Talk:OSHO Dynamic Meditation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Why OSHO in page name?

There is no need to so strongly tie "Dynamic Meditation" with Osho in the title itself. It would just be like to call Vipassana as BUDDHA_Vipassana. Or to call theory of relativity as EINSTEIN_Theory_Of_Relativity. Osho himself talked about so many meditation techniques from the past, from so many masters. This was possible only by taking the technique as it is, not strongly linking with the master who gave it. Linking it perfectly ok, but linking so strongly as in the name itself is not good in my opinion, for it greatly discourages people who are not disciples of Osho to try it out. And it should be available to as many people as possible who want to try. Is is a scientific meditation technique and should not be so strongly linked to the founder. Furthermore, this is an encyclopedia available to all, and this is another reason not to link so strongly. I know pune people trademark it by the name you mentioned, but that doesn't make it a good choice automatically. Imagine the world with "BUDDHA Vipassana(TM)" and "SHIVA Vigyan Bhairav Tantra(TM)". Anyway, this is not a place to discuss and solve the trademark issue, but we should keep at least wikipedia general and open in nature. If u want to mention the trademark, we can say something like "Dynamic Meditation is trademarked by OIF as 'OSHO Dynamic Meditation'". That would make more sense than creating article named "OSHO Dynamic Meditation"

It is the official name of the technique, and the name under which the music required for it is published. As an encyclopedia, I think Wikipedia should not take sides in encouraging or discouraging people to try the technique, and people interested in the technique who consult Wikipedia should be able to find out who designed it. It also helps clarify which technique exactly the article is about. Jayen466 11:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, visitors should be able to find out, just like someone visiting Vipassana knows it started with Buddha. First paragraph on Vipassana does not "encourage" anyone to do it, that's as it should be. But it lays down the facts, that no conversion to Buddhism is required and more importantly, it mentions that the meditation technique has universal application. But this page, as it is, is discouraging by unnecessarily strongly-linking Osho with Dynamic. Linking is absolutely fine, and is required, but not so strongly as in the name itself. Calling it OSHO_Dynamic meditation, it implicitly hints(if not implies) that it does not have universal application, with people who are not disciples of Osho. I think u can see the difference between this page and Vipassana to understand what i mean. If distinction is required in future with some other dynamic meditation, a disambiguation page is used for that purpose, similar to what is there for Osho himself...kammal 07:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see why Wikipedia should worry about the promotional or discouraging effect of including the originator's name in the name of the technique. The article title is the name under which the technique is offered, under which the CD is sold, and it is like you say the trademarked name of the technique. I am quite happy to have info on the technique's wider use, outside of its original context, in the article, if you consider that important (there is a little information of that type on activemeditation.com), but then this information must be backed up with neutral sources. As far as I have seen, most of the activemeditation.com sources are either not neutral or not specifically about the technique described here. Jayen466 23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing meditationexpert.co.uk link

They have a lot of stupid rewording of the instructions... Don't know what they get by doing that, except maybe copyright permission to put it on their website. Not only is the tone at least somewhat wrong (e.g. "harshly"), wording is also totally wrong(e.g. "contemplation" and surrounding statements). Most grave error is that they have not mentioned that "chaotic" element in breathing.... Please do not add that link again on wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.94.41.89 (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)