Talk:Guru/archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Guru in Hinduism section

I restored some of the text to the Hinduism section, as it is well researched, attributed and have encyclopedic value. Also restored the Biblio section and the external links, for same rason. --Zappaz 04:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If you restored the poems by Kabir, Brahmanand, and Hari Bhakti Vilasa that I consider the least encyclopedic part of the article then we might as well restore the rest. Andries 06:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
So all of the material that is sympathetic to Hinduism is unencyclopedic. I think that you're letting your anti-Hindu sentiment shine through a bit too clearly here. --goethean 18:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Since when are poems encyclopedic material? I am not anti-Hindu. However I find it unfortunate that some unscrupulous or self-deceived gurus have found more gullible and profitable pastures in Western countries. Andries 19:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Since when is resentment a proper motive for encyclopedia writing? --goethean 20:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Since when is it useful to talk about the motivations of people writing here instead of talking about the article? Andries 20:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
You are the one who makes your own personal motivations and resulting advocacy an issue in this article, viz:
Goethan, I know from personal experience that Feuerstein's way of reasoning as expressed in that article can lead to disasters. Andries
Goethean and others, another thing. Why was it me who inserted a rebuttal of Storr's criticism of gurus in the article? I had expected you to do so because you dislike the criticism so much. I invited you many times to insert rebuttals or more positive viewpoints on Hindu gurus but until now you have refrained from doing so. Andries 21:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Probably because this isnt an article about Storr. You may not have noticed, but we don't like playing your childish games in which each party inserts their POV by very selectively finding scholars—no matter how obscure, unknown, or irrelevant— who agree with the editor's views. I leave that type of thing to creationists. --goethean 23:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean, do you want me to abandon common sense when reading articles by scholars and editing Wikipedia? Of course, my common sense was shaped by experience, observations, and a lot of reading on the subject. I do not think that any of the scholars and scientists mentioned in the main text of this article are obscure on the subject of gurus, Hinduism, or NRMs. What scholars and scientists (apart from Klaus Klostermaier) do you suggest as a basis for this article? Andries 08:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Common sense and good faith are exactly what is called for here—and what is severely lacking (see below). Any source from within the Hindu, Buddhist, or Sikh traditions (or NRM) which include the guru principle or doctrine seems relevant to me. Plus any scholar—often called Indologists or Sinologists—who specializes in any of these traditions. Unsympathetic Western scholars who specialize in or profit from skepically "debunking" gurus or "unmasking" "cults" are definitely less relevant to this article. How relevant are the opinions of an anti-Christian Muslim to an Wikipedia article on Christian ministers? That is why all of your anti-guru verbiage is off-topic in this article.
Within these guidelines, common sense is still needed. An editor writing in bad faith will always be able to find loopholes in the guidelines to advocate for his POV. I know that in response you will be looking for anti-guru sources from within these three traditions. But I can't singlehandedly stop you from abusing this article. Searching the library to find that one anti-guru dissertation by an obscure Dutch religious scholar is not NPOV, no matter how many anti-religious editors take your side. --goethean 17:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Goethean, the only scholar who I think was a skeptic when he was cited is Anthony Storr. David C. Lane was at that time (1994) still a follower of Charan Singh. Later he became a skeptic. I repeat that none of the scholars that I cited are obscure on this subject (NRMs, Hinduism or gurus). Jan van der Lans wrote a lot about NRMs and was quite sympathetic to them. Andries 21:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I will no longer particpation in this worthless, lie-filled conversation. You think that Reender Kronenberg, most of who's google hits are generated by this article, you think is more relevant to the guru than Kabir, probably the most important indian poet. You are absurd and I will waste no more of my time on your idiotic lies. --goethean 22:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


I have attempted to restructure the Western section a bit and overall formatting. The criticism section is currently 25% of the article (about 1,000 words), so IMO it it still too big but I understand that the mediator has ruled against deletions. I would hope that people will leave the criticism section alone (can you Andries?), and that we engage in developing the other areas of the article so that thois become an excellent article in this very fascinating subject. And please Andries, don't delete Kabir and Brahmanand. You cannot say that it is not encyclopedic. It is extremely relevant to the article. ≈ jossi ≈ 22:09, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Added some stuff to the Hindu section. --64.81.88.140 05:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Jossi, thanks for leaving the critical information in the article. I do not particularly like your edits but I can live with them. I do not object to a short mentioning of Kabir and Brahmanand such as you have inserted but I think that the several poems that Zappaz had inserted was too much, too long and inappropriate. Andries 08:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see that you guys are managing to make progress without me. :) --Zappaz 16:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Reference

Andries, can you provide a reference for this?: As a consequence of the accusations of sexual abuse by Sathya Sai Baba the European Parliament accepted a motion that stating that the European Union refuses to cooperate with organizations affiliated with Sathya Sai Baba ≈ jossi ≈ 04:31, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

In response to written question nr. E-2406/01 in 2001 [1] [2]Andries 07:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Removed. That is not notable as a "controversy" and shows the bad faith in which you edit. Should we now be checking every single edit you make? ≈ jossi ≈ 14:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, questions were also asked in the British parliament, a travel warning was issed by the US department of state, TV documentary by Danish Radio was broadcasted in Australia and Denmark, BBC TWO produced a one-hour TV documentary, there was a front page article in India Today, UNESCO public announced its withdrawal on its website because of the accusations. All this together this is notable. Andries 20:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Please back up these claims. --goethean 20:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Here is the cover story of India Today to start with. [3] The broadcast of Danish Radio produced documentary announced in SBS Australia schedule [4] The motion of the UK MP, the USA state department warning and the UNESCO withdrawal with stated reason are copied on http://www.saipetition.net/ with links to the original documents. To support my statement that SSB is a notable controversy you may also take a look at the number of critical websites on SSB (which is a 21)http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Opposing_Views/Hinduism/ Andries21:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The controversy surrounded SSB is fully developed in the WP article on the subeject .The complaint is that you posted made-up statements. You could make a link to the SSB criticism article and be done with it. ≈ jossi ≈ 05:30, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Caught "in fraganti"

Andries, now that you have been caught in fraganti maybe now you can admit of your advocacy-driven editorializing.

Your first edit:

As a consequence of the accusations of sexual abuse by Sathya Sai Baba the European Parliament accepted a motion that stating that the European Union refuses to cooperate with organizations affiliated with Sathya Sai Baba

Your second edit:

As a consequence of the accusations of sexual abuse by Sathya Sai Baba the European Commission answered on October 1, 2001 a question (nr. E2406/01) of a MEP stating that the European Union has not cooperated with any organizations affiliated with Sathya Sai Baba

In reality a question by an European MP regarding allegations against Sai Baba, was politely answered in a diplomatic way

Question: Will the Commission raise the issue of the allegations at the EU-India summit scheduled for 23 November 2001 and ask assurances that the Indian Government is investigating the allegations? Answer: The Sathya Sai Trust does not receive and has never received any funding from the Community, nor is it associated with any of its projects in India.

Tss, tss! Baaad! --Zappaz 16:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you say pious fraud? --goethean 17:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I really thought that a motion had been accepted. I have to check my old HDD on which this information is stored. Detailed info is on my old HDD that I could not find today. Andries 13 May

Why this harassment against Andries?

Is the aim of this article to do guru laundering and to suppress any evidence of any misbehavior by any of them? The ridicule of shooting relentlessly at the messenger, in what could be taken as a coordinated tactic, and making him the accusee, can only raise questions about the shooters. --Pgreenfinch 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Accusers? Shooters? I haven't seeing you contributing to this article, and "suddenly" you have an opinion? Check your reasons for coming to the defense of a blatant abuse of WP policy. ≈ jossi ≈ 05:23, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Come on, when I contributed to the article, it was the same cabal against me. Are you adding short memory to denial? And I never hided that I was against cults, gurus and other manipulators, and not too keen on dogmatic philosophies and religions more generally. Now, I never seen my contradictors (or Andries contradictors) saying what they were for. If you are for those chaps and shops, why not tell it instead of making pretences of neutrality? Do your really think people are so stupid that they don't understand your game? --Pgreenfinch 07:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Please lower your tone, if you could, thanks. Thank you for your disclaimer about your anti-religious bias. My bias is posted on my user page. Let Andries address the concerns raised by Jossi, Goethean and myself. He may find some references to subtantiate was seems to be a poor choice of words driven by his advocacy. From the way you write it seems that English is not your mother tonge, so you need to be extra careful with the way you express yourself, otherwise you come across quite strangely, if I may say so. :) --Zappaz 02:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay. let me try to summarize the concerns against this article by Goethean, Zappaz, and Jossi.
  1. Disproportionally much critical information (Goethean, Zappaz, Jossi)
  2. Sources for this article should mainly be Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh plus Indologists, not Western psychiatrists, skeptics etc. (Goethean)
  3. Use of obscure scholars as a source i.e. Jan van der Lans & Reender Kranenborg. (Goethean)
Andries 06:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. I think that we have moved on from the above in the last 5 days. What is needed now is to develop the sections about gurus in Buddhism and Sikhism, hopefully leaving the criticism section as is, and not adding more stuff to it (unless you want to link to other articles for more info).≈ jossi ≈ 16:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I will be archiving most of the above in a few days. --Zappaz 15:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

How about creating the category:guru-disciple relationship? Articles that could go into that category include guru, satguru, guru Purnima, may be even bhagavad gita, Guru-chela dynamic, surrender (religion). Andries 11:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Satguru

This statement:

Gurus of the Surat Shabd Yoga traditions often are referred to as Satgurus or Sat (True) Gurus.

is incorrect. Satguru or Sadguru is not only applicable to the Surat Shabd. I have added a wikilink to the Satguru article. --ZappaZ 00:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Your judgment is incorrect and your deletion of the statement is biased. Apparently you are intolerent of factual information that does not conform to your point of view. RDF 01:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so upset? I only made a statement that says that the term "satguru" is not used only in the Surat Sabd tradition, and that is a correct statement. It has nothing to do with intolerance... The text you added implies that this term is only applicable to Surat Shabd. Maybe we just need to qualify that. --ZappaZ 01:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently we read the original statement differently. It was not intended to claim exclusivity. It did not say only Surat Shabd Yoga gurus were satgurus. In addition, not all Surat Shabd Yoga mission are Hindu sects. I got upset because the statement was deleted altogether, rather than attempting to first reconcile your concern. RDF 02:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I also find it interesting how the external links were cut and moved. Apparently the contributors here are not interested in a fuller representation of information, only a narrow perspective. RDF 02:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Blibio/Ref

Can someone explain the rational beyond what seems an arbitrary decision to split Bibio and Refs? I will revert back, unless rational is provided. Thanks. --ZappaZ 15:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

A typical distinction is that citations in the body of the article are placed in a reference list, while a bibliography includes material that has not been cited. I didn't notice any citations in the article so the distinction seems to be moot here. It also seems like the wikiconvention in this case is to use the section title, "References." RDF 15:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I am aware of the distinction. My question is what was the rational for deciding what was placed under references and what was placed under bibliography? --ZappaZ
Since the article has no citations, no rationale can be demonstrated. I still support merging them. RDF 16:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I moved all the books from the bibliography that I used or that I thought was used by others for the articles to the reference section. If you were a contributor to the article and used a book for the article that is now in the bibliography then please move it to the reference section. Thanks. Andries 17:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I used the following books and article for this article, and I read them all except big parst of one book by Kranenborg (1974) and two articles by Deutsch (1975, 1980) that were summarized in a Dutch language dissertation about new religious movements by Schnabel.
  1. Bromley, David G., Ph.D. & Anson Shupe, Ph.D., Public Reaction against New Religious Movements article that appeared in Cults and new religious movements: a report of the Committee on Psychiatry and Religion of the American Psychiatric Association, edited by Marc Galanter, M.D., (1989) ISBN 0-89042-212-5
  2. Deutsch, Alexander M.D. Observations on a sidewalk ashram Archive Gen. Psychiatry 32 (1975) 2, 166-175
  3. Deutsch, Alexander M.D. Tenacity of Attachment to a cult leader: a psychiatric perspective American Journal of Psychiatry 137 (1980) 12, 1569-1573.
  4. Deutsch, Alexander M.D. Psychological perspectives on cult leadership, an article that appeared in the book edited by Marc Galanter M.D. (1989) Cults and new religious movements: a report of the committee on psychiatry and religion of the American Psychiatric Association ISBN 0-89042-212-5
  5. Feuerstein, Georg Dr. Encyclopedic dictionary of yoga Published by Paragon House 1st ed edition (1990) ISBN 155778244X
  6. Kent, Stephen A. Dr. From slogans to mantras: social protest and religious conversion in the late Vietnam war era Syracuse University press ISBN 0-8156-2923-0 (2001)
  7. Kramer, Joel, and Diana Alstad The guru papers: masks of authoritarian power ISBN 1-883319-00-5
  8. Kranenborg, Reender (Dutch language) Zelfverwerkelijking: oosterse religies binnen een westerse subkultuur (En: Self-realization: eastern religions in a Western Sub-culture, published by Kampen Kok (1974)
  9. Kranenborg, Reender (Dutch language) Een nieuw licht op de kerk? Bijdragen van nieuwe religieuze bewegingen voor de kerk van vandaag (En: A new perspective on the church? Contributions of new religious movements for today's church), the Hague Boekencentrum (1984) ISBN 9023908090
  10. Kranenborg, Reender (Dutch language) Neohindoeïstische bewegingen in Nederland : een encyclopedisch overzicht, published by Kampen Kok cop. (2002) ISBN 9043504939
  11. Lane, David C., Exposing Cults: When the Skeptical Mind Confronts the Mystical (1984)
  12. Palmer, Susan, article in the book NRMs in the 21st Century: legal, political, and social challenges in global perspective edited by Phillip Charles Lucas and Thomas Robbins, (2004) ISBN 0145965772
  13. Storr, Anthony Dr. Feet of clay: a study of gurus 1996 ISBN 0684834952
  14. Lans, Jan van der Dr. (Dutch language) Volgelingen van de goeroe: Hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen in Nederland, written upon request for the KSGV published by Ambo, Baarn, 1981 ISBN 9026305214
  15. Swami Vivekananda Karma-yoga and Bhakti-yoga (1937)
Jossi used at least the following
  1. Preece, Rob, "The teacher-student relationship" in The Noble Imperfection: The challenge of individuation in Buddhist life, Mudras Publications
Zappaz used at least the following
  1. Feuerstein, Georg Dr. The Deeper Dimension of Yoga: Theory and Practice, Shambhala Publications, ISBN 1570629285
Hope this explains it, Thanks. Andries 17:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

We either add direct refs and notes (using {{ref|refname}} and {{note|refname}} for each citation, or we should merge these two lists. --ZappaZ 21:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is this a significant shloka? "Guru Brahma ..."

The article should state if and why the following is a significant shloka. In what scripture can it be found or is often quoted, if so by whom?

"A Sanskrit Sloka goes thus:
Guru Brahma Guru Vishnu Guru Devo Maheshwara
Guru Sakshath Parambrahma Tasmai Shri Gurave Namaha"

Andries 08:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is a significant sloka because it compares the teacher with the holy Hindu Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara. It implies that the teacher is none other than the God himself in a human form. As for the source, I think it is Adi Shankara who said this under the title GuruStotram. A google search with Sankaracharya and Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu returned only 2 relevant returns though. --Gurubrahma 09:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Gurubrahma, I understand that you consider the quote important but for inclusion in this article there needs to be some proof that this quote is significant in Hinduism. If there is no such proof, the quote should be moved to wikiquote. Andries 09:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Andries, a google search with this sloka vis-a-vis other slokas in the article would tell you of its significance. You may also want to look at the article Aarti. btw, Goethean has added the source in the article. --Gurubrahma 15:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


Question

As I am not familiar with non-Western theology, would someone more knowledgeable on Gurus (and related areas) care to add a few lines to Women as theological figures. (Either or both sections)

Jackiespeel 16:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


The following sounds like unattributed POV

The following sounds like unattributed POV

"The institution of the guru has evolved various basic tenets of Indian culture and transmitted spiritual and fundamental knowledge. Gurus formed the axis of ancient educational system and ancient society, and enriched various fields of learning and culture by their creative thinking. In this lies the lasting significance of gurus and their contribution to the upliftment of mankind."

Please provide reliable sources or make it into attributed opinions from a notbable source. Otherwise I will delete it. Thanks Andries 20:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed,. That was a copyvio from http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa012400a.htm (at bottom of page) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 23:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary titles

I have removed unecessary titles and superlatived, some of which are POV (i.e the fact that a person studied philosophy, does not make him a "Pholosopher"). As each scholar listed has a bio article, let that be as simple as stating the name of the scholar and allow the wikilink to provide info. If there is no article, let us create stubs to start with. --ZappaZ 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)#

no, I do not agree. A basic introduction is necessary. Besides I do not have not enough biographical information for some people, like Anthony Storr and Alexander Deutsch. When a person is not a philosopher but teaches philosophy, as is the case of David Lane then this can be stated as such. Andries 18:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The text about Lane read "sociologist and philosopher". If you do not have info on scholars, that is not an issue. Create a stub as I have created for Van der Lans. Other editors may add more info as it is marked as a stub. --ZappaZ 18:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I have to think about it but I think this writing style is quite strange. Andries 18:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
"writing style" – You mean a hyperlink? Are you new or something? --goethean ॐ 18:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
When you write an opinion then you give the reader background information about the person stating this opinion. That is good practice and I do not think that it is good practice to give no background infromation at all and an put everything in the biography. For example, you wrote yourself about Adi Shankara here that he was influential. This is common knowledge for me but probably not for most readers and hence I agree with the inclusion of this background information here. Andries 19:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
That's a good point, especially considering the completely irrelevant nobodies that you have dragged out in this article to represent your POV. --goethean ॐ 19:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, irrespective of the nature of comments made (POV or not), Background information makes sense. For example if I read that a certain X has said something, I'd be curious to know what he is (occupation) and where he is from (country) - the former to assess what sort of training he has in judging an issue and the latter to assess how much fit he is culturally to comment on that; However, I may be loath to click the links back and forth - net conectivity and speed do matter. So, I strongly believe that the background info is a must. However, if irrelevant nobodies are being cited, pl. remove the entire reference instead of the background info. As things stand, I'd think a rv to include bkgnd info is in order. --Gurubrahma 05:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Gurubrahma that basic background information about the person voicing an opinion is what the average reader wants to know and hence should be provided here, not only in the biography. I will revert Zappaz' edits in this respect. Andries 19:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Andries is a liar

Goethean writes at user:Goethean

"Most of the Guru article (53%, to be exact) is devoted to the opinions of Western secular scholars, some completely obscure, who specialize in unsympathetically debunking the religious claims of gurus."

Who is obscure Goethean? I do not agree that any of the mentioned critical scholars is obscure. Jan van der Lans was cited two times in the 1998 book "Politics of Religious Apostasy" edited by Bromley by two different authors and he was cited once in the 1989 book "Cults and religious movements: A report of the American Psychological Association" edited by Marc Galanter. It may be true that I have unconsciously and unintentionally focused on the critical material, but that is another matter. The possible reason for that is because I write down what I know. I know what I remember. I remember what strikes me as true. Mostly critical stuff strikes me as true. Andries 20:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

location of the section about "Succession and lineage"

The arguments as set forth by David C. Lane were based on his research of the Radha Soami movement, not based on based on "Gurus in the West and in a Western context". Hence the correct location is not in the section "Gurus in the West and in a Western context", but somewhere else. This predictable mistake by Jossi who moved it to that section shows once again my point that the distinction between India and the Western World is akward, artificial and should be abandoned. Andries 16:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What needs to be abandoned is the utilization of Wikipedia as a soapbox to push a minority viewpoint such as Lane's. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I do not mind if you can quote another scholar about succession than David Lane. But please keep in mind that the majority in Wikipedia is not formed by the number of adherents. Also, I oppose the move of David C. Lane assertions to Hinduism, because Radha Soami/Sant Mat is a mixture of Sikhism and Hinduism. Andries 16:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I admit that the section "Lineage and succession" is unbalanced but I do not know how to improve it so quickly, so feel free. Andries
DO you want to demonstrate that you care for NPOV and for this project? Research the parampara concept and write a section that we can all be proud off. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Serious research on this subject takes a lot of time and besides I do not have good sources other than David C. Lane. Do you know good sources? I cannot write a good balanced section overnight. Andries 17:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I also find it quite strange that you tell me to research the subject. There is nobody who has provided more referenced statements to this article than I. Andries 17:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Really? Is that so? I would say that you have invested considerable effort to the criticism section, but to claim that you have done most of the work is puerile and disrespectful of the efforts of others. Regarding the parampara section, we can either marge Parampara here, or alternatively move your Lane's cite to the parampara article, and add parampara to the see also. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I did not say that I did most of work or wrote most of the article: I said that I inserted most of the referenced statements which is an indisputable fact if you check the list of references here on the talk page. Merging from parampara to guru sounds like a good idea to me. Andries 17:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Merged and expanded. Should we leave parampara as is, or should we redirect to here? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Kindly leave it as it is. The way this article gets edited, we can never be sure that the information added from Parampara to this article would be retained in its full form. Also, Parampara can do with more additions and references, hence it should not be converted into a re-direct. --Gurubrahma 05:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit

In reading the "Hinduism" section I can see that it is just a loose collections of facts without any structure, with duplicated statements and not a cohesive, accessible and easy to read section. If there is anyone with the time and skills to copyedit this section, it will be a great help. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear I copyedited the text as is , meaning the language. I then removed the copyedit tag . perhaps you want it back , which Ill do now. You may be right about the hinduism . what I would say is that I feel the approaching God reference is out of order , by Indian standards. I mean they have levels of God-head, several , and so their conceptions cannot be anglicised without incurring some confusion as to meaning .
Also I would say that vedanta surely provisions god-head to each of us (given the path is clinmed0 , not just in Sikkism, surely ?
Lastly I would expect more emphasis on the history of evil , power seeking gurus . I mean evil in that the form of divinity is not benign but purely of power, and that remarks could be made of these ghoulish gurus. I guess it is different , that such by their individuality craving , per se would be better classed as anti-gurus . I refer to sadhus , to Naga babas, to the ancients among them who used to ascend to the source of the ganga, there to compete with their own mortality in a power hungry self-mortification , by seeing how many times they could dip their blanket into the water , then to hold it up to freeze like card-board before wrapping it around their naked flesh to un-freeze it once more . All in a deadly search for power , gained piecemeal at such dreadful price .

I say , remove the tag , let it off , no? It aint that bad . better than a lot I see .

EffK 21:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Guru talk , Gurus, article length, de-construct

ps: Did anyone ever hear of Ganesh Baba . He attracted a plethora of westerners but seems to have been(become in middle age) a sadhu , and rejected the sense of necessity for the guru being . Whilst typically sadhu , he taught using the same 3x concentric circle symbol trademarked by the odd Urantia foundation . That is the only overlap however . James Joyce seems to have had an attachment to the symbol, it appeared on the binding of one of his books . I believe . . Ganesh Baba used it to demonstrate the levels required for understandin . he chastised the westerners and their inverted drug materialism : take a thing , a pill , to get high ! Crazy people , he said . I think Ram Das knows Ganesh Baba , who certainly visited the US c. late 60's . Ganesh Baba was for imploding the western guru search , or at any rate anti-guru'd by irony , I believe . GB was the one who hit it off with the Alpert / Timothy Leary followers.

Different from the Boy Guru . Seemingly when he was born , the string instruments hanging on the walls played themselves, so his aunties realised that he was in some way divine. From there it was straight-forward presentation and control . he 's the guy addicted to ice-cream, who's power can be felt through a wall by the willing . Likes fast cars too , no ? Just as the Mahesh Yogi collected them . To chuck in our face , perhaps to teach us something , same as Sri [is it Mahatma ?] Ganesh Baba ..... chuck the tag ....actually the whole thing is a bit earnest, it was hard work as the info is too packed . Break it up into different articles as the learning that is taught can't be constrained like this on one page , really . and the analysis of influence into the west sounds like it comes from within the east , thus missing the mark . I commend the considerable effort devoted , though . EffK 22:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You are speaking of Neem Karoli Baba. Feel free to add info to that article. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Ganesh Baba?Andries 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

There is a hip-hop MC named Guru. He was the MC-half of the Old Skool/Underground duo Gang Starr, and continues to perform. He has collaborated with MC Solaar. So there should be a tag at the beginning of the article in italis that reads, "This article is about the Hindu discipleship tradition. For the Hip-hop MC, please see Guru (rapper)".--Rockero 22:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, it is a great suggestion. I also found that there are other Gurus as well and hence created Guru (disambiguation). I have also added a tag at the beginning of this article accordingly. --Gurubrahma 13:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the edits by Miljoshi to lates version by AdelaMae

The reason why I gave a revert was because Mijoshi removed the generally accepted scholarly etymology of the word guru (heavy) and leaving only the popular etymology. I do admit that some of his changes were good though. Andries 10:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There are several etymologies in use, and these can all be described. There is no need to delete one, or the other. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 06:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Andries, Thank you for your review and comments. My intention was/is not to create a debate or dispute, and thus am not modifying any changes made by you. Although, with all due respect, I believe that appending your thoughts to the topic was the fair way rather than doing a complete purge. I appreciate your understanding of the subject, and trust that all of us are aware of the vastness of the subject of Guru in Hinduism. This presents a little challenge of writing about it in the limited space provided (more so when Wikipedia has already put a notice regarding the length of the page). Further, if I understand correctly, for Wikipedia, the context of this topic is regarding the "concept" of a Guru, and not regarding "Guru" as an "entity" (there are so many!). To be fair and neutral in the encyclopaedic sense, and when you love and respect all the entities (or reject some due to personal/published cause), it is virtually impossible to quote all of them (or leave some of them) within the set bounds of a page. According to me, the fair course is to justify them under the topic/category where they belong. Hope you would agree. Finally, I do not intend to amuse myself by considering that I know everything about this subject, and I welcome and appreciate thoughts and view from the learned ones like you and Jossifresco. Thanks & regards. Miljoshi 07:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverted edits by User:Merishi

  • Some of the new sections had POV titles such as "Second thoughts"
  • Titles of sections were capitalized incorrectlty
  • New sections did not to improve the article, IMO

We need to do better... ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

While I do accept that we need to do better, I feel that Merishi's edits, esp. the copyedit ones, did improve the article. Considering that he is a newbie, it would be unfair for us to expect him to hit the ground running. I believe that the sections should actualy be sub-sections - it wd also help in editing an otherwise huge page. If there are no objections to the content of his edits, I will re-organize his contribs. I'll wait for a couple of days for comments. --Gurubrahma 05:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

overall concern

First off although I have not converted to Hinduism, I have been a student and practitioner of Hinduism for a awhile now. I have had a formal guru/disciple relationship which ended and am looking to have another one.


As I look at this article, my concern is that it is not an article, or at least parts of it aren't. Particuarly the Hindu section, I read it more as just giving the reader way too much information without helping them to understand what a guru actually is.

I already removed a sloka which basically just repeated what was in the last two sentences.

~The word guru means teacher in Sanskrit, as well as in other languages derived from Sanskrit, such as Hindi, Bengali and Gujarati. The word originated in a Hindu context and holds a special place in Hinduism, signifying both the sacred place of knowledge (vidya) and the imparter of knowledge.

"Signifying the sacred place of knowledge?" What is that?

Vidya is both a "state" and a "place". Hopefuly someone will develop the Vidya article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

~ The word comes from the Sanskrit root "gru", literally meaning "heavy, weighty". Does this need to be there? How is it going to help someone understand what a guru is?

~Another etymology describes that the syllables gu (गु) and ru (रू) stand for darkness and light, respectively, meaning that the guru is someone who leads the disciple from the darkness of ignorance (avidya), to the light of knowledge (vidya) [1]

I like this, however, do we need to teach people sanskrit? Do we need the complete etymology, with the sanskrit symbols there? Do we need to include vidya and avidya? Isn't this just going to confuse someone who is not familiar with Hinduism?

yes, why not? This is an encyclopedia and any material that is properly sourced and that provides information on the subject (and yes, that includes etymologies and Sanskrit. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

~The importance of finding a guru who can impart transcendental knowledge (vidya) is one of the tenets of Hinduism. Lord Krishna says to Arjuna:

Acquire the transcendental knowledge from a Self-realized master by humble reverence, by sincere inquiry, and by service. The wise ones who have realized the Truth will impart the Knowledge to you. (Bhagavad Gita, c4 s34)

When I pretend I know nothing about Hinduism and read this, my reaction is: What is transcendental knowledge? Oh- there is that vidya thing again- lets see- okay- it is the light of knowledge. Who is Lord Krishna... must be a kind or a royal of some kind, and who the hell is Arjuna?

Follow the wikilinks to Krishna and Arjuna, if you want to learn about them. Fascinating stuff. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway- a few thoughts of mine just on the few paragraphs, I will slowly come back to this article and work with it, and work with people's responses to my ideas and my changes.

peace, Sethie 09:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to make edits to this article, but please note that if you want to remove material that is properly sourced, you will need to provide a solid rationale for that deletion. As for the names in the articles, such as Krishna and Arjuna, follow the wikilinks. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Jossi- ~Ummmm I did provide a rationale for removing it, please see the history of the article. You may not agree with my decision, however, please at least address it.

~I am clear who who Krishna and Arjuna are. The question is, in the opening paragraphs of an article supposed to be about guru, does adding there names in, with no context or information help people understand guru, or just add information overload? If Krishna and Arjuna were leading philosophers in the philosophy of guru, let's add them in.

~Just because information is properly sourced DOES NOT mean it needs to be in article. I could go out and find 10,000 properly sourced quotes about guru and just chunk them in! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethie (talk • contribs) .

This is an article about Guru. Any and all material that is relevant to this article and that is not repetitive can go in the article. Please restore the etymology that you deleted. Concering the readers, please do not handhold them or spoonfeed them. Just provide the information. This is an encyclopedia, after all. Thank you for your understanding. As you seem rather new to Wikipedia, I would encourage you to become more familiar with its policies. Read The Five pillars of Wikipedia. (Aso, note that you can indent your responses using colons, and please sign your comments with four tildes. Thank you) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that all relevant material CAN go into an article.

My question is, is an article just a listing of facts?

If we are going to include a relevant fact, how about if we make it relevant to the article. I like how you linked the etymology with the upanaishad quote... that creates some connection between facts.

I do not feel any pull to re-include the heavy eytmology without relevance to the article. If you can make it relevant to our understanding of the concept of guru, please, include it. If you cannot, maybe we can create a page of "guru facts."

I no intention to spoonfeed anyone. However, we do not need to dump-truck feed them either! Throwing every fact at them that we can think of without coherence or connection to the previous fact doesn't sound like an appealing meal to me.

I am relatively new to wiki, thanks for the reminder to sit with the five principles.

Would you be willing to read an outside, non-hindu neutral encylopedia article about guru? That would let me know we are on the same page about what we are trying to create here?

peace, Sethie 20:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

ps- there about 40 more changes I want to make, and I want to go slow to give us time to go for consenus on what I have already done. 20:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree the the Hinduism section needs copyedit. That is why it has the copyedit tag. If you have experience with copyediting, that would be wonderful. As for your deletion, please note that the fact that it needs copyedit is not a reason for deletion. Thank you for your understanding. Please also read in detail Wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view. ≈ jossi fresco ≈


Nowhere inside my mind do I have the concept that copy-edit = deletion.

I am not a copy-editor, I leave that to those who are skilled at it.

However, if you look under the section "Guru in Hinduism" you will see that there is another request there.

I thank you for your reccomendation to check out NPOV. I will. I am curious if you are open to my request that you read a non-Hindu encylopedia article on "guru?"

Sethie 21:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


t • @ 20:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The main object of Wikipedia is to provide information. With regards to the etymology of guru (heavy) I will make the link to the current meaning of the word: According to the Dutch religious scholar Reender Kranenborg this was an indication of the weight given to the teacher in ancient times. Andries 20:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that EVERY fact, every refference to guru should be listed in this article?

If you do..... I don't know what to say, we are at an impass.

If you don't, then how do you choose what to include and what to exclude? You must use some criteria, since it is not your intention to list EVERY fact.

My intention for wiki, is to have EVERY fact, idea, image, listed, and do so in a way that is maximally organized for comphrehension, and finding the information.

I think our differences are merely about organization. We'll see.

We'll see what you think of my next two edits.

peace, Sethie 21:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Please take into account that this is a controversial subjects which has a consequence that it is the duty of people editing this subject to read the disccussions before editing this article. This included the archives. The matter of the two different etymologies has extensively been discussed in the earlier archives. Please respond to that earlier discussion. Thanks. Andries 21:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Sethie, here is the discussion about the two etymologiesTalk:Guru/archive1#Literal_meaning_of_the_term_.22Guru.22 The etymology of "heavy" is the one accepted by most scholars. Andries 22:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


I see and hear what you are saying. I understand my responsibility to read the discussion (which I did). Other then that, I feel no connection to your last entry. It has no bearing on me, nor does the discussion since I never disputed the eytemology, SINCE I NEVER DISPUTED THE ETYMOLOGIES! :)

If we keep working, I know we can get on the same page.

peace, Sethie 00:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement by Sethie

The following statement by Sethie is inaccurate and I will revert it.

"In the Hindu tradition, the value of the Guru cannot be overstated."

This is only the case in some sects. In general, if you make a mixture of flawed and correct edits then do not be suprized that all your edits get reverted because people have no time to seperate them. Please do try to separate them yourself, if you have time. Andries 20:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I have rolled back to the version prior to the deletions and innacuracies introduced by Sethie. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


I concur that statement was not the most accurate.

I am confused what you mean by sperating my edits... I tried to have each edit be about an individual thing.

I am unclear what you mean by "flawed edits" and "innacuracies," under the category "innacurate statement." Edits and innacuracies sound plural, yet statement sounds singular, and only ONE single inaccuracy was pointed out.

If I opperated as you do, I might wipe out this entire section. However, my prefference is for discourse and working together. I like what came of combining the gu ru and the upainashaid quote.

I will re-revert to my last one, and make the ONE change.

If you find other errors, how about if you deal with them one at a time? Sethie 20:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

okay, it was inaccurate to write that you introduced inaccuracies. Thanks for separating your flawed statement from your correct statements and improvements. Andries

I would argue that material on the article is already plentiful. What we need now is not minutiae editing, but good solid copyediting. We need an editor that can provide this much needed and specific skill. As far as I know Andrie's mother tongue is Ducth, mine is Spanish, and as for Sethie, so far I must say I am not very impressed by his/her spelling and grammar... ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 01:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


^^Why would you argue that the material is plentiful... I am in agreement with you on that?

I would never volunteer myself as a copy editor! lol

I have no idea what minutiae editing is....

As for myself, the structure and organiazation of the Hindu article is the worst I have read on Wiki.... it doesn't read like an article to me.

I think maybe we need a rfc?

peace, Sethie 01:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

We are in agreement of that. The Guru in Hinduism section needs a lot of work, and that is why the article has the c{{copyedit }} tag. This means that the article is automatically added to the Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit so that editors can come and give a hand. No need to do an RfC for this. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Have you noticed it also has a "this section needs cleaning up" tag on it? That is more where my attention is, trying to turn this gathering of information into an actual article?

The reason I would ask for a RFC is because as it stands, I do not see the Hinduism section as an article. I see it as: ~a gathering of information on guru ~a list of hindu quotes, many more then are needed ~an inclusion of a lot of information that isn't neccesarily relevant to the discussion at hand, and will add information overload for a non-Hindu ~the beginings, structure wise, of an article.

I would like to see how others percieve this section. Sethie 02:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, as I said before, that the Hinduism section needs cleaup and copyedit. I disagree that there is too much material. On the contrary: one day we shall have one article for each of the sections in this article, and why not? Wikipedia is not paper ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Cool. Thank you. This is the first time I am reading you including cleanup, before I only read copyedit.

I concur, a section for each is inevitable as this grows.

Too much material.... we'll just have to leave that one alone for now, since we can't find consenus.

Please not however that in my last post I never said too much material. I said: ~Information that is not relevant (issue: relevance to discussion at hand) ~more quotes then are needed (issue- overkill on looking to outside sources, when a simple "saying it" would suffice).

peace Sethie 03:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Mentioning Krisha and Arjuna

Please help me understand what you wish to accomplish by having this in the article? Is it a neccesary detail? Does it help the understanding of guru?

I took it out. I gave a reason for taking it out: "When I pretend I know nothing about Hinduism and read this, my reaction is: What is transcendental knowledge? Oh- there is that vidya thing again- lets see- okay- it is the light of knowledge. Who is Lord Krishna... must be a kind or a royal of some kind, and who the hell is Arjuna?"

You did not reply to my challenge for it being there. instead you said: ":Follow the wikilinks to Krishna and Arjuna, if you want to learn about them. Fascinating stuff."

Although I do not deny that it adds oppurtunities to learn more. my challenge still stands, how does having that add to THIS article?

I am also wondering if you are working from a text or some book or an article? This page reads to me like some Hari Krishna literature that quotes scripture, has a slighlty stream of consciousness feel. It would help me to understand where you are coming from if this was so.

In Hinduism, Arjuna is the embodiment of the student (devotee, student, shishya) and Krshna (an avatar) the embodiement of the teacher or master. The Bhagavad Gita describe their relationship (Arjun was a nobleman, amd Krishna his chariot driver) culminating in the recongition of Krishna by Arjun. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Thank you! I have gained some wonderful siddhis along the path, and reading your mind is not one of them! peace, Sethie 02:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Good edit. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


) I could not have done it without u! :)

Sethie 03:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

dual meaning of guru

"the word originated in a Hindu context and holds a special place in Hinduism, signifying both the sacred place of knowledge (vidya) and the imparter of knowledge."

I have never heard guru used to describe "the sacred place of knowledge." I do not doubt that somewhere it is listed as such, however, have you ever heard it used that way? If it is not in common usage anymore, and doesn't add anything to the article (as it is, I do not believes it adds anything)- let's either: ~take it out or ~make it relevant.

Curious to hear your thoughts.

peace, Sethie 02:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who added that material to the article. Let's give a chance to whoever added it to provide a reference. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Sounds good to me! peace, Sethie 03:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Andrie, please provide a reference for Kraneborg interpretation of the word Guru. Thanks. Also note that "heavy with Knowledge" is not only made by Tirtha, but by many others. Do you want me to provide several refs for that? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the reference is in Kranenborg's book (Dutch language) Neohindoeïstische bewegingen in Nederland : een encyclopedisch overzicht (En: Neo-Hindu movements in the Netherlands, published by Kampen Kok cop. (2002) ISBN 9043504939 I have to get the book again from the library to be sure. I definitely remember him giving this explanation. I would be interested to hear from religious scholars who agree with the explanation given by Tirtha. Andries 22:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Kranenborg is not the only one who gives this explanation [5] Andries
That link does not have any information about guru that is similar to Kraneborg (it says "the role of the guru is therefore weighty or important because it is a crucial one for a disciple.") Kraneborg, according to your cite says "the weight given to the guru in ancient Indian culture". For factual accuracy, it will be good to have the correct cite and a reference, although as we have plenty of sources in English that explain the "weighty" etymology, we may not need a source in Dutch. I leave that as is fr now, although you may wat to delete it until you are sure about the cite. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
On second thoughts I do not want to make yet another blunder in this article by relying too much on my memory, so I'll remove Kranenborg's assertion until I have re-read and referenced it. Andries 08:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
you have changed that dispeller thing back to darkness and light? And therefore you add/leave the excerpt from Upanishads, in which there is nothing about light, concerning "ru". I had a heavy discussion with zappaz about that until he finally agreed, and added it as another etymologie. Yes you are persistant, i agree too.But that won't make it more truthful. Yet it is not that bad as when you did that faking thing as schizo 64.81.88.140/jossi. I won't change that back, it is your quality you give to Wikipedia, a twisted one, who cares. So, the one, that has more time to spend at Wiki is the one whose POV will perveil? You prove exactly that. Thomas h 12:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to add that declaring the syllable "ru" in that Upanishad translated as dispeller/"the one who disperses" as light is original research, in the best case, since it is not that what is written there. Simple as that. Thomas h 13:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
First, I would appreciate if you tone down your rhetoric. And second, rather than making accusations of this and that, provide material and supporting sources for your assertions. There are hundreds of sources that cite Guru Gita and the Advayataraka Upanishad that provide that explanation of the stated meaning. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I provided some more references and changed the wording to accommodate Thomas' concern about original research. I am certain that a trip to the Hinduism section of the University library close by will unearth many more references in which the etymology of Guru is described as "from darkness to light". But this may suffice for now. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
What should be stated is that some Sanskritists and religious scholars explicitly reject the "from darkness to light" etymology as popular but misguided. Andries 19:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
There are hundreds of meanings that were pushed into guru, and since it is clear that it is not the translation of the sanskrit syllables but more ore less a metaphor, i don't see the point. I have tried to research it for myself and had to discover that it is a matter that needs academic research. The light and darkness metaphor for example is stronly represented by groups evolved from surat shabd, which has it's logic in it's strive for simplification to create access for broader masses. While the above Upanishad example has similarities with explanations given by ISKCON, interpreting Guna into Gu and the syllable ru(breaker) as has a fitting meaning in Sanskrit that can be interpreted as dispeller. Since India is a country with extreme religious activity much of it's artistic and inventional power went into language and poetry. Thomas h 20:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
We cannot same "some". We need to specify who and provide a cite and reference, so if you have such reference, please add it. For what I have found, the darkness/light metaphor is more than just "popular" (see Guru Gita, Upanishads, Nanak, Kabir, etc.). ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t •

@ 19:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I found it. Kranenborg rejects the "dispeller of darkness" etymology as popular but misguided. Andries 06:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

re-indenting One scholar rejecting the etymology doesn't mean that the meaning is misguided. Sanskrit is a language where each syllable lends itself to multiple meanings (another reason why it is difficult to master it, leading to its demise as a conversational language). Satya Sai Baba uses the "dispeller of darkness" etymology and he quotes from the Mahabharata. My source is a speech given by him as published in a telugu textbook for sixth grade students (published in 1985). On the etymology issue, we can mention in the article that Kranenborg has rejected it as "popular but misguided" but we cannot insist that this etymology itself not be represented in the article. --Gurubrahma 15:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention to remove any claimed etymology, though they logically contradict each other. With regards to Sathya Sai Baba, yes I am familiar with his discourse and he is a great orator about religious subjects, but he is not a Sankritist and not known for his great intellectual accuracy or scholarship and I do not see why he should be quoted here on the subject of the etymology. And if he is quoted then please quote the English version that I hope can be obtained by writing an e-mail to Robert Priddy who has made a cross reference of SSB's discourses. Andries 21:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
For example in Sikhism, the guru as dispeller of darkness is prevalent:
"The night and day, the Lord created, for the world to do the deeds. Through the Guru's instruction, the mind is illuminated and the darkness is dispelled. In His will, He creates all and pervades all the woods and grass blades." (Guru Amar Das, pg. 948)
Same with Nanak:
Guru's Nam illumines the heart by dispelling all darkness. Guru Granth Sahib, 864)
The light of the guru alone dispels darkness” (Guru Granth Sahib, 463)
The guru is that lamp which illuminates the three worlds” (Guru Granth Sahib, 137)
This was discussed and researched quite extensibly. See also these cites:
Grimes, John. A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English (1996). p.133. SUNY Press. ISBN 0791430677
The etymological derivation of the word guru is in this verse from Guru Gita: 'The root gu stands for darkness; ru for its removal. The removal of the darkness of ignorance in the heart is indicated by the word guru'"
Guru: remover of darkness, bestower of light
Murray, Thomas R. Moral Development Theories-Secular and Religious: A Comparative Study (1997). p.231. Greenwwod Press
[...] the term is a combination of the two words gu(darkness) and ru (light), so together they mean divine light that dispells all darkness
Krishnamurti, J. The Aweakening of Intelligence (1987) p.139. HarperCollins. ISBN 0060648341
guru is the light that disperses the darkness of ignorance
There are many more, of course.
≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)



The Guru Gita is much more clear on this, the Guru IS the dispellet of darkness... maybe we should quote from it instead?

Sethie 20:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

i really wonder what is going on here. The meaning of darkness and light might have been added to those sansksrit syllables in behind for what reason ever. BUT, these meanings CANNOT be found in plain sanskrit. If you present countless books as resources tha state that it is indeed their origin SANSKRIT meanings, i doubt their reliability and serious research on that matter Thomas h 15:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Thomas, the article does not say that the etymology is from Sanskrit. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
i know that you have understood that, Jossi, but reading the remarks of other contributors i get the feeling it doesn't make much difference. If guru gita says that for example, it just stands for the author of guru gita and maybe his certain religious stream and certainly has it's value as that. If the dutch scholar says it is misguided it of course has it's value in it's own context, maybe because of the missing sanskrit background(unfortunately i don't know, maybe Andries can help). It is both true, depending on the POVs which in this case are important to be portrayed. Thomas h 17:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Jossifresco.... I see you edited this section, I thought we were waiting for someone to provide a refference? Sethie 07:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I only replaced the sanskrit term for "knowledge" to jnana. We are still waiting for someone to add a reference about the sentence itself.≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What about ...?

Guess that the article's been coing out fine, and surely it has. But even after all these lengthy info about the what really involvs the GURU, at some point it still lacks, that is what I feel, the perception of those Gurus about seeing themselves as someone elses' Guru. How do they themselves have to say about it. Unless I'm mistaken, which I am sure I am not, Osho has famously remarked as him being no ones' guru and that's that! It'd definetly be a good read if we can come up with such statements from other Gurus as well. Merishi 09:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

These issues can be discussed in article's about specific gurus, such as Osho. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


I am not aware of any consenus on the subject "How gurus see themselves in relation to students." If there is, I'd love to see it.

On the other hand, in the guru/disciple relationship section, it might be interesting to show the width of this, from Osho's "I am no one's Guru" to Ramanana's "Almost no one can be enlightened without a guru."

just an idear peace, Sethie 20:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is already an article on that subject: Guru-shishya tradition. Feel free to add new material to it. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup on References

The References section should be in an ordered list, with numbers preceeding the { { note } } tags. The way that they are now, in an unorderd list is hard to read; the user cannot easily tell which note relates to which numbered entry [0] in the text. This is in compliance with a recommendation in Wikipedia:Footnotes. (I may be wrong on all of this.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chèvredansante (talk • contribs) .

Thanks, Chèvredansante. I will work on this. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 :) Great. And thank you for signing my comment. I often forget. --Chèvredansante 21:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Kranenborg's opinion about the etymology, original Dutch and translation

I wrote that Kranenborg dismisses the the etymology from darkness to light as popular but misguided. There are several scholars who share Kranenborg's opinion, I heard, so I would appreciate it if somebody could find an English reference, instead

Kranenborg, Reender (Dutch language) Neohindoeïstische bewegingen in Nederland : een encyclopedisch overzicht (En: Neo-Hindu movements in the Netherlands, published by Kampen Kok cop. (2002) ISBN 9043504939 page 50
Dutch original
"a. De goeroe als geestelijk raadsman Als we naar het verschijnsel goeroe in India kijken, kunnen we constateren dat er op zijn minst vier vormen van goeroeschap te onderscheiden zijn. De eerste vorm is die van de 'geestelijk raadsman'. Voordat we dit verder uitwerken eerst iets over de etymologie. Het woord goeroe komt uit het Sanskriet, wordt geschreven als 'guru' en betekent 'zwaar zijn', 'gewichtig zijn', vooral in figuurlijk opzicht. Zo krijgt het begrip 'guru' de betekenis van 'groot', 'geweldig' of 'belangrijk', en iets verdergaand krijgt het aspecten van 'eerbiedwaardig' en 'vererenswaardig'. Al vrij snel word dit toegepast op de 'geestelijk leraar'. In allerlei populaire literatuur, ook in India zelf, wordt het woord 'guru' uiteengelegd in 'gu' en 'ru', als omschrijvingen voor licht en duister; de goeroe is dan degene die zijn leerling uit het materiële duister overbrengt naar het geestelijk licht. Misschien doe een goeroe dat ook inderdaad, maar het heeft niets med de betekenis van het woord te maken, het is volksetymologie."
English translation
"a. The guru as spiritual adviser If we look at the phenomenon of gurus in India guru then we can see that there at least four forms of guruship can be distinguished. The first form is that of the 'spiritual adviser'. Before we will elaborate on this, first something about the etymology. The word guru comes from Sanskrit and is written as 'guru' en means 'being heavy', 'being weighty', especially metaphorically. In that way, the concept of guru gets the meaning of 'big', 'great', or 'important' and somewhat further it also gets aspects of 'respectable' and 'honorable'. Soon it is applied to the 'spiritual adviser'. In various popular literature, in India herself too, the word 'guru' is explained in the parts 'gu' and 'ru', as descriptions for light and darkness: the guru is then the person who bring the student from the material darkness into the spiritual light. A guru may indeed do that, but it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word, it is people's etymology. for the masses"
Andries 22:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The only problem with your addition, is that gives too much weight (no pun intended) to Kraneborg's interpretation, while other scholars (Lipner, Cornile, Varene and Hopkins) are not mentioned by name, just by a footnote. For NPOV we ought to treat all these cites equally. So either we reduce Kraneborg cite, with a footnote as with the others, or we have to add the full cites and names of the other scholars. I prefer the former. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi. There are already so many references to the completely non-notable scholar Kranenborg that this article fails to attain neutral point of view. And yet Andries is busily adding more references to this one particular non-notable scholar. — goethean ॐ 23:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree that Kranenborg is a non-notable source, though I admit that there must be better sources on this subject than Kranenborg. A google test is not a good way to determine whether a person is a good source. One of the objects of Wikipedia is to get all this information that is now buried in books in the library into the internet. Andries 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
One of the objects of Wikipedia is to get all this information that is now buried in books in the library into the internet ??????????????? Can you please show us where did you get that understanding from? ≈ jossi ≈ t •
Well, to create an online encyclopedia it is necesssary to get a lot of the information buried in books in library on the internet. But what I meant to say, and in contrast to what user:Goethean suggests, and what is important is that a Wikipedia:google test is not a good way to determine whether a certain scholar or a book by a scholar is a good source for the article. Andries 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Kranenborg did his dissertation in 1974 about self-realization mainly about Eastern Religion. (I have it here). He wrote extensively on Hinduism over the last thirty years. He was on the board of CESNUR together with Eileen Barker and others, so it clear that Kranenborg is notable. [6][7] Please do not assume that a scholar who may not be well-known in the USA is not notable 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)~~
) Probably from you! :)

Me: The reason I would ask for a RFC is because as it stands, I do not see the Hinduism section as an article. I see it as: ~a gathering of information on guru ~a list of hindu quotes, many more then are needed ~an inclusion of a lot of information that isn't neccesarily relevant to the discussion at hand, and will add information overload for a non-Hindu ~the beginings, structure wise, of an article.

I disagree that there is too much material. On the contrary: one day we shall have one article for each of the sections in this article, and why not? Wikipedia is not paper ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like we are working towards a whole section on eytemology, and why not?Sethie 18:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the etymology paragraphs deserve their own section. Andries 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
We could. I see no problems with that. And if you want to place an RfC, do so. That would be excellent. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

@ 17:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it, Kraneborg is just referring to the same etymology of "heavy", and makes an argument that is disproved by the numerous references about the "dispeller of darkness" etymology. Nevertheless, being a source in Dutch and being non-notable, it should be striked out. There are many good sources sources in English that cover the subject quite well already, so we don't need it. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I do not see any English language scholar who treats the logical contradiction between the two different etymologies, so I disagree with Jossi's assertion that the subject is covered quite well in English language. Jossi, do you know any notable English language source that treats this contradiction? Jossi, can you also please explain why you consider Kranenborg who was on the board of CESNUR as non-notable? [8][9]Andries 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Not only that, but the use of the word "misguided" is an interpretation by Andries, and by posting it just below a venerable and ancient text as the Upanishads, only comes to prove that Kraneborg is not only mistaken, but arrogantly so. That is good, because it shows the lack of rigor of this scholar, that is unable to properly research a subject he writes about. This indeeds reflects poorly on his standing as a "religious scholar". I am editing the sentence accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Support you fully on this; My objections to inclusion of Kranenborg are - dutch work; and more importantly, the work itself is not about "Guru" but Neo-Hindu Movements in Netherlands. --Gurubrahma 07:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I made a translation mistake that I now corrected. Kranenborg wrote extensively about gurus in India, not just about gurus in the Netherlands. Please re-read what I translated. This had already been discussed on this talk page. Please check the archives here Talk:Guru/archive3 He treated the concept of guru extensively because he considered this important for the subject of the book. And please also take into account that if we confine ourselves to books and articles that deal exclusively with gurus then we should be consistent and remove almost all other references in this article. Andries 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
No ne is making that argument, Andries. The argument made is that if there are sources in English that cover a specific subject, we do not need to cite sources in other languages, in particular as this scholar is not a well known Hinduist scholar in the English-speaking world in regard (some are, but not him). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I counted 9 (nine) mentions of Kranenborg's name in this article. This is simply not acceptable, bordering on spam, and making a de facto and very misleading statement that this person is a highly notable scholar on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I can remove some redundant references to Kranenborg, such as the one about using drugs. There are other English language sources that say the same and he can be easily replaced in that case. Andries 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


the "scientific" etymology is straightforward and undisputed, and is as I added it [10]. You'll find this in IEW as well as in Monier-Williams [11], or any etymological dictionary of PIE, Sanskrit, Latin or Greek you care to consult. The various "spiritual etymologies" may of course be relevant and may be mentioned alongside, although maybe better under "interpretation", seeing that "etymology" is usually restricted to the linguistic sense. dab (ᛏ) 11:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have changed the attribution to "spiritual etymology or interpretation", to differentiate from the "scientific" sanksritology etymology. What is clear, though, is that "remover of darkness" interpretation is widely used and cited by scholars and scriptures as per the references provided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Note also the passage: In the Western Esotericism and the Science of Religion, the author makes a distinction between "esoteric etymologies" and "scientific etymologies" presenting as an example the etymology of "guru", in which the former is presented as ru ("to push away") and gu ("darkness"), and the latter as "guru" as "heavy". in which your point is presented with a reference. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It is very funny how Kranenborg inserts Jesus in the discussion. Was Jesus a true Guru or one who led to darkness, in view of the may-hem that his followers perpetrated all over the globe for 1500 years because of his exclusivist theories? Aupmanyav 06:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Kranenborg is a Christian and wrote that he sees Jesus as a (sic) "satguru". I have read much by Kranenborg, but cannot remember having read anything by him about Jesus' and Christianity's claims of exclusivity. Of course, I wondered about the exclusivist claims of Jesus too. Andries 15:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

David Lane, then an ex member of the Radha Saomi Beas?

The article stated "David C. Lane, a professor of sociology , ex-member and critic of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, argues [in 1997]" I think this falsely suggests that Lane was already a critic of the Radha Soami Satsang in 1997. Please read this "Note: This is the text of a lecture delivered in 1998 and reflects the situation at that date. Since then, David Christopher Lane has changed many of his opinions, including his evaluation of MSIA." from [12] I corrected this. Andries 09:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Spanda Yoga, Acharya Kedar

Spandayoga's Acharya Kedar is not a guru, nor is spanda yoga an authentic path -- it something made up by a flamboyant guru-wannabee with no history, credentials, or following, yet who has added his link to many inappropriate pages in wikipedia.

Not a good article

I am removing this article's nomination from the "good article" page. This article is not written from a neutral point of view. It is written from User:Andries' extreme anti-guru point of view. The guru is a concept in Eastern religion and the article on guru should not have more than one-half the length of the article devoted to bashing the idea from the perspective of non-notable anti-guru scholars that have been dug up by User:Andries for the purpose of furthering his agenda. The article on priests doesn't "debunk" priests — it doesn't even mention the word "abuse"! This article, like many on wikipedia, suffers from taking an unsympathetic, "debunking" view of religion. In short, this article suffers from Wikipedia's systemic bias against religion. — goethean ॐ 16:08, 1 June 2006 :(UTC)

Thanks for you explanation, but it is almost needless to say that I disagree. We have discussed this ad nauseam. I will re-insert the nomination after I have found a picture and find the Dutch original of some of the texts. Also the classifcation by Reender Kranenborg needs some improvement for accuracy. Again and again I have been saying that I am not anti-guru, but I, like Kranenborg and so many other people, have problems distinguishing the reliable gurus from the unreliable gurus. There are some gurus that I respect, e.g. Prabhupada, though I do not like his rather dogmatic teachings. Andries 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I, like Kranenborg and so many other people, have problems distinguishing the reliable gurus from the unreliable gurus. There are some gurus that I respect, e.g. Prabhupada, though I do not like his rather dogmatic teachings.
Please stop using Wikipedia articles as a vehicle to advance your agenda. This damages the project. — goethean ॐ 17:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Did I write in this or the Prabhupada article wihthout using a reputable source that Prabhupada is unreliable and the rest are reliable? Andries 18:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree it is a very negative in tone article mostly in relation to the Western Guru section has the stamp of personal opinion( and opinion pushing ) wherein one doggedly, negatively "active" viewpoint seeks to secularize ( or push a secular viewpoint ) as it stands should not qualify for any accolades--Scribe5 20:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of critical websites

The critical wesites all referred to a group of Gurus considered leaders of New Religious Movements. This aticle is about Gurus as a whole. Criticisms can be brought to attention on respective NRM Guru articles, but the criticism is misplaced in this article. Sfacets 17:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree completely. These articles are generally phrased and not just about specific gurus. Andries 18:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This article does not make a distinction between a group of gurus who are cult leader and other gurus, nor is this a very usual generally accepted distinction. I do admit that this distinction is sometimes but quite rarely made. Andries 19:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Sfacets. We should pair down that list of links to those that generically address the subject of gurus, if there are any that fit that criteria. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Which of the original websites did not generically address the subject of gurus? Andries 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
All the critical websiste generically adddressed the subject of gurus, in contrast to the other websites. Andries 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying all gurus could be cult leaders. There is a distinction, since many Gurus mentionned in this article are based in ancient religions such as Sikhism, Budhism, and Hinduism. Are you calling these religions sects? The distinction is there, and is so blatantly obvious, the way a leader of a Major religion, say the Pope in Catholicism compares to a dodgy 'guru' charging 2500 for a meditation class (although the Pope earns more).Sfacets 19:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the distinction between, say, Catholicism and The Unitarian Church (the "Moonies"), between the Pope and Rev Moon? It's of no help to call the distinction "blatantly obvious." What does help is to clearly define what the distinction is. Thus: compared to the Moonies and similar new religious movements, Catholicism is older and more popular. No other distinction is obvious. The follow-up question is: is this distinction fundamentally important? Consider: IF you want to follow a crowd, THEN you'll want a religion with lots of members, both now and through history. IF you're an intelligent human being, capable of thinking for yourself, THEN it becomes unimportant to join a big flock and follow like a sheep. Therefore, the fact that the Catholic Church is older and more popular than any new religious movement is important only to those seeking groupthink, whereas the typical Wikipedia reader would be more interested in gathering all information available and then deciding for himself. (Stuart, http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/mypage.htm)
Sfacts, there are many different meanings of the term sect. Which one are you referring to? The difference may be blatantly obvious to you, but as I already wrote, the distinction is not made in the article and only rarely made in reputable sources. I discovered only one reputable source among many that made this distinction. Andries 20:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I kept only these that are generic. Sarlo "rating" is a bad joke and not a useful link (who care what this "sarlo" thinks?) Also changed the article by John Horgan as it is more approrpiate to the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I do and many other people do too. His yahoo group has thousands of contributors. Andries 19:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)#
You also removed several websites that are generic. Did you take the time to read the websites? I did. Andries 19:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I kept those that are generic to the subject of gurus and that add value to this article. As for Sarlo, please point what is the yahoo group that you describe. I could not find it. As for the "guru ratings" that the POV of Sarlo? How is this Sarlo? Any notability at all to have his personal webpage listed instead of others? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Sarlo has the most comprehensive guru rating service on the internet. Andries 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Which one is generic and does not add value according to you apart from Sarlo? It will be clear that I think that all websites are generic. Andries 19:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, and he says not to take it seriously and that "There is no need to be impressed by the subjective views expressed here."[13] These are the subjective views of one person and have no encyclopedic value whatsoever, in particular as being a follower of Osho, he has all reasons to be biased against any other guru but his own. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Such self-admitted subjectivism is a lot better than what most people do: pretending to be neutral and objective while at the same time not pushing their subjective agenda. Andries 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

<<< Just see Sarlo's own disclaimer: "Yet another attempt, after Disclaimer, to alert newcomers (and some oldcomers) to the lack of authority of this site: About Guru Ratings. [14] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This site and its owner offer no warranty, implied or otherwise, as to the accuracy or validity of these ratings and opinions. They are to be taken seriously at your own risk. You're on your own, bubba. That says it all IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What does that proof? Every website has a disclaimer include reptuable sources like Encyclopedia Britannica. Here is the corresponding yahoo group that you asked for. [15]Andries 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that Britannica writes in their disclaimer that they are not an authoritative source, that there is no need to take them seriously and that their content is not accurate or valid? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The disclaimer by Sarlo is far more informal than EB. Of course, assessing gurus always has a subjective flavor. Not to admit this would make the website far worse, not better. Andries 20:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Sarlo's website is very big, and I do not know anything as comprehensive as his website. The website is written in an informal humorous tone, but this does not mean that it has no added value. Andries 20:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Andries, don't take a 2 paragraph discussion as a cue to rampage through the article removing links left and right. Allow time for discussion by other users who may have input to share.

Sfacets 20:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that we had agreed that non-generic website could be removed. Andries 20:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This is utterly ridiculous.. Sarlo's website and recent additions are not welcome, neither are your deletion to sites that are relevant. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
My deletions were in line with your previously stated opinion that non-generic websites should be removed. I think you are contradicting yourself or do I miss something? Andries 11:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, Sarlo's website is a unique resource as per Wikipedia:external links. If you disagree then find anything comparable to Sarlo's website to prove your point. Andries 14:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Please leave Sarlo alone, it's unique in its coverage and completely appropriate--Aleph1 22:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Andries, please give time for discussion. Your brash deletion of what could be valid links - and the rate at which you are deleting them can only be described as vandalism. Discussion is the key, even if it means contesting your POV. Sfacets 03:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Jossi's opinion that website that are non-generic (i.e. deal with only one guru or one lineage of gurus) should be removed. Andries 11:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring to everyones attention that Andries contacted the Guruphiliac Blog webmaster and complained about the attempt to remove Sarlo's website from the external links: Reference. The relevant text reads:

It appears there's some wacki-folks attempting to whitewash the Wikipedia of guru criticism: link 1 There are attempts to remove Sarlo's website from the external link section in Wikipedia. Please let the Wikipedia editors know what you think about that at: link 2. Press the edit button. Also there are many attempts to move or to reduce criticism and assessment of gurus. Please let the Wikipedia editors know what you think about that at: link 3 Press on the edit button. Thanks to Andries K.D. for bringing this to our attention. Now go let those lamers know you want the contrast afforded by both sides of the story rather than just being force-fed the hagiographic nonsense that passes as reliable information for some men and all sheep about the lives of gurus.

Just for everyone's info the attempts of Andries to polarize the opinions expressed in this article by contacting a person who is not only very good friends with Sarlo, but also blatantly lies about Gurus: Reference. SSS108 talk-email 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, why? Is this yet-another proof that the only reason you are editing Wikipedia is to advocate against gurus? How can we take your contributions in good faith, if you do not believe in the process as defined in WP for content disputes? Maybe you be better off joining the ranks of Wikitruth and bash this project to your heart content? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you see reason to doubt my good faith? I see nothing wrong in my behavior. Andries 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I did, Andries, I did. So, let me explain it again: (a) a content dispute is ongoing about this subject; (b) several editors challenge your edits; (c) You start deleting editor's comments from this talk page and violate the WP:3RR rule; (d) when challenged on that you go and complain to a an anti-guru blog with the clear purpose to bring other people to the fry to support your POV; All these behaviors point to one thing and one thing only: You do not believe in WP content policies and the process for dispute resolution. If you need need more explanations, let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not complain. I asked a neutrally worded question, in contrast to user:Sfacet. Besides I think do not think that I have to explain my behavior outside Wikipedia here in Wikipedia. Andries 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

When one's "behavior" is specific to a wikipedia article and solicits outside individuals to edit a wikipedia article, I think one's behavior outside wikipedia is entirely relevant on wikipedia. SSS108 talk-email 04:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a request for comments regarding the inclusion or exclusion of Sarlo's website in the external link section See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy Andries 07:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A website blatantly announcing "Now with 28.7% more credibility!" cannot qualify as a serious candidate for inclusion. The website is a joke, biased in more ways than one, and does not present a balanced view of Gurus in general. Sfacets 08:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does such a humorous statement disqualify the website for inclusion? Websites in the external link section are generally allowed to be biased and do not have to be NPOV. Andries 08:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

<< Regarding the above, i have looked at some of the discussion here. Not sure how welcome my input is since i clearly have an "interest," but here goes:

Re Sarlo's Guru Rating Service:

1. My site is definitely generic, as it concerns itself both with gurus as a phenomenon, and with listing particular gurus. A little over 200 of the 1500 or so listed are actually rated, the rest just briefly described and linked to. As well, there are many general articles on my site, from many authors, concerning the master-disciple relationship and other aspects of the path.

2. Regarding the humourous tone, this is only one way of indicating that guru evaluation is at best a tricky business. John Horgan evaluates particular gurus, many people do it. The disclaimer and disclosure of my affiliation with Osho seek to balance any potential NPOVness. Visitors are forewarned, but many still find useful information there.

3. While i rate Osho among the highest, there are 22 others i rate at that level, so it is not just a question of making him higher than the others.

4. I am open to feedback, and even when i don't change someone's rating, i will publish a devotee's enthusiastic support for her guru so that visitors can have an alternative to my limited viewpoint and draw their own conclusions.

5. Precedent: I saw in a discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org about religioustolerance.org's suitability as a reference the following point which seemed to settle that discussion and may be relevant here:

It seems fairly obvious to me that [religioustolerance.org] is far from unbiased. I agree with those who have stated that it is totally unsuitable as a reference, but is fine as an external link so long as a note is preserved that the site probably reflects the authors' own opinions. -- uberpenguin

When there was a link to my site, there was a warning that i was associated with Osho. Add whatever you want about the futility or subjectivity of evaluating gurus.

6. What may be upsetting some of the naysayers is that i have rated their gurus fairly low. Jossi is open about his relationship with Maharaji, Sfacets is an editor of Nirmala Devi's Wiki pages, SSS108 is a Sai Baba booster. All three of these gurus have been rated low by me. Might this fact be influencing their opinions of my site?

Sarlo, 12 June >> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.162.11 (talk • contribs)

No. The reason for not including your website are your own disclaimers as follows:
  • This site and its owner offer no warranty, implied or otherwise, as to the accuracy or validity of these ratings and opinions. They are to be taken seriously at your own risk. You're on your own, bubba.
  • I am not an expert in this field
  • When a rating or description or characterization changes, it is not usually because the guru has changed, but because i have been unperceptive, prejudiced, uninformed or otherwise lacking in clarity
With these disclaimers, your site is useless for the purpose of an encyclopedia such as this. The inclusion of a few relevant links on an article are designed to augument the article for the benefit of our readers. You may want to read Wikipedia:External links, in which it is stated in the section Links to normally avoid: Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. As per your own disclaimers, the information on your website is n0ot factually accurate, and neither you are a notable proponent of a POV in this article. As to my personal opinion of your site, I prefer to keep that to myself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The disclaimer quite clearly concerns the ratings and opinions, not information. In fact the information in the site IS factually accurate, and is constantly being updated and corrected as needed. But you seem to be the boss here, and unmovable, so i give up.

BTW i have taken a Wiki identity now for this communication but will confirm that it was i who wrote the above regarding my site as well. The Wiki "system" of relying on IP to "identify" non-members seems a little shaky. The "contribs" attributed to me above are hilarious. They were written by other(s) who were assigned that IP during their sessions whenever, and may not all be the same person. My ISP uses a pool of IP numbers and assigns them at random when a user logs on. This may not be the best place for this comment but Wiki should look into this system.Sarlo 21:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with jossi. Although many teachers are treated by the website, the treatments themselves are extremely sketchy and of highly questionable value. — goethean ॐ 21:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Sarlo, read WP:EL for some information about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to link to from an "External link" section in an article (in particular the section about "Links to normally avoid".) And by the way, there are no "bosses" here. You are inviteds to contribute to Wikipedia at the same level as any other editor. I have placed some pointers on your talk page that you may want to follow, if you want to understand how Wikipedia works. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Image of Sadhu and apprentice

Moved to Sadhu article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You may be right. I had copied the image from the French Wikipedia. Andries 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism > New article

I think criticism in this article belongs on another article, perhaps 'Gurus of NRM's', or similar such as 'Modern gurus' (although I disagree) in which criticism can be brought forward. As it stands now, the article is by extension criticising major religions which are based on the Guru tradition, such as Sikhism (in particular), Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.

As far as I know there is no article criticising founders/leaders of other religions.

Please comment. Sfacets 12:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Moving the criticism to a separate article is a wikipedia:POV fork which is discouraged if not forbidden. Also the distinction that you propose between cult gurus and religious gurus is not supported by the article nor by reputable sources. Andries 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggested a long time ago that the information on the various religious scholars that, in an act of original research, Andries has gathered here, should go in the articles on each individual religious scholar. — goethean ॐ 15:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Goethean, where is the original research that I gathered in this article? If your suggestion is not a POV fork then I do not know what a POV fork is. Andries 15:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, it is the gathering together of diverse pieces of research on different subjects that constitutes original research. — goethean ॐ 17:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No, the information that I brought here are all related to gurus. That is fully allowed and recommended. Andries 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Sfacet, It is not true that there is no article with criticisms of a religious founder. See e.g. Criticism_of_Islam#Muhammad Andries

Andries, it wouldn't be a fork, but a separate article (Guru≠NRM teacher). You are contradicting yourself by providing an example of a POV fork in guise of the Criticism_of_Islam article.

This article is larger than the recommended size. Therefore, a section of the article can be moved to a new article and the Template:Main can be used to direct readers there. This format is used in many Wikipedia articles. That's how the Criticism of Islam article wss formed. That is not a POV fork. — goethean ॐ 17:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No, the article Criticism of Islam was a POV fork of Islamophobia. Andries 17:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Goethan, That is what I had originally suggested, criticisms brought against each single Guru would be impossible to fit into this article. Sfacets 16:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your point. This article hardly contains criticism against single gurus. Andries 17:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Sfacets, I recommend that you bring more editors to this page to give the problems here more visibility. Andries has admitted many times that he uses Wikipedia as a vehicle to advance his anti-guru agenda. This is, of course, contrary to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy. We just need more interested people to make some progress. — goethean ॐ 17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you please specify where this article breaks the letter and spirit of the Wikipedia policy? Andries 17:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No, not so that you will be forced to comprehend it. I have explained many times how the structure of this article is radically different from other articles on religious concepts or institutions. — goethean ॐ 17:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I do understand your objections, but I do not agree. Andries 17:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Shocking. — goethean ॐ 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You compare this article to other articles on religious concepts, but I cannot see any comparable concept in religion, so any comparison will be flawed. A somewhat comparable subject may be prophet. That article talks about false prophets in the third sentence. Andries 18:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It is unsurprising that you see this article as absolutely unique in Wikipedia. That's because it is your hobby-horse. And yet your comparison does nothing but hurt your case. Unlike this article, that article contains no original essay with hand-picked quotations from an idiosyncratic group of scholars detailing reasons why individuals should not follow false prophets. Perhaps that is because there is no Wikipedia editor whose agenda it is to dissuade people from following false prophets. — goethean ॐ 18:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The concept of guru has yielded far more controversy than prophets. This article is not essay, but a well-attributed well-referenced article citing from many different scholars and sources. All the criticisms are either notable or come a reputable source or notable scholar. Andries 18:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's another pov. First, I maintain my own list of guru resources here and here. I don't really understand Goethean's point. Eastern religion is largely known to the West through the concept of "Guru" -- they would be difficult to separate in the popular mind. "What is a guru?" would be an appropriate search. This article seems to address that question. I don't find it particularly anti-guru. Perhaps the contributors could make the underlying dynamics of this controversy more clear? 1) This article shouldn't exist at all? 2) It's too pro/anti-guru? 3) Something else? --Aleph1 23:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

May I remind Aleph1, that this is not a "Western" encyclopedia? We may have currently a "western" bias in WP, but that does not mean that we ought to perpetuate that bias. The concept of "Guru" exists in several main religions of the world followed by billions of people (Buddhism and Hinduism, as well as Sikhism and may other Indo-region based religions). Same concept exists in other religions such as Sufism. The secular/Christian/western/sociological study of Eastern religions is just that.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You miss the point completely, Jossi. What you said was obvious. I was speaking to the validity of the existence of the article -- as a general concept and likely search term -- in contrast having "guruness" spread around a bunch of individual articles. I still don't understand the basic dynamics of contention about this article, which seems well researched and perfectly useable to me. Feel free.--Aleph1 01:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not follow. Care to explain what do you mean by "having 'guruness' spread around a bunch of individual articles"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Guruism

I would argue that two paragraphs quoting the POV of a single scholar, is way to much in a generic article article about this subject. I can find 200 paragraphs by 200 scholars on this subject, but this does not mean that these will be worthy on inclusion, unless these are notable proponents of a certain POV. I propose either removing that new addition altogether, or condensing that into one short sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Guruism redirects here. I think that we have to define it here. Andries 23:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that he gives two somewhat different definitions that I think cannot easily get condensed. The second definition is part of his theoretical analysis of Hinduism. Andries 23:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed one of the two overlapping lists by Michaels to condense it. Andries 23:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I kept the relevant text to "guru" and moved the rest to Modern Hinduism ≈ jossi ≈ t • @
I have my doubts about merging two somewhat definitions into one definition. Andries 23:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually moved the material to Contemporary Hindu movements that seems to be the suitable place for this material. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with changing the redirect from guruism-->guru into guruism-->history of Hinduism. After all the term guruism is explained in the article guru. Andries 00:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As per your reference, the term "guruism" is related to Modern Hinduism that redirects to Contemporary Hindu movements. Hence the redirect to the latter. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rules to follow when posting external links

From WP:EL links should:

  • proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)
  • Contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.

and should not:

  • Contain factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view

I will remove any links not complying to these rules. Sfacets 09:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sfacet, in practice these guidelines are interpreted very leniently in the external link section. However it you want to interpret them very strictly then please do so consistently. Andries 09:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with a strict adherence of this guideline, but if you insist then I will remove all external links that are non-generic websites about gurus or do not strictly follow this guideline. In other word only a few external links will remain. Andries 12:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following external links accompanied with motivation as per the guidelines

1. http://www.byomakusuma.org/Default.aspx?tabid=38 Enlightenment: Buddhism Vis-à-Vis Hinduism
Buddhism - removed off-topic website, not about gurus
2. http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/world-religions/buddhism/dalai-interview.asp Interview with the Dalai Lama
Buddhism - removed non-generic website (interview with only a single guru))


3. http://santmat-thetruth.de/index.php?option=com_book&book=639&page=70/ A short History of Buddhism
Buddhism - removed off-topic Sant Mat website, not about Buddhist gurus, please copy to article Sant Mat
4. http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/61.html The Ten Great Mystic Masters of India
Hinduism - removed website that contains unverified original research as per WP:EL
5. http://www.krishna.com/main.php?id=7 Homepage of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness
Hinduism - removed non-generic website, only about a single guru or single lineage of gurus i.e. Prabhupada
6. http://www.krishna-das.com/ksyberspace/docs/skb.txt Shri Krishna Bhajanamrta
Hinduism - removed non-generic website, only about a single guru or single lineage of gurus
7. http://www.om-guru.com/ Om-guru.com Biographies of Saints, Seekers, and Teachers in the Indian Tradition
Hinduism - removed website that contains unverified original research as per WP:EL
8. http://www.shirdi-sai-baba.com Guru Sri Sai Baba
Hinduism - removed non-generic website, only about a single guru or single lineage of gurus
9. http://www.sringeri.org/ Sarada Peetham
Hinduism – dead external link
10. http://santmat-thetruth.de/index.php?option=com_book&book=639&page=69/ Hinduism
Hinduism - removed off-topic non-generic link, please move to Sant Mat article
11. http://www.soulsearcher.org Shri Rudrabhayananda
Hinduism - removed non-generic website (only about a single guru or a single lineage of gurus)
12. http://unity-of-man.org/ Unity Of Man
Surat Shabda Yoga – Has no added value when comared to http://www.sos.org ,not a unique resource as per WP:EL
13. http://www.rssb.org/ Radha Soami Satsang Beas
Surat Shabda Yoga - removed off-topic website, not about gurus
14. http://www.sikhs.org/guru1.htm Guru Nanak
Sikhism- removed website that is not a unique resource in addition t o http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smssikhism/gurus/ and only about one guru, not a generic website about gurus see WP:EL
15. http://santmat-thetruth.de/index.php?option=com_book&book=2234&page=1/ Guru Nanak: His Life and Teachings - This article was written by Kirpal Singh at the request of the Indian Government on the five hundredth anniversary of Guru Nanak’s birth.
Sikhism- removed non-generic website (only about a single guru or a single lineage of gurus) changed justification

Andries 13:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yours is a very silly behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I sincerely cannot understand why my behavior is silly. Can you please explain what is wrong with my edits? Thanks Andries 15:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I sincerely believe that your only reason for removing these links is to give predominance to few anti-guru links, written by anti-gur, countercultists and other people from a western perpective that you have added and continue to add. The removed links and, with the exception of some dups) related to the subject of this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It is true that I do not like an uncritical approach to gurus and I have not exactly made a secret of that. Again, I oppose a strict application of the external links guideline WP:EL. But I do think that when you apply a certain guideline very strictly for this article then this should be done consistently and not only for the external links that support a certain POV. Andries 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, I justified my deletions extensively by referring to the guidelines and I expect you to do the same. I will revert unexplained deletions or deletions that are only removed with the very dubious justification "to maintain balance". Andries 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Maintaining balance is a good reason for deleting links as per NPOV:Undue weigth. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Removing external links only to maintain balance is a very dubious justification. Andries 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Why dubious? On the contrary. The "institution" of guru is respected by billions of people. Reporting too manny links from western critics, just because these exist on the Internet is not appropriate for balance. Should we Google "priest allegations" and list each and every link we find of critics to priesthood and add them to the Priest article? Of course not. W will probably find a good representative links and link only these, if at all. No difference here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I already made it clear long ago that and why the concept of a guru cannot be compared to that of a priest. Andries 15:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


The exclusion of non-generic links is not noted on WP:EL. Re-inserting those links.
Of course we cannot add external links here that digress on individual gurus here. That would be like an article about German people with external links to the websites of individual Germans. Andries 16:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Also re-inserted are the links below, for reasons outlined:

  • http://www.om-guru.com/ original research made on different gurus - notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view as per WP:EL.
I disagree with 7. http://www.om-guru.com/ Om-guru.com Biographies of Saints, Seekers, and Teachers in the Indian Tradition Hinduism - removed website that contains unverified original research as per WP:EL Where is the indication that this is a notable of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view? Who is the author? Andries 16:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


I disagree with this re-addition in nr. 14. http://www.sikhs.org/guru1.htm Guru Nanak Sikhism- removed website that is not a unique resource in addition t o http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smssikhism/gurus/ and only about one guru, not a generic website about gurus see WP:EL Andries 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Your edits are brash, disruptive, and anarchic in that you do not await for peer concensus before making massive edits.

Making edits on such a scale without prior discussion are considered vandalism. Please consider this before wrecking other editors hard work.

A few of the links you deleted from the article actually were candidates for deletion - good work!

If anyone wants to comment on the re-insertion and reach concensus on a course of action for future inclusions/exclusions, please do so below. Sfacets 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sfacet, please continue to explain one by one for each external link that you re-inserted why they belong in the article referring to WP:EL. Thanks in advance. Andries 16:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already done so. Please don't attempt to justify the deletion of generic websites by refering to WP:EL. Sfacets 16:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that Jossi expressed the opinion that non-generic websites should be deleted. I agreed with Jossi for the obvious reason that there are so many gurus and lineages. I left however a website of the most prominent lineage (i.e. Shankaracharya) intact. Andries 16:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Sfacet wrote "Making edits on such a scale without prior discussion are considered vandalism."
I had announced my stated intention clearly. Andries 16:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, right and left a 'whole' hour for all concerned editors to see your intention. Sfacets 16:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I expressed my concern and request to have the guideline applied consistently seven minutes after you stated your intention. Andries 16:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the external links section pre-massive deletion by Andries. Let's discuss. My view is that external links section needs to include material that could be of interest to readers and should not be used as the place to include material that otherwise could not be included in the article due to quality of material, appropriateness, NPOV, etc. Think of the reader, not your POV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I basically agree with your stated reason. In other words, this is something that you will have to discuss with user:Sfacets, not with me, who advocates a very strict apllication of the WP:EL guideline. Andries 18:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, can you please explain why you chose not to restore Sarlo's website that I think fulfills your stated reasons for restoring other websites? Andries 18:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, can you also please explain why you chose to restore a dead external link i.e. http://www.sringeri.org/ Sarada Peetham. I had already described it as such (nr.9) Do you actually read what I write on the talk page or do you simply disagree with me and revert my edits without reading what I write on the talk page (as long as it supports your POV of course)? Thanks in advance. Andries 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I restored everything pre your massive deletiobn, so that we can discuss. The Sarlo link was discussed extensively before. Let's agree on what we keep and what we don't. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you please do some work too, such as reading the talk page if I may suggest that to you, instead of just reverting my edits without a one-by-one justificationn of your re-additions? Thanks. Andries 18:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, yes I agree, however there were a number of links that were not relevant to the article (although far less than were deleted). There are a set of wikipedia rules to insure that only a select few external links are present on a given article - external links are really only a means of linking to content which is impossible to include in the article because of copyright issues, mostly.

So links should follow what is mentionned in the article - thus external links under different headings are necessary, because it follows the rationale and structure defined by the article.

This also means that the number of links should be defined by the importance of the linked information. Thus external links to critical sites should logically be less in number than those of Hindu Gurus, for example.

Sfacets 18:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sfacets, can you please digree on the criteria for inclusion and exclusion that your propose. Please note that the criticism section is quite big and I think that the external links section should reflect this. Does your above statement mean that you drop a strict application of WP:EL? Or do you just drop it when it support your POV? Thanks in advance.Andries 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, and it's not about strict or loose application of WP:EL - they are rules that have to be followed. Full stop. I never suggested dropping them. You attempted to mask your edits by hiding behind these rules, and making edits that had nothing to do with them. The crtiicism section is small when compared to the combined sections on religions, and in relevance when compared to the sheer size in numbers of adherants to these religions. Which is the point we have been trying to establish since the begining, when you started pilling on the critical links. Sfacets 18:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I disagree with measuring weights of NPOV by counting the nr. of uninformed adherents as I have stated in so many article talk pages so many times. For example, I read that more than half of the Americans believe in conspiracy theories regarding the September 11th attacks. But clearly this cannot be stated as more than a very small minority if it should be stated at all on the article September 11, 2001 attacks. Because it is a very small minority of the informed opinion. A majority in Wikipedia is formed by informed opinion and reputable sources. Andries 18:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Sfacets, it is not true as you assert now suddenly here that the criticism section is small. The combined criticisms (also in the section Hinduism and etymologies) are quite large. You yourself complained about that in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hinduism/Peer_review where you wrote "The page has an oversized criticism section", but I guess you contradict yourself to push your POV. Andries 04:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Sfacet, so your opionion is that external links that treat only one guru or only one lineage of gurus can be re-added? Andries 05:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
No one is measuring NPOV by number of adherents. What I am saying is that in the West, there is a biased understanding of "guru" and of eastern traditions overall. This article is about "Guru", not about the perception of gurus by westerners. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


As for your example: See 9/11_conspiracy_theories.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I never wrote that those conspiracy theories have no place in Wikipedia. Yes, of course popular view that are important for people even if completely misguided should be represented in Wikipedia. Andries 19:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Alleged difference between Eastern and Western perspective

There is no uniform "Western" understanding of the concept of guru. There are many "Western" views on gurus that differ a lot from each other. I do not agree with the description by George Feuerstein on the differences between "East" and "West". In what sense do you know think that the "Western" understanding of guru is biased? Andries 19:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't agree with the oppinion of one of the most respected western scholars on Hinduism? So what?. Your POV is not notable, is it? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot respect George Feuerstein for what he writes. I think that David C. Lane is respected more than Feuerstein. Andries 21:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Feuerstein's POV is just one POV among many and should be treated as such. Andries 21:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Western understanding of Gurus is biased - an example of this is the french use of Gurû to designate what they view as an 'acceptable' spiritual teacher and Gourou which would be what they consider a head of a "cult". It's all about public opinion stemmed from media portrayal in the west.
In english there aren't two words to separate the two designations, so here we are, stuck arguing semantics.

Sfacets 20:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The word gourou/gurû in French language has almost become a term of abuse. Somewhat similar in Dutch language for the word "goeroe", but not so strongly. May be we should explain more about the question why it has become a term of abuse in some contexts. Andries 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
And please note that in France the pejorative connotations of the term may be explained by the influence of the anti-cult movement, but this is an unlikely explanation for the Netherland because 1. the anti-cult movement is not influential here and 2. (as far as I understand) the word "goeroe"/guru started getting negative connotations only after the big cult wars and debates were over in the Netherlands. Andries 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Undue weight yet again. This is not and article about why French or Dutch gourou or goeroe have become pejoratives. These issue can and have been explored in Cults and governments, Anti-cult movement, Opposition to cults and new religious movements, Status of religious freedom in France and other western-related articles. I propose to move all the criticsm materail from this article to one of these articles were they belong. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand your proposal at all. All criticisms currently in the article here are fully on topic and if I find more on-topic criticisms from reputable sources then I will add it here. Due weight is to a great extent determined by reputable sources, as you yourself wrote in the discussion regarding the percentage of criticism in the article Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 21:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
So, make an effort to understand. We are describing in this article the meaning of Guru as it pertains to the world religions which this concept belongs. A disctinction needs to be made between these and between gurus in a western culture context. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your description of the obejct of this article. This article describes the usage and meaning of the word and concept of "guru" in the English language. It also describes the controversies surrounding both notable individual gurus as well as the controversies and problems regarding the concept of guru. Both inside and outside Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. I do not even know what the term "western culture context" means and how it is different from a "non-western culture context" Is Auroville (Aurobindo's ashram) a western culture context? Same for Prashanti Nilayam (SSB's ashram)? Does the culture context change from western to non-western when I go from the ashram in India to a local group of followers in Western Europe? I do not know and I do not know how to find the answer to those questions. Andries 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I can only see two reasonably reputable source in the article that makes a distinction between "western culture context" and "eastern culture context". That is Feuerstein and Van der Lans. Andries 22:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken. This article is not about the use of Guru in the English language. A Guru is a teacher in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. Based on a long line of philosophical understanding as to the importance of knowledge, the guru is seen in these religions as a sacred conduit, or a way to self-realization.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, no, I am not mistaken. You are wrong in quoting very selectively from the summary. The summary also states the following. "In Western usage, the original meaning of guru has been extended to cover anyone who acquires followers, though not necessarily in an established school of philosophy or religion. In a further metaphorical extension, guru is used to refer to a person who has authority because of his or her perceived knowledge or skills in a domain of expertise." Andries 23:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that the difference between Western and Eastern culture is so big in religious matters then I suggest that you please make a seperate section in the clearly western concept of prophet with the title "prophet in an Eastern culture context". Andries 22:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Prophet is inherently an Abrahamic religious concept. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but following your way of reasoning we should creat a section "prophet in an Eastern culture context" where we can place among others Sun Myung Moon Nakayama Miki. . Andries 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Sun Myung Moon, wasn't he arrested for preaching Christianity in communist Korea? What this person has to do with this article? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I am using him as an example to the absurdities where your way of reasoning leads to. Following your way of reasoning we should create a section in the article prophet called "prophet in an Eastern culture context" where we can place among others Nakayama Miki. And in the messiah article we should make a section "messiah in an Eastern culture context" where Sun Myung Moon belongs, folllowing your way of reasoning. Andries 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
These examples make no sense, and even if they did these should be discussed in these articles and not here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, can you please start again to give detailed replies to my detailed comments here? I know you can do that. You have done so in the past. Andries 08:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the word sect

The word sect in an Indian context has a neutral meaning different from the word sect in other contexts. It is often used in scholarly articles about Hinduims and India. I will re-insert the word. Andries 09:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

But this isn't solely in the Indian context - since the article also contains Guru in the Western understanding of the word. Sfacets 09:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the word sect in Hinduism or in an Indian context is neutral and very often used in scholarhip. I see no good reason why Wikipedia should deviate from this standard practice of using the word. Andries 09:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Length of cited text

Regarding recent edit: Please keep the length of cited text short, to substantiate an edit. Either reduce considerably or remove altogether. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please also do not add wikilinks to quoted text. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, can you please explain why the cited text should be kept short? I think that out-of-context interpretations and summaries are more likely to take place if the citation is kept short. For example, you erronously place the opinion of Sacha Kester under the section "Gurus in a Western Culture context" though it should and could have been clear from the complete citation that Kester wrote about the situation in India (hippies who travel to India) i.e. not in a Western culture context. Andries 17:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
300 words is way too much text to support a 20 word paragraph. The cite belongs were I put it as it is the narrow wiew of one journalist. reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No, Jossi Kester lived in India and described the situation there. She did not write about a Western culture context which should have been clear to you if you had read carefully the complete citation. Andries 18:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It is the view of a Western journalist. Western newspapers featuring guru-bashing? You can create a new article just for that Anti-guru articles in Western media. But as along we want to include some examples in this article, there is a need to chose such articles judiciously so that we cite one or two major newapspapers/journalists and not obscure ones. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I mean, were do you draw the line? Shall we start citing Indian newspaper articles in which the guru is exhated? That cite you aded from a Dutch newspaper, is it representative enough for this article? Or just an opinion of a journalist? Finding an anit0guru cite in a western newspaper is not a big deal. How many of these we need in this article? I would argue for none. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If you erroneously believe that the De Volkskrant is an obscure newspaper then try to verifiy your opinion on the Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_topics_related_to_the_Netherlands. Kester described the situation in India and cited two Indians in India, so her opinion does not belong in the section "Wester Culture Context". This should have been clear to you if you had read the complete citation. Andries 18:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Andries, that part which Jossi reverted is not for "Attributes of Guru in Hinduism". That maybe added in criticism section. - Holy Ganga talk 18:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay I will make a criticism section for "Criticism and assesment of gurus in India" Andries 18:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No. That is a westerner view and as such does not belong in that section. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No, she does not treat the situation of a Western culture context. In addition she quote two Indians. Andries 18:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The number of Indians she cites is inconsequential. That is the perspective of a western journalist and it belongs in the section about western culture, if at all. See my comments above about citing guru-bashing newspaper articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
So since when are gurus in India "A Western culture context"? The structure of the article is wrong and hence all the senseless disputes about where something belongs. Andries 18:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I am really tired of your advocacy against gurus. Fact is that the only reason for your contributions, in my opinion,, is to further your criticism of gurus. I cannot assume good faith any longer on your edits. I leave other editors to undo your edits. I am tired of cleaning up after you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I have made it abundantly clear that I do not agree with an uncritical attitude in wikipedia against gurus. But why can you no longer believe in my sincerity is something I do not really understand. Andries 18:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, can you please specify where I have broken Wikipedia policies and guidelines lately? Andries 18:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Policy is there to assist us in creating an encyclopedia. Not to finds ways to bypass it to push our POV. That is what, in my opinion based on witnessing your edits over 2 years, tell me. If you don't agree on an uncritical attitude on a subject covered in Wikipedia, that has no bearing on the fact that we are editing an encyclopedia in which advocacy (pro or con) is not welcome. Furthermore, the way to show good faith is to edit Wikipedia without such an agenda. Demonstrate that you care for this project more that you care for your anti-guru POV and you will gain my respect and the respect of others.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the problem with you complaints and accuations against me. You always accuse me, but you cannot give concrete examples of violations of policies and guidelines. How seriously then should your complaints and accusations be taken? Of course the criticisms in this and other articles have bearings in fact. Andries 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyone, and I mean anyone, can see the pattern of your edits. It is all there and these speak for themselves. That says it all IMO. Now, I am taking a break to enjoy my weekend. Have a nice weekend too. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have restructured some parts, mainly criticism section and removed unnecessary things from Attributes of guru in Hinduism section. Hope now it's fine. - Holy Ganga talk 15:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Video section

I personally believe that having a video section is not a good idea. If editors believe otherwise, then video references should be formatted in the same manner as books: Director/autor, title, year, with no link to on-line retailers. Also, given that space should be use judiciously, only prominent examples to illustrate the article should be included. I have commented out the section so that these concerns can be addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the section with improved format and removed all off-topic documentaries and also removed all non-generic documentaries i.e. that treat only one guru or one lineage of gurus. Andries
Yes right, and pigs fly too! I will restore all other, and more videos later today. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @
I disagree. For example, a TV documentary about Krishnamurti belong at the article Jiddu Krishnamurti, not in a general article about gurus. Another example, the TV documentary about yoga belong in the article yoga not here.Andries 21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
As I said, pigs fly too. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Material in articles needs to be based on reputable/reliable sources (See WP:RS. A video section is not a links section in which the burden of reputability is somewhat lower that the article's body, and the further reading section and this new video section needs to provide material for readers to explore the subject further. As such, the list of material suggested (including videos) have to be such that it provides that opportunity for exploration of the subject in proportion with the material in the article as per WP:NPOV . ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but is has to be on-topic and generic. Andries 05:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Videos and documentaries

The following documentaries should not be included for stated reason. I you disagree provide a reason addressing my concern. If no detailed reply is give then I will remove all the documentaries mentioned here soon.

Andries 05:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with removal of all of them, mostly because they are commercial links, but also because they do not illustrate the subject matter here. Sfacets 06:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of material should be in the basis of does if the video or book clarifies further the subject for readers, in proportion to the content of the article. In any case, these are already deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, your efforts to maintain NPOV is not a valid excuse to maintain off-topic videos. For example the video featuring Feuerstein about yoga should be either in the article about yoga or Feuerstein, but not here. Andries

Regarding Alexander Deutsch Reference

I removed the latter reference to Alexander Deutsch that was added by Andries. See Sathya Sai Baba Talk Page: Another Complete Distortion Of Facts for further information. SSS108 talk-email 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Guru vs. Spiritual Teacher

Given the specific and accurate meaning of Guru used here in this article, I suggest that "Spiritual Teacher" should not be redirected here, but rather should be a category (rather than an article), one that includes the many non-guru spiritual teachers.

I would be bold and do that except I can't figure out how to get to the Spiritual Teacher redirect page, because of course it automatically redirects me back here. Msalt 20:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I figured it out and did it. Future discussion: should the Spiritual_writers category be changed to Spiritual_teachers, and the former redirected to the latter instead? Very few spiritual writers don't lecture or sell cassettes, and the broader term seems like the better category. Msalt 20:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Quotes from "The Guru Papers - Masks of Authoritarian Power"

You can read here quotes taken from the book The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power written by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad:

Seems to be worthwile reading, the book. I hope it does not talk about socalled "eastern Gurus" only. Austerlitz 88.72.18.72 13:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Tough stuff, but excellent

[16] According to my taste and judgement this is an excellent article, with an astonishing outcome. Can we put the link here, and where best put it, which section?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.2.179 11:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The appropriate section would be: 'Views of "Guru" from a Western culture perspective'. Bur rather than having a link, you can summarize the article in a sentence and add it to that section. Otherwise you can place a link in the 'External Links" section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thank's, for the moment I'll accept the most easy proposal and place a link in the section.

Greetings, Austerlitz -- 88.72.28.102 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, somebody has deleted it, that link. Austerlitz -- 88.72.20.232 11:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Buddhipriya (Talk | contribs) (remove link to a web page that is filled with advertising. the topic is fine, but the site is a junk advertising site) Hi, Buddhipriya, maybe you are right. What a pity, though. Austerlitz -- 88.72.20.232 11:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Italic text