Talk:Siddha Yoga/Archive 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 |
History section
Since some people have suggested that the history should be expanded, I have worked out a few paragraphs that do this. I thought I would put it up in the next few days and people can comment. Then we can take it from there. At this stage I'm only concentrating on the early years, from Nityananda to Fallsburg. Sardaka 09:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Made some changes to the first sentence. Sardaka 10:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hindu?
I changed the first sentence to something I thought was more suitable, but I see someone has changed it back to the first version, in which SY is described as practising traditional Hindu practices. I doubt very much if SY would say they are practising "traditional Hindu practices". SY is an autonomous organization and they have never, to my knowledge, described themselves as Hindu. I know someone who was hauled over the coals at an SY ashram for telling someone it was Hindu.
I suggest we try to clear this up now. Does anyone have any evidence that SY is officially a Hindu organization? If not, can we get rid of the Hindu label forthwith?
The opening sentence could say something to the effect that SY is a spiritual organization teaching Indian philosophy and spiritual practices, for example. Sardaka 09:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you click on the History tab you can find out who made the change and contact them on their talk page. SY does say that their philosophies are based on Kashmir shaivism and advaita vedanta, both of which are considered by many to be branches of Hinduism. On the other hand, removing one word is not a big deal. I'm not concerned either way. Why not just drop the word Indian as well. Are the practices necessarily Indian? If you contact the person who objected on their talk page, you might get a little farther. Don't get into a revert war over a minor detail.TheRingess (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Changed the first sentence again. If anyone disagrees with the change, please talk about it here and we can clear it up.
Sardaka 09:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Changes
As I said I would do previously, I have rewritten the first few paragraphs to provide more detail on the early history of SY, since it was generally agreed that there was a need for more history. Comments are now invited and we can take it from here.
Sardaka 10:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nice work. It needs some cross linking to other articles. Weave it into the web of knowledge across Wikipedia. Lumos3 10:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good work. This fragment seems a little vague to me "...who had been dedicated to the spiritual path". Which spiritual path was he on? The sentence also makes it sound like there is only one spiritual path.TheRingess (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Nityananda
I thought it was worth mentioning that no-one knew where Nitya came from or where he was born, which I put in the first or second sentence, because it is relevant info, just as his birthplace and DOB would be relevant if we had them. Should I put it back in?
Sardaka 12:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I removed them because the linked article Bhagawan Nityananda, gives his place of birth and approximate date. Therefore, somebody does know. IPSOS (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hindu? Moi?
I rang the manager's office at Fallsburg and was assured that Siddha Yoga is not Hinduism. Indian origins, yes, but it is not Hinduism. Unfortunately, I forgot to ask about Gurumayi herself, but presumably the answer would be the same. I'm still waiting to hear from info@sy for their version of it.
The reason I keep harping on it is that, if SY is not Hindu, then we're misleading people who read the article.
The new historical material is developing really well.I see someone tracked down the Time article with Muktananda in it. Good work.
Sardaka 10:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is the opening sentence accurate? Are the practices of SY "traditional Indian practices"? If so, how are they different from Hindu practices or meditation/chanting practices from other countries? My thought is that if SY isn't Hindu, then it's probably not any more accurate to call their practices "traditional Indian practices". However I can't think of a way to reword the intro. Thanks for taking the time to contact the manager's office. In my opinion, the best way to resolve this question is to ensure that we write an accurate and informative article about the history/practices/tenets of SY. Then an interested reader can decide for themselves how SY is similar to and/or different from not just branches of Hinduism but all religions/spiritual paths.TheRingess (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be misleading people not to mention Hinduism, a very broad and loose term anyway, since every SY practise and text I can think of is drawn from Hinduism. Traditional Indian practices is completely inadequate. See Source 2 of the article , "What Westerners call “Hinduism” is an extremely diverse group of beliefs and practices who's main common characteristic is their presence in India. " Lumos3 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have always had a problem with the word "traditional" in the opening sentence. The key characteristic of SY is shaktipat, and it's probably debatable whether shaktipat can be described as traditional. How about I delete "traditional" and we can see how we like it?
Sardaka 11:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and changed the first sentence to make it clear that Siddha Yoga is a part of Kashmir Shaivism. This is supported by the SY literature and website and I know of no published material that contradicts that. I think this is more accurate and more informative than calling Siddha Yoga "a spiritual organization". I'm not sure that "branch" is the most appropriate word but can't think of a better one, perhaps "school" is more accurate and more informative. We could also expand the sentence to include a mention of advaita vedanta. We can also continue to expand the rest of the article so that an interested reader can then learn how SY differs from other schools of Kashmir Shaivism, Advaita Vedanta and other religions. TheRingess (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Kashmir Shaivism
I understand the need to honor everyone's input, but the term 'Hindu Kashmir Saivism lineage' is a pretty awkward construction in my opinion. I'd like to suggest either 'Guru in a lineage of the Hindu tradition of Kashmir Shaivism', or 'Hindu Kashmir Saivite lineage' as a replacement. I also want to add the caveat that Gurumayi has never called her lineage a Kashmir Shaivite lineage that I know of. Swami Muktananda said only that Kashmir Shaivism is the philosopy that most closely resembles Siddha Yoga. Kashmir Shaivism is only one of the traditions referenced in Gurumayi's teachings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MahaDave (talk • contribs) 02:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
I like your suggestions regarding the wording and I suggest that you go ahead and correct the grammar. Personally, I'm not sure that we can say that Gurumayi has never called SY a Kashmir Shaivite lineage, as this implies access to knowledge a casual reader might not have. In other words, how would a reader verify that.
To me the real objective here seems to be to come up with an accurate, brief description of SY (for the introduction of both articles only, since the real meat of the article should be detailed enough for a casual reader to gain a beginning understanding).
In my opinion, calling SY a "spiritual organization" is too vague to be helpful, although one can argue that the rest of the article would explain that meaning.
I also don't like referring to the practices/tenets of SY as "Indian yogic practices" because that is also not very useful. After all, most if not all of the world's religions have substantial adherents in India. So which of those many denominations are we really referring to?
Here's a brief quote from the SY web site:
The Siddha Yoga teachings spring from the timeless scriptural traditions of Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta, as well as from the experience of the enlightened Siddha masters.
.
In my opinion this supports the statement that Siddha Yoga is not only a branch of Hinduism, but is closely related to Kashmir Shaivism.
However I realize that statement says the teachings spring from those two traditions and doesn't explicitly state that Siddha Yoga is a school of Kashmir Shaivism.
My personal suggestion is that we remove our focus on the word Hindu and put it on the process of createing together, a description that we all feel is accurate, neutral, useful and supported by the available literature.
Any ideas?
Note: I copied this entire section from the talk page for Gurumayi, as I believe it to be relevant.
Since I seem to have a lot of time on my hands this evening, I'd like to present an analogy that I feel is relevant.
The following line is from the Sufism article.
Sufism is a mystic tradition that found a home in Islam and encompasses a diverse range of beliefs and practices dedicated to Allah, divine love and the cultivation of the heart.
To me this opening sentence is very well written. It establishes that Sufism is a branch of islam and yet makes it clear that Sufism itself is not exactly the same as Islam.
To me, this presents a direction I think we should be heading in. The introduction needs to quickly establish the essential roots of SY (which to a casual observer would be Hinduism). Then the rest of the article should go on to explain enough that the reader can decide for themselves how SY distinguishes itself from Kashmir Shaivism in general, hence from Hinduism in general and therefore from all of the other world's religions.
We can support the argument that SY is not merely only a branch of Kashmir Shaivism by showing the reader which other traditions Gurumayi and Muktananda quote, honor and/or borrow from and which specific philosophies/teachings are different from the general philosophies of KS and Hinduism.
It's easy to see why a casual reader might form the impression that SY is nothing but a Hindu sect since the article uses Sanskrit terms that are not in wide use amongst other religions. (e.g. ashram, swami, guru, guru gita, mantra, swadhyaya, mahasamadhi, gurukula, etc.).
TheRingess (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
To say that SY is a part of Kashmir Shaivism is misleading. The SY literature makes it clear that SY is related to KS and Vedanta. To say that it is part of KS is quite another matter; it makes it sound lke SY is nothing but a subdivision of KS.
Another thing: for the sake of attribution, I inserted a reference to show that the role of KS and vedanta are stated clearly in Kindle My Heart. This is the sort of attribution that we are expected to do, and is the natural thing in an encyclopedia. So what happens? Someone deleted the reference. Would the person who deleted the reference like to explain why we should not have a reference like this on the page?
I really wonder sometimes.
Sardaka 09:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- The history tab would answer your question. I will since I removed it for practical reasons. The section already had a reference to the essential teachings page that supports all of the statements in the section, not just the statements about the aphorisms, so an extra reference at the end seemed unnecessary.TheRingess (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I really wonder too. Was Nityananda Hindu? Muktananda? When does a clearly Hindu paramapara based on clearly Hindu texts and practices become non-Hindu? It seems perfectly appropriate to list other influences. It seems downright against common sense to not acknowledge that Shaivism is Hindu, that Kashmir Shaivism is Hindu, that bhakti is Hindu, that the Guru Gita is Hindu, etc. IPSOS (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Shaktipat Intensive
I think there should be a more prominent mention of the Shaktipat intensives. The website makes it clear that it is an important part of SY practice, but at the moment there is nothing about it. There used to be a mention of it, but the gremlins removed it.
Sardaka 09:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, I removed that section. The brief material that was in that section is now in the History section. It seemed to me to be redundant to have that section. The section was not so much about intensives but about shaktipat. It's just my opinion that the shaktipat section should have more information than what is contained in the history section.TheRingess (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation?
I know that most if not all of the SY literature is copyrighted. There is a passage in the history section that seems to be copied verbatim from the book Ashes at my Guru's feet. Does anyone have an argument that this is not a copyright violation? Is its usage here "fair use"? TheRingess (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The quote from Ashes is fair use. It's perfectly acceptable to quote short passages providing we give credit and don't pretend that the passage is our own writing.
Anyway, quoting this passage was your idea in the first place. Originally, I made a reference to this passage without quoting directly. You suggested quoting the passage and putting the name etc in the References.
Can't agree that the passage in the History covers the subject of Shaktipat Intensives. It covers the phenomenon of shaktipat, but not Shaktipat Intensives as such. Since they are a central plank of SY, it would be worth touching on them.
You shouldn't be in such a hurry to delete other people's contributions. If we all went around deleting each other's contributions, the aricles would be in shreds. You might also make people feel that it's a waste of time contributing if someone else is going to delete it all. You might end up being the only one left, and you'd have the articles all to yourself. Maybe that's what you want.
It has certainly worked on me. By now I'm getting tired of the wankers who keep stuffing up the SY articles, so I'm going to take my bat and ball and go home. You won't have me getting in your way anymore, so you're one step closer to having it all to yourself. (Don't worry about replying. I won't be listening anymore.)
Sardaka 13:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, my words were: "I also like the idea of adding information about her initiation process". I then went on to say to use the book as a reference. I did not say add copyrighted material. I have reinstated the material Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text supports its inclusion.TheRingess (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
