sad, truly sad.

The requirements to decide if someone is "ready" for knowledge is a very steep fee. Time is unrefundable.

Rawat has a unresolvable conflict in his philosophy. He does not advocate personal responsibility because that eliminates the need of his followers to be devoted to him. YOu can say that those in the Ashram were there of their own choice, but Rawat promised those who gave him devotion an abdication of responsibility, where only loyalty was required. One or the other.......

If it is truly free then Rawat should post TOC techniques on billboard instead of hiding like the greedy scourge that he truly is. Interested in Rawat's TOC... read some books on Yoga... or take a yoga class. The fee is upfront and small. It will not cost you your life's devotion, your inheritance, your intellectual capability or your intellecutal freedom and responsibility.

Rawat promised to take the burden of freedom from those devoted to him. He has not fulfilled that promise.

Perhaps Jossi has personally met Rawat, perhaps he works for Rawat. I think it drives his advocation of Rawat. It's not objective. The TOC should be broadcast for ANY who wish to seek it FREE of hinderance or judgement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.107.87 (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/c/Talk%7ETechniques_of_Knowledge_5ad9.html"