Talk:Kundalini

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kundalini article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Archives Archive 1

Please note that when using American English, there is no such term as "Brahmans", per the article as it stands, currently. Standard spelling for the priestly caste within the Sanatana Dharma (aka "Hinduism") is "Brahmin" with an "i". This spelling helps to avoid confusion, per Brahman, the Absolute, and the distinct (and different from Brahman) "Brahma", the creator deity, who, along with Vishnu and Shiva, comprise the trinity within the Sanatana Dharma. I did not make any edits, however, not being sure if some other form of English (i.e. British English) might consider "Brahmans" to be standard spelling. If this is not the case, I would recommend changing "Brahmans" to "Brahmins", for the sake of clarity. 24.178.118.206 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Anonymous User, March 27, 2007

I agree, the standard in Wikipedia is Brahmin as the priestly caste and Brahman as the thing that doesn't fit so well into words. --Calibas 05:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing tag necessary?

Is there any reason for the confusing tag to be in the Kundalini Rising section anymore? I don't think it is confusing, but if you think so then please explain why, otherwise I will remove it within a few days. Thank you. Anton H 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed NPOV tag

I removed the NPOV tag because I think that the article is NPOV, it presents different viewpoints without laying too much weight on any side. IMHO of course, so if you disagree feel free to re-add it and post an explanation here. Anton H 17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored the tag because the problem I see in the article is that except for the opening section which mentions Hindu sources, all of the rest of the page actually presents Western New Age thinking in an uncritical manner. Much of that material has nothing to do with the original concept. A similar organizational problem exists on the article for Chakras which recently has at least had a few sources added which clarify that the "standard" model of 7 chakras and thinking of kundalini as some sort of physical thing is a New Age view. Both articles need to be revised to step back from their own views and put the recent Western models into better perspective. In attempting to add some of the Hindu citations I have noticed that some of the Western concepts are so embedded that people have difficultly accepting the original concepts, such as systems in which there different numbers of chakras or different conceptual models of what Kundalini represents. Buddhipriya 18:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean and I agree... Anton H 10:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)