Talk:Siddha Yoga/Archive 2

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

Changes to External Links

I noticed that a previous editor asked why I shortened the descriptions of the links in this section.

I just felt that it looked a little nicer without all of the extra verbage.

For example, the official site does not need to say that there is information about programs...etc. That much will be obvious to anyone visiting the site, and since it is the official site, one would expect that information to be available there.

As another example, the student's website description did not need a run on sentence to describe the content.

This is just a personal viewpoint. It's obvious that at least one other editor thinks it looks better with the extra wording included. TheRingess 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

More On External Links

I'm sorry I could not figure out how to put this comment on a separate page and I hope it does not mess up this page too much.

I believe that the article on Shakta Tantrism in Siddha Yoga by Sarah Caldwell qualifies as a verifiable reputable source since it is published in a scholarly journal of a well known large university by a scholar who has been a professor involved with indological studies at the college and university level, including as a visiting professor at Harvard Divinity School. Even though this article is somewhat controversial, it does present teachers and students in SYDA in both a positive and negative way.

Sarah Caldwell's article was posted on Leaving Siddha Yoga but dismissing a reference to her article because of that fact does not seem to be a valid criterion for deleting the reference. The fact that the article was published by UC Press argues for the consideration of the article INDEPENDENTLY as a scholarly essay and research article, in addition to a personal account. Perhaps some of the posts on Leaving Siddha Yoga web site can be dismissed as rantings of mentally disturbed people or mere "sour grapes", but I doubt that applies to Sarah Caldwell because she continued to follow the teachings of SY under S. Nityananda at least until 2001 and converted to Hinduism in 2002. I can post the URL for this later if anybody is interested.

I did not insert the reference to Caldwell's article in the References section because it appeared to be broken and I could not figure out how to add it there without possibly breaking it even more.

Furthermore, I would like to reinsert Sharon Janis' book "Never To Return" as a source, after I see what the reaction to adding Sarah Caldwell's article is. The book is available on amazon.com, does have an ISBN number, and has been updated on her web site. Even though I believe that this book probably presents SYDA in an unjustifiably favorable light, still I think it does qualify as a verifiable source according to Wikipedia standards. Unfortunately there is not a lot of information on the SYDA site that does not sound as if it were produced by an advertising agency. For that reason, I think Sharon Janis' book is a refreshing alternative source, when compared to the SYDA web site.

Perhaps I misunderstand the standards and guidelines of Wikipedia, but according to my newbie reading of a little of it, mere references to both Caldwell's article and Janis' book do NOT constitute original research. Furthermore, a verifiable source does not even need to be true, accurate, or unbiased, just verifiable.

Futhermore, I believe that Siddha Yoga should be disambiguated because I think that the Kashmir Shaiva Agamas, Shaiva Siddhananta Agamas, and Nath Sampradaya traditions of Siddha Yoga probably have more followers in India each by themself alone than the total current practicioners of SYDA derived Siddha Yoga. However, being a newbie, I am certainly not eager to attempt this. I believe that the more proper reference to the Siddha Yoga discussed in this article would be "Siddha Yoga (SM) SYDA". The other mentioned siddha yogas have been traditional in India for centuries, if not more than a millenium.

Since the SYDA also claims the Yoga Gurus whose pictures it sells in its bookstore and displays in its ashrams are also Siddha Yogis, in a full and fair treatment of the disambiguation of Siddha Yoga, references to the web sites of those Siddha Yoga Gurus and to books about them should probably be given, so that the reader can decide for himself whether or not SYDA belongs to the traditions of those Gurus as claimed.

Alfalfahay 08:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link because the article is already available on the LSY site. Adding a link does not constitue "adding material". If you had added material, that material would have to be judged on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, the article is not used as a source for any of the material on this page and neither is the Janis article. Remember Wikipedia is not a link farm. For further reference, see WP:EL and WP:NOT. If you wish to create a disambiguation page, then please do so. Please do more than simply add links, please consider contributing more fully.TheRingess 08:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in trying to maintain this article. If the intent of Wikipedia is to be strictly academic then I suppose the article of Sarah Caldwell in U.C. Press and the published book by Sharon Janis should be disqualified because they are not written in a strictly academic style. Even though my attitude toward SYDA is definitely negative, I think that these two publications are probably two of the meatiest third party (non-SYDA) sources of direct experience of SY available in English. I doubt that "Meditation Revolution" would appeal to most readers who try to look up SY in Wiki. I have not read "Meditation Revolution" but have serious doubts as to whether it is neutral. Whether Sally Kempton's book on Meditation should be considered neutral, I don't know, since I have not read it. Probably it has been cited in at least one of the SY related articles on WP. I would hope that there are books on siddha yogis and siddha yoga from non-SYDA sources published in India that are more unbiased, however they might well not be sold on Amazon, etc.

The cosmicharmony.com web site has had some interesting excerpts from Muktananda's books continuously for a number of years, but since it probably is a personal web site, which might go down at any time, I suppose that it would not be a satisfactory site to link to or to refer to. Too bad, since it has much more meat to it than almost anything on the SYDA site.

The requirement that all the juice be sqeezed out of the meat before eating seems especially ironic in view of the great emphasis placed on *experiences* by SYDA.

I should also point out that the LSY web site has been down for at least a couple days. If it does not come back up soon, links to it in all the articles of TheRingess probably should be deleted.

I would hope that if the LSY web site disappears that a reference to Caldwell's article on Shakta Tantrism might be reinstated, but I probably won't bother checking.

Anyway, I learned a good lesson. No matter how academic sounding a discourse might sound, there's hardly any reason to put a lot of weight on it much more than what we read in the daily newspaper, such as "Iraq bought yellow cake uranium ore from Africa". Get a second and third independent opinion.

And thanks to TheRingess for posting and maintaining this article and attempting to keep it within WP guidelines and relatively unbiased.

Alfalfahay 09:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a mention of Sarah Caldwell's views expressed in her article in the criticism section and supported it with a reference to the article itself. The reference seems to meet all the standards set by wikipedia on citing sources. Lumos3 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It does seem to fit. Though I'm not sure that the one sentence summary of the nearly 50+ page is an accurate summary. I think I will rewrite the sentence.TheRingess 23:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and started a rewrite, mostly based on the abstract of the paper. According to what I read of the article, it really doesn't talk much about SY per se, but more about Muktananda. Since it is such a lengthy article, and by Caldwell's admission it was her own viewpoint and opinion (she does say this in the paper) I think we need to be careful when summarizing it down to a sentence. The abstract of the paper is a good starting point. It was published in a reputable journal, and peer reviewed so does seem to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. The paper does not seem to argue any points, just to present her viewpoint on the allegations.TheRingess 05:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In general with respect to the Shakta Tantrism in a particular school of yoga, such as SYDA, there are a number of issues:

1. do students and teachers of the school practice sexual tantric rituals?

2. are the practices "kosher" or non-abusive? and by what standards?

3. do the practicioners use dissimulation to hide their practices?

4. are the practices and/or the dissimulation ethical according to the accepted standards of the "religion" of which the school claims to be a part?

However wrt this WP article it is not necessary to raise or answer such questions. A WP-verifiable claim that SY is or has been signficantly influenced by "Shakta Tantrism" should be sufficient. Then leave it up to the reader to decide whether he or she is interested in reading about Shakta Tantrism in SY.

Therefore I suggest that a suitable adaptation of the following part of a sentence from Caldwell's abstract should be sufficient to characterize her book: "... Swami Muktananda (1908–1982) was an enlightened teacher and practitioner of an esoteric form of Tantric sexual yoga..."

It is not necessary explicitly to repeat her claim that he engaged in unethical and illegal practices. By avoiding such explicitness, hopefully continuing disagreements about the way in which a summary of article is presented in this WP article can be avoided.

Alfalfahay 13:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

LEAVING SIDDHA YOGA. The following statement in the WP SY article appears to be inaccurate: "The "Leaving Siddha Yoga" organization exists to support people wishing to leave." Here is how the LSY site describes itself: "This website was started in July 1996 to provide information about the problems in Siddha Yoga, past and present." If mention is made of an "organization ... to support people wishing to leave", the I suggest that both http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eXSY *and* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sgmkj be mentioned somewhere in the SY article. (BTW LSY site appears to be "up" again.) I think that there are still people "out there" who have significant unresolved conflicts about their involvement in SYDA and both online groups could be helpful to them. It certainly is an actual fact that these two groups do exist and that they are definitely related to issues concerning the SYDA organization. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, this WP article, is mainly about Siddha Yoga as the organization SYDA and NOT about "siddha yoga" in general, the latter being a much wider field. Alfalfahay 13:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Both groups were mentioned in the external links section. Though both groups require membership. And the guidelines on external links discourage linking to websites that require membership. Feel free to Be Bold in the Wikipedia parlance and contribute to the article. Personally, I have no interest in writing about the website or either group, so if you don't do it, probably no one else will.TheRingess 14:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I base my statement that "siddha yoga" has other meanings in Hinduism on the following: "Siddha Yoga: Hindu - Hinduism Dictionary on Siddha yoga siddha yoga: (Sanskrit) "Yoga of perfected attainment, or of supernatural powers. "1) A term used in the Tirumantiram and other Saiva scriptures to describe the yoga which is the way of life of adepts after attaining of Parasiva. ... 2) The highly accomplished practices of certain alchemists." " from Hinduism Dictionary at http://www.experiencefestival.com However, I intentionally avoided referencing this dictionary entry since I thought it would be too distracting because of not being directly involved with the SYDA organization and since I am not interested or qualified to write a disambiguation of all the common usages of 'siddha yoga'. Alfalfahay 15:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Since there exists at least one other article relating to siddha yoga, I've decided to create a disambiguation page as suggested by a fellow editor.

I'm going to create an article called "siddha yoga (disambiguation)"

This new article will simply link to both this one and the shaiva siddhanta article.

At the top of this page I'll put a link back to the disambiguation page.


TheRingess 03:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Siddhanta

Perhaps someone would like to clarify the meaning of 'siddhanta' either in this article or in the disambiguation, for example. According to the encyclopedia and Hinduism dictionary at experiencefestival.com , 'siddhanta' means tradition. I mention this because someone not knowing sanskrit might analogize 'siddhanta' with Vedanta, and think that siddhanta had something to do with siddha yogis per se. Alfalfahay 13:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I only perused the Shaiva Siddhanta article briefly, and am assuming that it explains the meaning of the word, and if it doesn't that's probably the best place. From my brief experience that's usually the preferred method. BTW, it's considered good form to use the edit summary box at the bottom.TheRingess 14:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the word "siddhanta" should be explained in the Shaiva Siddhanta article.

The article on "Siddha Siddhanta" from experiencefestival.com may also be helpful in the disambiguation and in elucidating the meaning of "siddhanta". I am by no means a scholar of these fields. But from what I have read, the living tradition of Kashmir Shaivism was largely wiped out during the Islamic invasions and the tradition remains today mostly in the written literature. If that is the case, then Muktananda's Siddha Yoga might more properly be considered to belong to the Nath Sampradaya or Siddha Siddhanta tradition.

"Today there are perhaps 750,000 adherents of Siddha Siddhanta Saivism, who are often understood as Shaktas or advaita tantrics. ... This sect is also most commonly known as Natha, the Gorakshapantha and Siddha Yogi Sampradaya. Other names include Adinatha Sampradaya, Nathamatha and Siddhamarga." http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Siddha_Siddhanta/id/62050 Alfalfahay 14:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is an article on Kashmir Shaivism, and that one lists Siddha Yoga as one of the current schools. Debating whether or not Siddha Yoga belongs more to one school or the other is probably way beyond the scope of this article and would require some citations from literature published in the reputable journals in the relevant field. BTW, it's considered good form to use the edit box at the bottom to summarize your edits, not so much on discussion pages but definitely on article edits.TheRingess 14:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What may not be out of scope for this article would be some sort of point by point comparison between SY and other schools of Hinduism, or for that matter Buddhism or Zen, or Christianity, etc; without trying to draw any conclusions or argue a certain viewpoint. Though it would have to be very, very well sourced and would probably not be a trivial task even if only compared to other Schools of Kashmir Shaivism. This would also open it up for other editors to do similar research. Just a thought. TheRingess 06:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the WP article is listed under "new religious movements", I am not sure that comparing it to long established "indigenous" religions would be especially interesting to more than a relatively small audience. Personally, I think tracking the history of SYDA through the popular press in the 70's and 80's could possibly be more interesting. However, I do not have convenient access to a library with free access to online archives of such periodicals, nor do I now have the desire to do that much work. For instance, it would be interesting to track the timelines and relationships of Richard Alpert and Werner Erhard to SYDA during the first 2 of 3 world tours by Muktananda in 1970 to 1981. Alfalfahay 04:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The question as to whether or not any section in any article would appeal to a large or small audience is pretty much irrelevant. Wikipedia's guidelines pretty much state that anyone can edit any article by adding or deleting material. Material can be pretty much deleted if it is not verifiable, not from a reliable source or copyrighted (to name just 3 criteria for deleting material). As far as I know there is nothing in the guidelines about only adding material that appeals to a broad audience (since the question of whether or not, now or in the future, who a subject might "appeal" to, let alone answering the question of what exactly is meant by appeal. I've often thought that a section detailing famous students, would be a good section, as long as every name listed specified a source and there was a disclaimer that the list might be out of date. So such a section would be a maintenance nightmare. And such a section would always raise issues of neutrality. And as you pointed out, detailing a person's involvement, by tracking down sources, is a tremendous amount of work. And probably, that kind of information more formally belongs on the respective articles about the people Just some thoughts. TheRingess 04:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Question of audience size is only relevant to me as possible author in regards to the issue of whether writing such an addition to the article would be worth the effort to write it.
I still argue that Pearce's book and Sharon Janis' book are *verifiable* and probably at least more informative if not also more reliable than the material on the SYDA site or in "Meditation Revolution". Alfalfahay 05:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Tenets, Aphorisms

In the TENETS section, perhaps "God dwells within you as you" should be replaced by "Honor your Self, Worship your Self, Meditate on your Self, God dwells within you as you" in order to reflect more accurately the statement on the SYDA web site. http://siddhayoga.org/teachings/essential/essential.html I do not intend to edit such a change myself, since I am not sure whether the existing brevity should be kept as a matter of style. BTW I agree that analysis of the details of SY lineage is beyond the scope of the article and of my own qualifications. Alfalfahay 16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to make the change.TheRingess 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the aphorisms. I removed the link to Pearce. It wasn't clear from the sentence what Pearce's experience had to do with the tenets. I'm not sure where a statement like "Pearce wrote about his experience..." belongs. The tenets section as it stands seems to be fairly well referenced, since all statements can be verified through either the Meditation Revolution book or the website. I'm not sure that links to experiences are appropriate either, unless we have a very, very reasonable assumption that they have been fact checked, which would seem to be the case of Pearce's. Long story short, I would suggest expanding Pearce's quote and placing it in another section. I'll leave it up to other interested editors. BTW, Wikipedia's style guidelines about internal links say that you should only link to a term the first time it is used. So no need to link again to Muktananda. TheRingess 01:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is currently no other section besides "Tenets, shaktipat" where a reference to Pearce's book would be appropriate. Adding a reference to Pearce's book in the References section would probably be deleted on the grounds that it doesn't relate to anything in the article, although, in the case of shaktipat, that is patently untrue. I personally heard Pearce give at least one talk in South Fallsburg during a SY intensive and/or evening program. Pearce's book is, AFAIK, mainly about "shaktipat" from the SY point of view. I believe that Pearce also gave talks on behalf of SY in neutral public venues outside of South Fallsburg. Therefore I do not see any good reason for removing a reference to his work. Furthermore, there are serious allegations that 1. the SY archives from which the authors of "Meditation Revolution" did their research were intentionally "truncated" by members of SY staff, and that 2. the text of one or more articles in the book was changed AFTER the peer-review process was complete. Furthermore, I gather that none of the university academic authors of "Meditation Revolution", (besides Sally Kempton?) personally met Muktananda, unlike Joe Pearce. Therefore, I conclude that one possible additional motivation for removing a reference to Joe Pearce's book could be a tendency toward revisionism of SY history. That is, to remove those facts about SY history prior to the circa 1985 period of controversy, which facts might lead an inquirer to want to investigate more fully. The articles favorable to SY in Hinduism Today were written by SYDA staff on behalf of SYDA. At the time of writing of Sharon Janis' book "Never to Return" and Joe Pearce's book "Bond of Power", I believe neither was on SYDA staff nor wrote in any official capacity for SYDA. Nevertheless both books are positive about SYDA and not overly biased. Therefore I believe such books give a more rounded, more representative, and more believable picture of SY and SYDA than mere SYDA web pages and SYDA written press articles *alone*. I wonder if WP guidelines really state that referenced books *must* be peer-reviewed scholarly books? If fact checking is a rigid requirement, then perhaps Sarah Caldwell's article should be allowed, but the LSY web site should be removed unless one can provide sworn affidavits and court records to substatiate such. Alfalfahay 03:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Some helpful links that might answer your questions (and this is by far not an exhaustive list) are: guidelines for citing sources, guidelines for verifiability, and wikipedia's guidelines for external links. Also keep in mind that no one "owns" any article on Wikipedia. If an edit of yours is deleted, you can always reinstate it. If you feel that a fellow editor is unjustly deleting material or adding it and you feel you cannot reason with them, then there are arbitration processes in place. One of the great things about WP is that every edit remains in the database, so if any editor is acting in bad faith and vandalising an article, then their will be plenty of evidence. You might also wish to read wikipedia's guidelines on assuming good faith. My reason for deleting the Pearce reference, was that 1) it provided no new material 2) it did not seem to fit in the tenets section as the statement itself did not refer to the tenets, it was simply a statement that Pearce wrote something. You might wish to create a new section that might be more appropriate for the Pearce material. TheRingess 05:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Practices section, additions?

MEDITATION, CHANTING, SELFLESS SERVICE, STUDY AND CONTEMPLATION, DAKSHINA, HATHA YOGA are listed as Siddha Yoga practices here: http://www.siddhayoga.org/practices-siddha-yoga.html Perhaps "study and contemplation" and "hatha yoga" should be added to the list of practices in the WP SY article. In addition, the WP SY article's discussion of practice of Satsang might be considered as "original research" according to WP guidelines. Perhaps a book reference or online reference might be in order on "satsang". If "satsang" is included as a practice of SY, then I suggest that "intensives" should also be considered as such, viz. a "practice", since the SY "intensives" could rather accurately be described as ceremonies or rituals of initiation or shaktipat diksha. The fact that shaktipat diksha (initiation) is considered to be a sine qua non of SY would further recommend its addition here, or somewhere in the article. The use of the word ritual or ceremony is not intended to be derogatory in my use of it here at all, even tho' many in the West and elsewhere place such a connotation on these words. The SY practice of "sadhana circles" may or may not be widespread in SY, but its functions and purposes are probably adequately covered under "study and contemplation" and "satsang". Since I am not currently a follower of SY teachings, I do not intend to contribute these additions, however I thought they should be considered in light of the guidelines of WP and the official statements of SY. Alfalfahay 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't do it, probably no one else will. Happy Editing!!!!TheRingess 00:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I just disproved my own statement. I tightened the wording on Satsang to remove most of what would be original research. I also gave a reference basically the SY glossary page. I agree that it isn't a practice per se, maybe there could be a new section called programs in which both the intensive and satsang are included, but I'm too tired.

It also might be worth pointing out here, that according to WP's guidelines anyone can edit this article regardless of whether or not they follow the SY teachings. That kind of goes without saying. TheRingess 00:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

References, "Meditation Revolution"

According to WP:CITE references not specifically cited in the body of the article should be listed under "Further Reading". I believe this applies to the book "Meditation Revolution". Also, according to Wikipedia Tutorial (Keep in Mind) and WP:NPOV I do not yet see any good reason for excluding some reference to Pearce's book or Janis' book, and actually some justification *for* including them in some reference or further reading section. One of the claimed goals of Wikipedia is to be informative, I believe. Just because there apparently does not exist an anti-SY book with an ISBN is not a reason to exclude mere "further reading" references to Pearce's book or Janis' book (pro-SYDA) in the name of avoiding "undue weight" on the pro-SYDA side. Alfalfahay 06:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I see no reason to discount any book about SY from a Further Reading section.TheRingess 06:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

History, Gurudev Siddha Peeth date

The 1992 Hinduism Today article is not clear on whether SYDA considers the property given to Muktananda at Gavdevi to have been an Ashram *before* 1961, namely Shree Gurudev Ashram. Therefore I merely changed the founding date to cover the range 1956 to 1961 as a temporary adjustment. Perhaps somebody else will nail this down. To the best of my recollection the name change to Gurudev Siddha Peeth happened around the year that I started to study SY, that is, 1977. Alfalfahay 08:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

History, other swamis

I do not believe it is necessary to give references on all these swamis in this article. Currently, it is rather easy to find references on search engines to substatiate the statement that these people have claimed or are claimed by others to be disciples of Muktananda qualified in some way to teach yoga and meditation. Leave it up to the reader to decide whether he wants to find out more. Certainly it would be a disservice to newbies to remove these names since it would then require extensive searching on their part to come up with these names. Alfalfahay 08:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is according to WP:V. Search engines turn up a lot but we have to know that a source is reliable and the information has been fact checked. It is up to us to determine that not the reader. Also we should establish significance. I mean the co-guru stepping down seems to be fairly significant in the history. But why the other swamis? Why was their departure significant? I think that will be hard to show without lengthy, lengthy research. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a search engine. TheRingess 14:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
TheRingess actually suggested the topic of other swamis. It is certainly a fact that Adi Da, Chetananda, Shankarananda, Master Charles, Sally Kempton claim Swamihood, discipleship, teaching authority or "one of the above", as can easily be verified on their web sites. I intentionally phrased my language in terms of claim, in addition to actuality. Furthermore, there are many other swamis who actually gave up their vows and/or left SY completely, so the fact that these swamis claim some kind of authority from Muktananda puts undue weight on the pro-SY side. I accept this undue weight because most of the others who left are probably embarrassed to admit in public that they were SYDA swamis. In 1982 there was a video from SYDA showing the simultaneous initiation of about 20 [?] new swamis. I suspect that video has been destoyed or hidden from SY archives since it is very likely that most of them left SY. I believe TheRingess is putting undue weight on the WP guidelines that favor deletion of information, most likely because the deletion and ommission of information favors the SYDA effort at revisionism of its history. I don't claim that TheRingess is necessarily actually working under the guidance of SYDA, just that he is using the WP guidelines as a weapon to reduce the amount of information in this article. It is fairly clear that the more informaion, even pro-SY information, in the article, the more likely it is that someone will be able to pick up a thread that allows him or her to uncover additional positive or negative info. Furthermore from SYDA point of view, Nityananda is just another of the swami not authorized to teach SY (SM), neither more or less, just like the other mentioned swamis. Sally Kempton is a different case since her exit from SYDA employ was apparently amicable. If this were an article on the Catholic Church, for example, I'm sure that it would be acceptable under WP guidelines to mention the fact that Martin Luther was a schismatic priest and that John Calvin was a former teacher or professor in a catholic institution of higher learning of some kind, I don't remember the details.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlfalfaHay (talk • contribs) .
I believe that I suggested that there be a section about famous students, past and present. Not just about swamis. As I see it, one of the problems with your addition, was that there was very little context, within which an average reader could understand the addition. Why not list all swamis past and present? Where is there a definitive list of those swamis? Why put it with the Nityananda entry? Did no swamis leave before or after. I suggested that a potential new section might be Famous Students. I also pointed out that each entry would have to be carefully sourced and a caveat added that the list might be out of date.TheRingess 00:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
And my opinion also, from an organizational standpoint, would be that it reads a bit better if significant details about significant events in the history are given their own line. So details like swamis moving away to start their own schools should be on their own line using a link as a source. That was the primary reason I deleted the lengthy Nityananda entry. TheRingess 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

History, Muktabodha

I believe it is important to point out that Agama Press is an imprint of Muktabodha Indological Research Institute because of potential conflict of interest in researching SYDA with a situation where SYDA sponsors the Institute. However, if it is *not* pointed out that Agama Press is only a publishing imprint for the USA then the impression is left that Agama Press is the main imprint. This is probably not true since it seems that subsequent publications of the Institute are *not* being printed in USA. Alfalfahay 09:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You duly pointed it out here. It's probably not necessary (and even potentially slanderous) to point it out on the article page, unless there are specific documented example in which a conflict of interest was proven. Also an intelligent reader will probably be able to figure out for themselves what books they read or don't read. TheRingess 14:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not make myself clear. "Gurumayi founds the Muktabodha Institute with its own publishing imprint, Agama Press" could be changed to "Gurumayi founds the Muktabodha Institute with its USA publishing imprint, Agama Press" to make it more accurate. However, even that would be misleading becauses the main imprint now is probably something else. However, the modification of TheRingess is technically correct and therefore could remain as is. Unnecessary back and forth changes in the article itself make the page history too big and clumsy. Since this article "belongs" to the TheRingess, I do not want to "challenge" unnecessarily. I think it's quite obvious that my intent in mentioning Agama Press is an imprint of Muktabodha was to give enough information for the reader to be able to detect the possibility of a conflict of interest. I am obviously anti-SY and I only think that it is my obligation to present any negative info accurately. I'll leave it up to others to present positive information. I strongly suspect that there is enough evidence in the recordings of the 1999 scholarly meeting (recordings of talks available on LSY) discussing "Meditation Revolution" to prove conflict of interest, but I am not interested enough to prove it.
BTW I'd recommend to pro-SY editors to leave out references to books by Pearce and Janis, even tho' positive, because they are probably not sanitized enough and could open up some leads to additional negative info. Alfalfahay 17:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
libel, slander, conflict of interest are WP articles. The latter does NOT imply wrongdoing. This is just a technical side comment. Not recommending any change to article. But as a side comment, it appears to me that "Meditation Revolution" is *by definition* a conflict of interest. Furthermore, I believe WP guidelines may discourage but do not prohibit it. For example, a famous person could write an article about himself. Acknowledging himself as author, i.e. admitting conflict of interest without any necesary implication of wrongdoing, should be enough to keep the article within guidelines. Otherwise, if WP policy actually forbade conflict of interest then probably the only place legitimate to mention it would be in "Further Reading", or mention/quote it with caveats. Alfalfahay 17:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Firstly, according to Wikipedia's own guidelines, this article does not belong to anyone, let alone me. Secondly, regarding the tenets and practices, holidays, and documented history, I personally see no reason why the Meditation Revolution or SY website would represent a conflict of interest in those areas. Perhaps a fellow editor might suggest a reputable source other than the SY website or the book that describes the tenets and the practices accurately, then we could use that as a source. I say that, because I don't know of another (which is a long way from saying one doesn't exist). Perhaps, if this were a discussion forum and there was a debate regarding allegations or controversy, then I would agree that using Meditation Revolution as a source might represent a conflict of interest. However, as far as the material stands, neither the book nor the SY website are used as sources for the criticism section. The main sources, for the brief criticism section are articles published in reputable newspapers and magazines. And there does seem to be a reasonable assumption that the articles were checked and reviewed.
I apologize if I appeared to be claiming that TheRingness was engaging in conflict of interest as a violation of WP guidelines by using "Meditation Revolution" and/or SYDA web site as references. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DOES NOT ENTAIL WRONGDOING or violation of WP guidelines. By the use of the words "side comment" my intent was to indicate that my remark did not apply to the SY article itself. Instead my intent was to claim that "Meditation Revolution" itself, or at least its production, constituted "conflict of interest" but not necessarily violation of any other scholarship standards. I claim there were two forms of conflict of interest in the creation of "Meditation Revolution" 1. some (or the majority?) of the authors were adherents of SY 2. the work was sponsored by SY. Conflict of interest does not entail wrongdoing. Therefore the authors may have acted in good faith. There are claims that Swami Durgananda did actually include discussion of Muktananda's alleged sexual issues, which discussion was claimed to have been removed AFTER the editorial review process was complete. To me this indicates at least some effort at good faith on the part of Swami Durgananda wrt this issue, but not necessarily by SYDA. There are also allegations that the archives of SYDA were intentionally mutilated by SYDA therefore rendering research on them questionable even if the intent of the authors was unbiased. I do not believe there is an actual WP guideline requirement that references not contain a conflict of interest, because under WP guidelines, e.g. in an article such as a famous person writing about himself, a conflict of interest WOULD be permitted provided there was not UNDUE WEIGHT on certain views about said famous person.
To give another example, the mere fact that I am an opponent of SYDA and post any info about SYDA in this article, automatically constitutes conflict of interest, even if the information is apparently positive. However conflict of interest does not in and of itself constitute violation of WP guidelines in any way. If that were the case then many articles in WP would not exist or would be skeletons.
As an editor I am definitely intentionally engaging in conflict of interest because I am an opponent of SYDA. However that does not necessarily make the info I post a violation of WP guidelines. Perhaps TheRingess. unlike me, is not intentionally engaging in conflict of interest (WHICH DOES NOT IMPLY WRONGDOING ANYWAY). If ones interest in a field is merely scholarly curiousity, then one might be free of "confict of interest". Alfalfahay 04:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Now regarding your allegations about my motives for editing, you do have recourse. Given the discussion here about "conflict of interest" I am probably not the best person to recommend the links and the processes you might go through. I am sure that tbere are many admins and fellow editors, without any conflict of interest, that would be more than willing to help you investigate possibilities. As far as I can tell, and this is just my opinion (as with everything I state here), this page is not appropriate for discussions about my or any other editors motivations. In my opinion, those types of discussions belong on user discussion pages or in arbitration. You might wish to look at wikipedia's guidelines about keeping good faith and that if you feel that I acted in bad faith, many people will be more than willing to listen and to examine the evidence. TheRingess 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not have the interest or stamina to continue editing this article. It seems as if it would require days or weeks of arguement just to get some small bits of easily verifiable relevant information into the article. Perhaps I misinterpreted the motives of TheRingess. However, it appears to me that the main thrust of many edits of TheRingess has been to interpret the WP guidelines in the strictest way possible, turning recommendations into absolute laws, such that the net effect is to make the article LESS INFORMATIVE. Another possible motivation for that thrust might be desire for "tightness" which sometimes is a laudable goal. BTW it would be historically interesting to track down articles in the press about the relationship between Richard Alpert and Werner Erhard and Muktananda, but a lot of work too. To find out why the scene of Muktananda was cut from the Sun Seed movie in the early seventies, etc. I intend to stop editing this SY article unless something unexpected comes up to change my mind. And, I am not expecting any reply to these remarks which are mainly an apology to explain that I was not accusing anybody of "conflict of interest" merely because of the references to Revolution or SYDA *and* an apology for assuming that I "knew" the motivations behind the edits of TheRingess. Alfalfahay 04:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
One good thing to do, that not everyone is aware of is to place the {{helpme}} tag on your discussion page. Someone usually "shows up" fairly quickly and they could possibly answer any questions you might have. TheRingess 01:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Next Archive

The current version of this talk page is getting rather long. So I think it might be time to archive. Sept. 24 or 25 would probably be a good time since that should be time enough for all interested editors to read and respond to the current topics under discussion. Just a heads up. TheRingess 14:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Siddha Yogis of the Siddha Yoga lineage

In case anybody wants to add a section about the other "predecessor" siddha yogis (whose pictures are sold by SYDA), I spent considerable time collecting links to sites about them and posted small excerpts and links at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/siddhayoga , which is a group whose archives are PUBLIC so nobody has to join to see all messages, Aug/Sept 2006 time frame. I am not suggesting this article link there. Just as a resource for editors, if so desired. I have no interest in SY. Therefore I have very little stamina left to continue trying to edit this article. I am fearful of an organization like SYDA that mutilates it's own archives, and I think others should be wary. Alfalfahay 16:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable students

As per my own suggestions elsewhere, I started this section. And started it with Pearce, using as a reference the Bond of Power book.

I'm not really sure how much this adds to the article.

I'm using the word notable here in the way that I understand fellow Wikipedia editors use it.

In other words, when determining when someone should be added to this section we should probably go by the guidelines set forth in WP:BIO.

I would also suggest that we keep each person's entry somewhat short, 1 - 3 sentences, just for readability's sake.

TheRingess 06:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

After some consideration, I decided to delete this section. I thought it would probably raise too many neutrality questions vis a vis, who is included and why. I also think that the article probably needs to be a little longer before this kind of a section would really add to it.

This of course doesn't mean other editors can't reinstate it or write a similar section if they feel so motivated (that goes without saying but sometimes it's not obvious to newcomers).

TheRingess 00:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)