Talk:Techniques of Knowledge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Techniques of Knowledge article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

[edit] Edits Aug 2006

There is no need to put quotation marks around the word followers. Most style guides do not recommend this practice. The sentence beginning with "Eileen Baker..." is almost impossible to understand, and the section about Haan contains repetition and a lack of clarity. I intend changing these. Errol V 12:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't make any sense of the "Eileen ..." section and was tempted to delete it as incoherent, but I suspect that would be too controversial, could someone delete or re-write in English. StopItTidyUp 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to break up the text with sections as it's too long, and too incherent. I'm happy for the section headings to be changed, but some sectioning is necessary StopItTidyUp 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted the word 'secret' as POV. They aren't secret, because anyone can find them in two clicks. StopItTidyUp 09:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the word secrest either, but you deleted the opinion of a scholar. In WIkipedia we report what reliable sources say about the subject, we do not connect the dots or engage om original research. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

The last few paragraphs have little or nothing to do with anything that precedes them.Momento 10:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I will remove the last two paragraphs in a few days.Momento 10:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't the techniques outlined here? They are not covered by copyright and so it seems POV to leave them out. I won't add them now as it's controversial, but it deserves debate. StopItTidyUp 09:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Because there are no reliable sources that describe them.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This leads as back to a discussion we had some years ago: If there are no reliable sources that describle the ToK, we should delete the article. --Pjacobi 14:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem in exploring the deletion the article and merging whatever material is not duplicated into the Prem Rawat article. But note, that as there are many reliable sources that speak about these techniques, it may be not a good idea to delete the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, an explorative AfD? Strictly speaking, this should be handled by article content RfC first, but you know that this process is rather broken and only gets enough eyeballs if it's on a topic like Israel-Palestine, Bush, Creationism, Nintendo or other hot spots of enwiki. Most RfC on NRMs I've seem failed to get significant response. --Pjacobi 15:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me do some research first to see if there is any scholar out there that wrote about the specifics of the techniques. WIll take me a couple fo days. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs to be one or the other - either it exists and should be described, or it doesn't and it should be deleted, however, it seems that this topic/individual/movement inspires some heated PoV so maybe an admin could kick off a formal debate? StopItTidyUp 14:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi StopItTidyUp (thx BTW for external link cleanup). Fine to see someone still with the mythical belief in the power of admins. If this question would in any way be solvable by unilateral admin intervention, it would have been solved by now. No shortage of admins here (Jossi and me, at least). --Pjacobi 15:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No reason why we should not be able to resolve this, Peter. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The section discussing the sound meditation by Kranenborg ends on the words "assumes the;". There are some missing words. Tgubler 22:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed it. I will correct it. Andries 22:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Peter, found several sources:

Lewis, James R. The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions (1998) pp.227-7, Prometheus Books, ISBN 1-57392-226-6

"Initiation into the yoga occurs through a process referred as "giving knowledge" during which an instructor introduces new members to four yogic techniques which reveal the means of experiencing the divine light, sound, word and nectar."

Lippy, Charles H., Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience : Studies of Traditions and Movements (1998) pp.1521 , Charles Scribner's Sons, ISBN 0-68418-062-6

[The teachings of Maharaj ji] emphasizes a powerful experience of inner light, sound, sweet tastes and vibrations.

As well as description of the techniques that someone already posted on your talk page from this source:

Melton, Gordon J., Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (1992) pp. 143-4, Garland Publishing, ISBN 0-81531-140-0

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

At least a couple seem to be described in the Process section of Contemporary Sant Mat movements without citation. StopItTidyUp 12:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I has been done. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

I have a problem with such a long unwieldy text from Kranenborg. I think the bullets or numbers that I had originaly used make it much easier to read. Andries 16:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree.It is an opinion of Kranenborg and as presented it gives a different impression and undue weight to his viewpoint. Better off in a text block as we are citing all other scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree about undue weight. Kranenborg is well-respected. he is the only one who describes the techniques in such detail. Andries 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts first and only then opinions

I think that factual descriptions of the techniques should precede assesments and comments. In other words, I think it is wrong to place Hunt in front of Kranenborg or Melton. Andries 16:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

These are not "factual", Andries, as these people did not say that they were taught the techniques. These are opinions, same as all the others. Hunt gives context, which Kranenborg or Melton do not.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, Melton's and Kranenborg's descriptions are far more factual than Hunt. The "context" that you assert Hunt gives is a very subjective interpretation and should not precede factual descriptions in an encyclopedia. Andries 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I will give the article a neutrality warning for this. Facts should precede opinions in an encyclopedia. Andries 16:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A neutrality warning? You are not addressing my argument above. I find this disingenuous and not in good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is not called Teachings of Prem Rawat. Hunt's emphasis is on the teachings of Prem Rawat, not on the techniques. Andries 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The real "fact" is that neither Melton, nor Your favorite Dutch scholar know about these techniques as these were not taught to them. So, these are as good asn a opinion as any other scholar referenced in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not the way Wikipedia works. Andries 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hunt provides invaluable information that both Melton and Your Dutch scholar omit: that the techniques require "the guidance of a teacher". He also provides context about what these techniques are for. Te reader will be better informed if they read Hunt and then the competing viewpoints of Melton and Kranenborg. Ah... and before you attempt to preach others about how Wikipedia works, you better take a good and serious look in the mirror.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Haan wrote this more or less too. Shall we start with Haan then? Andries 16:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A student before scholars? Not an option. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This student did during two years participant observation and published his results in a university press magazine about relgious movement. This make the source highly reputable and relevant. Is there anybody else who did this? I do not think so. Andries amended 18:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

He was a student that reached certain mistaken conclusions based on is world-view. To call that "highly reputable" is not appropriate. Nevertheless, it is in the article so do no know what is the problem. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of Haan. He reached his conclusions based on his observations. It seems that several others agree with his observations as can be seen from the comments on this talk page and the talk page of the DLM. His article is one of the best available sources. I did not find a single mistake in his article. I am not saying that Haan is completely without bias, but then who is? Andries 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to disagree, of course. Just that I know that his conclusions are totally and utterly wrong. As I said, his reference is in the article, so there is nothing more to discuss. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But then why do other (ex-)premies write so adamantly that Haan was right? I am sincerely interested in solving this mystery. Andries 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You can contact me via email, if you want to discuss. These pages are not for discussing the subject, but the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And also, the premies were invited and allowed to give comments on the article before it was published and as far as I know nobody disagreed. Andries 18:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the full article, so my assessment is based on the specific comments that you chose to add to this article. For example that the "secrecy" had anything to do with a "life of devotion" and that another reason for such purported secrecy was to discourage people to pursue other paths, both assertions are totally off the mark. All what Maharaji asks is that people make a promise not to reveal the techniques to others, for the reasons that he stated as added to the article. That promise is made by the person in their own heart (no one asks you to sign a document or even declare verbally that you will not break that promise) and the techniques are taught in good faith and with the hope that the person will practice them and benefit from them. Maharaji also says that if you don't like it, to walk away, but not to give up looking for inner peace. You may be paying too much attention to what detractors say, Andries. The fact is that this is a very simple thing. It is often said that the techniques have a buit-in protection mechanism, and these do not work if the person has not discovered first his own thirst for inner peace, has a comittment to give it a fair chance, and approaches the practice of these techniques with simplicity and trust. I can only speak of my own experience. I have been practicing these techniques daily for more that 20 years, and my experience has been beautiful, sweet and simple. In good times and in bad times, I have felt inner peace through this practice. That is all I would say in this page. If you have further questions, you can email me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off topic

I had already requested year ago reference for the assertion that the section Generic references to the kryias, Knowledge and the teacher talked about the techniques of knowledge as practised in the DLM/Elan Vital and taught by Maharaji and other. I am still waiting for it. Unless references are provided I consider the section off-topic. Andries 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved to a separate article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks are u sure that the spelling of the new article title is correct? Kryia or Kriya? Andries

Corrected. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of bullet points

Jossi, please explain your reversion of my edit adding bullet points to emphasize the four techniques. Now they are buried in the text and much less readable. Also, please say why you prefer not having the first section title, which obviates the explicit TOC entry. --Blainster 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The opinion of the Dutch religious scholar and Christian minister Reender Kranenborg does not need to be featured so prominently, as it is only one viewpoint amongst many. There are other viewpoints such as the one presented by J. Gordon Melton. Both these viewpoints should be presented as such, using bullet points gives undue weight to one viewpoint, and that is not acceptable. As for the article's organization, you placed many viewpoints under the section "Description", when there are only two descriptions (Melton's and Kranenborg's). I will attempt to better organize the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reorganized the article, and added a couple of new sources. I think that the new organization works better than what we had before. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The reorganization of sections looks improved. Regarding the bulleting of the four techniques, they are described, if somewhat differently, by all the authors as the basis of the system, so they should be emphasized. Why not list them separately, along with the different descriptions of each one? --Blainster 18:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Because you give undue weight to what is the opinion of these two scholars. Note that these two scholars, did not learn these techniques, they are just describing something based on what they have heard. As such, if we list these descriptions, we need to list them as opinions and not as facts, and attibute each viewpoint to each one of them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haan opinions

RE: Your edit whose summary readeds "Haan never intended to voice his observations as criticism and they were voiced in a neutral tone".

You do not know what an author's motivations were or were not
He was a member of a critical group
The contents are obviously critical

I see no reason why not to include this source under a "Critical views" section. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no indication that they were meant as criticsm and I do not see why the contents is critical. He did not belong to a group critical of DLM or critical of cults. He even had his article reviewed by premies. His observations completely correspond with what has been voiced in other Dutch scholarly articles. Andries 22:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from article

(moved from article. Posted by new user User:Simon King LCPH)

It should not be assumed that the descriptions below are accurate. The techniques can be learned free of charge from Prem Rawat, and those that appreciate what he offers will not divulge the exact nature of these techniques, because they understand the value of the process that Prem Rawat has set up to ensure the techniques are given a proper chance to be appreciated. There is no reason why any interested party should not learn them for themsleves, free of charge. Prem Rawat asks that the specifics of these techniques not be divulged for the simple reason that he is genuinely concerned that people fully understand the process and value of the practice he advocates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon King LCPH (talk • contribs)

I can't tell - is the writer saying that the knowledge is free or should be free? Is there any information available on the tuition cost classes, etc? It sounds like the writer is conflating two issues, cost and secrecy. We've already got info on the confidentiallity of the knowledge in the article, so that aspect seems redundant. -Will Beback 03:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no charge for Knowledge. It is freely given. [1] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I will try to find some verifiable information that addresses the points made by User:Simon King LCPH. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Techniques

I am disturbed that Melton's and Kranenborg's description of the techniques are quoted here, since they contradict each other, so who is right? I guess this is why Wiki has a policy of not being an instruction manual. When an editor starts saying how things are done, Wiki runs the risk of misinforming. The policy states While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials. Describing how to do the techniques are clearly instructions and made all the worse by being contradictory. I will remove them unless someone comes up with a really good argument I haven't though of.Momento 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Describing a procedure is not the same as telling how to do it. The descriptions now in the text do not appear intended as instructions, any more than saying that a description of a Catholic Mass is the same as instructions in conducting a Mass. Please don't remove neutral, sourced material. The article would be much poorer without some descriptions of the techniques. -Will Beback · † · 04:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the difference between "describing a procedure" and "telling someone how to do it". If the description of the procedure is accurate then someone should know how to do it (the procedure). And they are definitely instructions. A description of the techniques might be - there are a four of them and they are used to direct your senses inward. These are not descriptions but instructions on how to do them. And worse, they contradict each other, so they can't both be accurate descriptions of the techniques.Momento 05:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How can we change them to make them less instructive? The fact that they contradict one another isn't a problem, we can simply say that descriptions differ. It doesn't mean that both are wrong, or even that either is wrong. Again, I direct you to the example of "Mass (liturgy)". How should this article be different from that one? -Will Beback · † · 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can change these quotes to make them less instructive. They are instructions and therefore the shouldb't be here. I have removed them.Momento 10:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I will find more "descriptions" of the techniques and of people's experiences.Momento 11:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have deleted more than just the quotes. You even deleted material from Maharaji. Was tha inaccurate too? I'm disturbed that you deleted sourced, neutral material even when another editor disputed the removal, with no attempt to improve or fix it. -Will Beback · † · 18:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Momento, this article has been repeatedly criticized in the past because of missing description. I strongly object to remove the descriptions. Andries 21:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry WillBeback, I took out more than intended. Andries, these are clearly instructions to meditate and therefore have no place in Wiki. I don't care if this article is criticised for following Wiki policy.Momento 03:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you request mediation, because I continue to disagree. Request for comments on Prem Rawat related articles only rarely if ever yield results. Andries 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What's there to mediate? The sections I removed contain instructions on how to meditate and that is against Wiki policy. Wiki policy is clear "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials.Momento 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no tutorial in this article. I will revert. Please request mediation or I will do it. Andries 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead Andries. Wiki policy says Wiki articles should not include instructions and Wikipedia articles should not contain "how-to"s. How you are unable to see Kranenborg and Melton instructions on how to meditate is beyond me, perhaps another editor can point it out to you?Momento 23:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Momento, as I pointed out earlier this artilce is far less detailed than Mass (liturgy). Do you have any response? And are you contending that the deleted material was so compreheisve and accurate that it would be sufficient for a reader to know exactly how to mediate following the Techniques of Knowledge? -Will Beback · † · 23:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Since these two sets of instructions on how to (supposedly) meditate the Rawat way contradict each other, you can't say they would be sufficient for a reader to know exactly how to mediate following the Techniques of Knowledge? BUt that is beside the point. The point is they are "instructions", "a how to do", a "tutorial" on meditation, as such they shouldn't be in the article according to Wiki policy.Momento 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am fed up by Momento's repeated Mass deletions of well-sourced neutral material. Andries 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Being "well sourced" and "neutral" isn't the point Andries. They are "instructions", "a how to do", a "tutorial" on meditation, as such they shouldn't be in the article according to Wiki policy.Momento 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it might look liek a tutoreal if u didnt no what a tutoreel was or maybe u if u were trying to be dense and pretend it was a good reason to delete something u didnt like so which is it are you ignorant or just pretending? 52-DSL 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A way can be found to use these sources without making this article into a "how-to" as in violation of WP:NOT#IINFO. Ay proposals on how we can achieve that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, keep the descriptions the way they were. This article never was an instruction manual or how-to guide. Andries 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how text that says "The third technique involves concentration upon the sound of one's own breathing" is an instruction. It simply indicates the focus of the technique. I assume there's much more to it than that. It's equivalent to saying "the priest then consecrates the wafer", which doesn't tell how to do it either. -Will Beback · † · 01:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got no idea how to consecrate the wafer and that description doesn't tell me how but I, and most other readers, will be able to concentrate upon the sound of one's own breathing. It is a clear instruction.Momento 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)wrong i dont no how 2 consecentraet on breathing according 2 teh style of Techniques of Knowledge and that description doesnt tell how me how 2 do it so i cant learn how so its not an instruction unless it tells me to close my eyes or maybe to use a stethescope or stair at a candel or sumthing so its just a description so stop complaining 52-DSL 02:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Will beback is ovbiously right and he says his point better than i can n i think its pretty funny how jossi and mentos are always on the same side and saying every1 else is wrong and teaming up to remove and delete anything any1 else says that they dont liek 01:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with Andries and Will here. WP:NOT#IINFO is very clear about this: Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise). People can hurt themselves by following these mistaken instructions. What can be done is to say in the article that two scholars wrote competing explanations of these techniques, give the names of the techniques as reported by these sources, and give the sources so people that want to read about them can do so outside of Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There was never a violation of WP:NOT#IINFO. Andries 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am arguing that there is such violation, Andries. These are specific instructions purportedly to access an inner experience. Readers may decide to try them, and these techniques as wrongly explained can be dangerous to people. They are mistaken, they are misleading and they don't belong here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We are not coming a millimeter closer. Further discussion does not make any sense. Andries 13:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, as usual I find your objections completely unconvincing. The description in this entry were written by the religious scholars Kranenborg and Melton. Kranenborg and Melton are not meditation teachers and they clearly never had the intention to write a how-to manual. Andries 13:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you always find my arguments completely unconvincing, Andries, maybe you need to take a hard look at yourself, and ask yourself where are you coming from, and why is that. Kranenborg and Melton's intentions is not what is questioned. What has been asked, and that your refuse to address is the fact that these erroneous instructions, if followed as described in the article can be harmful. This is exactly the reason why we do not have how-to's in WP, and that includes such things as legal or medical advise. Read the policy, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What's our source for the descriptions being erroneous? Certainly if some claim them to be erroneous we should include those viewpoints too. But we can't judge, as Wikipedia editors, which viewpoint is "right". -Will Beback · † · 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My argument, Will, is not that these are erroneous (although these descriptions are such). My argument is that one of the reasons behind WP:NOT#IINFO is that as we do not offer advice in WP such as legal, or medical, this include instructions about how to do these techniques, in particular when the instructions given can result in harm. I argue that these instructions, if followed as presented, can be harmful to a person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand we certainly don't want to cause harm, nor even to do good (give advice) ither. OTOH we do describe many topics that can cause harm if done incorrectly. Flight planning, rock climbing, and Coronary artery bypass surgery; to name a few. We describe the heart surgery in some detail but I don't the article contains instructions, nor should we expect that readers will use the article as their guide to performing the procedure.

I think the best solution for this material is to summarize it briefly rather than quote it at length, and leave the quotations for the references at the end. We can certainly leave the details that might cause bodily harm out of the summary. One reason I think a summary approach is more appropriate is that some of the writers use the second person, which does give it the appearance of instruction. For example, if the heart surgery surgery contained quotes saying, "Next you clamp the aorta" or "One should remember to keep the sutures tight" then that'd be inappropriate too. It wouldn't be inappropriate to say that, "The surgeon next clamps the aorta" or "Tight sutures are important in heart surgery to prevent the wound from re-opening". So let's just do the best job we can of verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view. -Will Beback · † · 08:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That would work, Will. Thanks for the sensible proposal. Would you be interested in attempting that summarization? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In looking at Coronary_artery_bypass_surgery, I see that there are hardly any instructions, just a generic and short explanation of what the procedure is. If we can follow that example, we shall be fine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be caused by the translation. The original Dutch did not contain the word "you", but uses a Dutch person form "men" for which there is not an easy English translation. Andries 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Andries, these are not instructions about how to do the "techniques of Knowledge." These are basic descriptions of the techniques, and can be found in many books outside of Wikipedia, and as Will Bebeck said above, there is no source for this article to state that they are incorrect as described. If the premies/students here have a problem with the description because they are bound by vows to Prem Rawat (which are required for every student before "receiving Knowledge,") "not to reveal these techniques to anyone for any reason," or whatever the vow du jour is these days, then those students should recuse themselves from editing this particular Rawat-related article. This is an encyclopedia not a guide to following Prem Rawat. Also, the Transendental Meditation (TM) article has descriptions of those meditation techniques, as well as links to the same. Hope this helps. Once again, these are not instructions, they are discriptions and your source is valid. Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a crack later tonight at re-writing the material to avoid just quoting the sources. Between our description of heart surgery, and our descriptions of other meditation and religious ceremonies we have plenty of examples for how to proceed. -Will Beback · † · 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to re-write. This article does not even come close to an instruction or how-to manual. Andries 22:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the instructions because they were instructions not because they were wrong. The source for them being wrong is that they contradict each other, therefore at least one is wrong, maybe both. Momento 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The descriptions are not detailed enough to be seriously considered a how-to guide. This article does not even come close to a violation of Wikipedia:NOT. Andries 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is your opinion, Andries. My argument is that it is. Hopefully Will, will take a stab t it and see what we get at. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I put it off until too late, but plan to get to it in the next day or so. Until then let's be cool. There's plenty of time to get this right. -Will Beback · † · 08:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to take plenty of time, I'm going to remove the instructions oin the meantime.Momento 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

At one stage Rawat had people called "instructors". What was their job? Their job was to pass on the instructions Rawat gave them about how to practice the techniques. These two "scholars" are making their own attempt at passing on the "instructions". Regretably they've heard the instructions second hand from conflicting sources. But, never the less, they are instructions. And they shouldn't be included in this article because of it.Momento 07:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Completely untrue. As if Reender Kranenborg and J. Gordon Melton try to earn some more money by giving meditation instructions outside offfice hours. Andries 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What's not true? Who said K and M were earning money?Momento 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly they never had the intention to give mediation instructions, because they are after all religious scholars, so your assessment that an article based on sources by them is an instruction is implausible. Andries 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You say "They never had the intention to give mediation instructions"? Well how did the "instructions" end up in their articles?Momento 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your discussion is unnecessary. Will Beback has agreed to summarize these descriptions. Let's be patient and wait ti see what his efforts will yield. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Momento, what instructions are you referring to? There are no instructions in this article worth the name. Andries 20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How can you summarise the instructions? If the were any shorter they wouldn't exist, so you may as well delete them.Momento 07:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Momento, you said above that you were going to find additional descriptions of the techniques and of people's experience with them. Were you able to find any? - Will Beback · † · 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't bother doing any more research once Andries started reverting to put the instructions back in.Momento 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you can find any? More sources are always better. -Will Beback · † · 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as this article contains instructions and other editors permit them, I don't feel inclined to contribute. The instructions are a major violation of Wiki policy.Momento 02:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The aim is to replace the instructions with descriptions. If you don't want to help improve the article then please don't complain about the outcome. If you know about sources and aren't mentioning them then that's doubly unhelpful. With only the existing sources we'll do what we can. -Will Beback · † · 03:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Spare me your sarcasm. I made a major improvement to this article when, in accordance with Wiki policy I removed the instructions and re-wrote the lead to compensate. This improved article was then reverted by Andries and others half a dozen times with no objection from you. You are yet to make a one comma improvement. Your further insinuation that I am withholding sources despite my clear comment that "I didn't bother doing any more research once Andries started reverting" is unwarranted and offensive.Momento 06:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Either way, the result is that we need to do the best we can with the sources we've got now. -Will Beback · † · 06:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Will, this is the text from Hunt's "Alternative religions":

The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his "Knowledge" consist of these techniques to obtain them. Konwledge, roughly translated, means the happiness of the true-self-understanding. Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self. In turn, this brings a sense of well-being, joy, and harmony as one comes into contact with one's "own nature". The Knowledge includes four secret meditation procedures: Light, Music, Nectar, and Word. The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the the guidance and help of a teacher. Hence, the movement [Elan Vital], seems to embrace the aspects of world-rejection and world-affirmation. The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion but the adherents to a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full.

Hunt, Stephen, Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction, pp.116, (2003), Ashgate Publishing, ISBN 0-754-63410-8

I find this text to be most accurate. Also:

Maharaj Ji [teaches] meditation upon the life-force. This meditation focuses on four types of mystical energy, known as the experiences of Light, Harmony, Nectar, and the Word. These allow the practitioner to develop a deep and spiritual self-knowledge.

Drury, Michael, The Dictionary of the Esoteric: 3000 Entries on the Mystical and Occult Traditions, pp.75-6, (2002), Sterling Publishing Company, ISBN 1-842-93108-3

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well why don't you start by reverting back to my latest version which gets rids of the instructions that shouldn't be there. And then see what improvements you can make.Momento 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time's up

I have waited a week for Will to make this article conform to Wiki policy but no news. I'll redo in the next day or so.Momento 05:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for taking so long. I know you're impatient, and it's not a task I'm relishing. Please feel free to go back to edit warring. -Will Beback · † · 10:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You could help by telling us whether you think that Kranenborg's and Melton's descriptions of how to do the techniques are instructions.Momento 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's give Will a chance, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My problem Jossi is that while we wait for Will, this article contains instructions. If they are removed then I'm happy to wait for Will forever.Momento 17:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Will, can you work on this on the next day or so? Otherwise, should we address this in a different way? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Andries your suggestion that the "descriptions that are not detailed enough to be seriously considered instructions" is irrelevant. Wiki policy isn't concerned with how detailed instructions are, only that they are instructions.Momento 10:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I filed an RFC because I continue to disagree. Andries 14:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: alleged violation of WP:NOT (instructions)

RFC filed by Andries 25 Feb. 2007 [2]

Statement by involved editor Andries (talk · contribs): 1. An article about a certain meditation technique should contain basic descriptions of this technique otherwise the article gets very vague. Descriptions of the technique should be the main subject of this article. This article has in the past been criticized heavily because of missing descriptions.; 2. The descritons are not detailed enough to be an instruction manual and do not even come close to violating WP:NOT.; 3. A violation is unlikely, because they are sourced to religious scholars, not to a meditation manual or something like that. Clearly these sources never had the intention to provide an instruction manual.; Andries 15:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Jossi (talk · contribs)

These competing (and IMO, erroneous) instructions if followed as described in the article can be harmful to a person. That is why WP:NOT advises not to have how-to's in WP, and that includes such things as legal, medical advise, etc. This version, provides sufficient information to our readers and sources are provided to further explore the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Momento: 1. The current article contains descriptions.; 2. What I object to is the "instructions" on "how to" practice the techniques included by Melton and Kranenbord. Wiki guidelines are clear - Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s.Momento 23:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by respondents to RFC

Came here via the RfC. I do not see any specific instructions in this article, and I agree with Andries point #1- an encyclopedia article about a "spiritual techniques" should have at least a basic description. It might be helpful if the person/persons who believe that parts of this article violate wp:not list the specific sentences. Sethie 15:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This version that contains a basic description, and this version contains the disputed how-to descriptions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You know I have read both versions now (lol I thought the current version of the page was the disputed one and could not make heads or tails of why it was disputed). I will look over WP:NOT and respond to the disputed version. Sethie 17:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Still sitting with this. Jossi, I think your case would be stronger if you dropped your opinion that the ideas are "erroneous," (unless you think the source has been misquoted) and that you think the ideas, if done are harmful. Really these are your opinions and don't refference directly any wikipedia policy that I am aware of. Sethie 17:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, is my opinion, Sethie. The issue is not about my opinions or other editor's opinions. The issue is that a detailed description of these techniques, which both scholars present different explanations, can be harmful, as any other advice be that medical, legal, or otherwise can be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There never was a detailed description of these techniques. Andries 17:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, there are here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not. One sentence with descritions per technique cannot be called a detailed description. Andries 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

But they are, Andries, they are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

One sentence per technique? How this can be considered an instruction manual is beyond me. I cannot taken your opinion seriously. Andries 18:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of precedent in Wikipedia for including descriptions of meditation techniques without concern about "harming" someone. See Yoga Hatha yoga and Meditation.Sylviecyn 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

True. this article Kapalabhati_Pranayama may be a violation of WP:NOT for being an instruction manual, but this article never came close to it. Andries 21:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make one right, Andries. That article is unsources, does not provide sources, and violates NOT. Tagged accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying this is "an instruction manual", they are "instructions" on how to do the techniques.Momento 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So I have sat with the whole thing, and here is my conclusions:

Per Jossi and Momento: -I am not aware of a wikipedia policy which says alledgedy "harmful" information should not be in wikipedia. -I am not aware of a wikipedia policy which says that information being "erroneous" is a reason to keep that information out, to the contrary, WP:V clearly says this is not the case -The section on WP:NOT says an article are not TO BE instruction manuel, not that articles can't contain instructions. -WP:NOT however does clearly say that Wikipedia is not censored.

Per the contented version (which I am assuming Andries is in favor of): -Two versions of the techniques seems a bit much to me. Why not just cite one of the scholars?

~~Good luck. My hunch is that this discussion is too tied up in agendas to be nuetrally settles by the involved parties, I hope I am wrong.~~ Sethie 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong when you claim that WP:NOT says an "article are not TO BE instruction manuel", not that articles can't contain instructions". WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is "not TO BE an instruction manual and that articles can't contain instructions. I'm am going to remove the instructions.10:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong. I was blinded by their example of an article which was an entire set of instructions.

So why not summarize the techniques without giving so much detail- would that be suitable to both parties? Sethie 13:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another RFC responder I recently found a quote by an author I respect: "The human mind is generally far more eager to praise and dispraise than to describe and define." C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves, 1960. As an encyclopedia, it is an absolute requirement to have enough description that a reader with almost no prior knowledge of the topic will understand what the article is about. The short version is definitely too short, there isn't enough to understand them. The long version is probably the better starting point for improvement. It would seem better to integrate the two scholars descriptions of the technique, then follow with the definitely relevant analysis of the origins of these techniques. If this is done, you'll probably trim at least a third of the content of those descriptions because the two scholars don't seem to disagree about the how of the techniques. GRBerry 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As you say in your last sentence - " the two scholars don't seem to disagree about the how of the techniques". And that's the problem. Wikipedia articles should not contain "how-to"s.Momento 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can come up with a better way of describing to the reader who knows almost nothing of the subject what the article is about, then you should use it. If you think there is not other way of explaining the topic to such a reader, and feel strongly about this, you could try AFD. Frankly, I think that such an AFD would get a clear keep result. We already know that there are multiple reliable sources available. My use of "how of the techniques" could have been better worded as "the physical description of the techniques". This whole thing is part of a statement, that Wikipedia is not a place for instruction manuals. Neither version of this article is, as a whole, an instruction manual. Quibble all you want about my words, but my suggestion as to which version is better and my suggestion about how to make it even better stands. GRBerry 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You've made the same mistake as Sethie. Wiki policy doesn't say the article can't be an instruction manual, it says Wiki isn't an instruction manual. And then it goes on to say "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s". Clearly Kranenborg and Melton have included instructions on how to do the techniques and that is not permityted.Momento 10:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The only person making a mistake here, Momento, would be you. Here's how an RfC works. If there is a deadlock between involved editors, both sides call in uninvolved parties to get additional, objective opinions. So far you've gotten two that disagree with your position. Period. That's the end of the story. You don't contentiously argue with these people and belittle their opinions until they throw their hands up in frustration and leave (as Sethie already appears to have done). Otherwise, what's the point of an RfC at all if you don't really care about the comments it will attract? Are RfCs valid only if they happen to endorse your position? Poor form. Mael-Num 06:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Both Sethie and GRBerry initially wrote that the article wasn't an "instruction manual" and was therefore OK. In fact, it is Wiki that shouldn't be an "instruction manual", and Wiki articles shouldn't include "instructions". When I pointed that out to Sethie, Sethie had the character and integrity to reply, "I was wrong. I was blinded by their example of an article which was an entire set of instructions". And I made no further comment about it, so it's hard to see how I belittled Sethie's revised opinion. GRBerry thinks " Neither version of this article is, as a whole, an instruction manual", which is not what is being discussed, and so I am entitled to point that out. To which GRBerry has not replied. Be certain M-N, no informed editor will say that Melton and Kranenborg's instructions are not instructions.Momento 07:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, if I am reading GRBerry correctly, a more apt description of the passages in question would be "descriptions" and not "instructions". I am inclined to agree with him.

Let me pose a few hypothetical questions and counter-examples. The article on prayer describes that, in the act of prayer, "[a] variety of body postures may be assumed, often with specific meaning (mainly respect or adoration) associated with them: standing; sitting; kneeling; prostrate on the floor; eyes opened; eyes closed; hands folded or clasped; hands upraised; holding hands with others; a laying on of hands and others." Does this tell you how to pray, or as would be the case in an instruction manual, how one should pray? The article on meditation mentions the Lotus Position and has an illustration showing the Half-Lotus position. It notes that "Many meditative traditions teach that the spine should be kept 'straight'". Do these descriptions make that article an instruction manual? One must conclude by the state of these articles that they are not considered instruction manuals. This article describes Knowledge in an almost identical fashion, but due to the more specific nature of this article, the descriptions are necessarily less vague. Compare the specificity of description in the article on Asana or the exact wording listed in the article on the Act of Contrition and see that, as the subject is narrowed from general practices, so too must the descriptions become less vague. Specific descriptors, as one can see, do not make for instructions by Wikipedia standards.

So, again, this article is no more an instruction manual than those given as examples above. On a different note, my point about your abrasive and combative tone towards your fellow contributors still stands. You need to step back and try not to challenge everything you don't agree with. It defeats the whole purpose of being an editor here. If you can't listen to others, and respect their opinions (even if they aren't the same as yours), then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Mael-Num 08:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this article isn't an "instruction manual" but it does contain "instructions" on how to practice the techniques. And that is not allowed.Momento 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then we agree. It isn't an "instruction manual". So you're admitting there's no problem. So there's no problem? Mael-Num 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that WP:NOT means that an article should not contain statements that can be interpreted as an instruction. I think that WP:NOT means to say that alleged instructions should never be so dominant that they give the reader the impression that the article is partially an instruction manual. Andries 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NOT - "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. Am I mistaken or does the previous sentence say - "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions". It doesn't talk about being "dominant" or giving "the reader the impression" or "partially an instruction manual". It says very clearly in English in black and white "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions". Momento 02:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I still think that you are interpreting this not according to the spirit of the WP:NOT. Andries 08:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Andries I'm not interpreting WP:NOT. It says "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions". You're the one who is adding your opinion that it really means is "dominant" or giving "the reader the impression" or "partially an instruction manual". If the Wiki rule writers wanted to put in "dominant" or giving "the reader the impression" or "partially an instruction manual", they would have.Momento 23:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give it another 24 hours and then I'm going to remove the instructions on how to practice the techniques from this article.Momento 11:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be a bad idea, given that consensus and overwhelming evidence show that these "instructions", as you call them, aren't against policy. One might even consider any such blanking vandalism. You should reconsider...maybe try to get another set of eyes to look at it, or come up with some counterexamples of your own? Mael-Num 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If Momento wants to engage in edit-warring that's his/her choice, but the concensus here by editors is that the article doesn't contain actual instructions, but mere descriptions of the techniques. What's given are descriptions and there's no logical reason to delete them. Once again, I believe that Momento and Jossi need to recuse themselves from this particular discussion because of their conflict of interest as Rawat students and the vow they have taken "not to reveal the techniques of Knowledge to anyone for any reason." That's not encyclopedic at all. Sylviecyn 12:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Applying your logic, as a former follower that agreed "not to reveal the techniques of Knowledge to anyone for any reason", and that later recanted on that promise, I would argue that you are not in a position to make that judgment call. Having said that, what is being discussed is the relevance of WP:NOT to the instructions as per the sources provided, and not what are the viewpoints of editors as it pertains to such promises. We are having a specific conversation about the application of policy, I would appreciate we keep it there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable person would agree with you that that any premie, former or current, should be bound by this knowledge vow which was required of every person to be recited prior to being "revealed" or taught the Knowledge Techniques in front of a Mahatma and/or Initiator/Instructor -- all who were agents of Divine Light Mission and personally assigned as such by Prem Rawat himself during the 1970s and early 1980s. Divine Light Mission Knowledge Sessions.

“Oh my Guru Maharaji, I dedicate myself to your lotus feet.

I am weak and ignorant and am filled with the impurities of this world.

Oh Guru Maharaji, please take my mind and purge me of the impurities I possess.

Reveal to me the knowledge of all knowledges.

Strengthen me, uplift me and reveal the kingdom of heaven within inside of me.

Bring me from hate to love, from darkness to light, death to immortality.

I will OBEY you implicitly and will never reveal this knowledge to anyone for any reason.

I will keep in contact with you through my DEVOTIONAL LOVE, satsang, meditation and service.

Thank you my LORD for everything."

I was addressing your personal conflicts of interest which keep you from understanding the difference between a description and an instruction, so it appears. Of course I don't feel bound by that vow! Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 18:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

30 years ago in the context of Divine Light Mission trappings, that may have been the vow that was used. Nowadays it is much simpler Three promises:

Before I give you Knowledge, I will ask you for three promises. The first one is to give Knowledge a fair chance. It’s important for me to know that you are going to give Knowledge a fair chance, not just say, “Now I have it.” Some people receive it, and they have certain expectations. Get rid of the expectations, and you'll have something better. If you are going to give Knowledge a fair chance, you have to approach it with determination to let the seed grow.

The second promise that I ask for is to keep in touch. Keep in touch with me through my message, through the practice of Knowledge. Come to my events. Come and hear what I am saying. Let me help you remove your doubts. Let me help to inspire you, clarify and remind you again and again what is important, so you can continue to grow.

The third promise I will ask for is not to reveal these techniques to anyone. Let other people go through their own journey, and when they are ready, like you, they can get it. There are no shortcuts to it. There are shortcuts to many things in life, but there is no shortcut when the heart is going to be the judge. The heart cannot be talked into anything. The mind can be convinced, but the heart has to feel the real thing. Let people prepare. Then they, too, can have the techniques when they are ready.

Beautiful evolution, don't you think? From a vow imbued in Indian culture trappings to a simpler, straightforward, culture "agnostic" promise from a student to a teacher. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, there is no evolution to be shown concerning this subject when the entire picture and process of Rawat's life isn't transparant to the public. That's the crux of the problem with all the Prem Rawat articles, and indeed, the fractured way that Prem Rawat attempts to present himself to the world today. When someone makes such a concerted effort to conceal their past life events (particularly when touting the word "biography") everything else that person does becomes suspect. Students of PR don't, won't or can't see that. Moreover, the original vow wasn't something that was "imbued in Indian culture," -- that's the NRM's current belief and is fully engrained in the Rawat religion, just as "ex-premies are a hate-group" has become it's current meme when responding to critics of Prem Rawat. Looking at it from the outside in, it's quite strange and also suspect.

That knowledge vow was the basis for the belief-system of the Rawat religion and continues to be the basis of the Rawat belief-system, especially for any remaining premies that took that vow. That said, since you brought up the Keys, it should also be transparant that in order to view the keys, people are first asked to accept these "Terms and Conditions," which, in my opinion, abridges anyone's right to free speech forever (perpetual) concerning Prem Rawat and what he says, not to mention that someone is also required to disclaim the state of their mental health. Some promise of peace. This is not something I would call "beautiful evolution" -- not by a long shot.

Terms and conditions

I understand that the material on this website is private and proprietary, through copyright and/or common law rights, belonging to The Prem Rawat Foundation ("TPRF") and its agents and assigns.

I understand and agree that by accessing this material I am entering an agreement that I will not copy, redistribute, or publicly display anything on this website or on any discs obtained through this website.

I also understand and agree that my purpose for accessing this website and any related material is limited solely to my personal interest in Maharaji’s Knowledge, and by agreeing, I expressly waive any rights I may believe I have in terms of creating commentary, research, or any other “fair use” purposes.

I also agree that, should my interest in learning the techniques of Knowledge change at any time, this agreement is perpetual in length, and that upon such change, I will return any such material to The Prem Rawat Foundation.

I understand that by agreeing to these Terms and Conditions, I will be given a password and user ID, which I agree not to disclose to any third person for any reason.

I understand that the practice of Knowledge does not prevent, cure, or treat any medical or mental illness and does not prevent the recurrence of any illness once it has been treated. I understand that some unresolved mental and emotional health problems may interfere with the ability to make choices related to asking for, practicing, and enjoying Knowledge.

As far as I am aware, I am free from any conditions that would impair my ability to ask for, practice, and enjoy Knowledge. I agree to the Terms and Conditions, and that I am being given permission to access the material contained (on this website), but that this permission can be revoked. TPRF reserves the right to issue/delete Personal Access Numbers and access to this website at its own discretion and without notice.

I also understand that if I breach this agreement, I may face legal penalties and agree that such legal disputes can be resolved in the Courts of the State of California. I also understand that if I breach the Terms and Conditions, I may be liable for damages and attorneys fees.

Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 13:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I should not have responded to you... We need to remember that these pages are not a discussion forum. See WP:NOT#FORUM . Let's stay on-topic: Discuss the article and not the subject, discuss the edit and not the editor. Your opinions and my opinions on the subject are simply of no use in this discussion. If you want to discuss these issues. please do so in other fora, not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I filed a notice for possible WP:COI of user Momento and Jossi on this article. [3].Andries 16:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not edit-warred in this article. You have. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from outside editors

I believe a short description of the techniques is appropriate to the article. Without such a description, the reader is left missing information vital to understanding what is being discussed. The descriptions should be brief and provide a general idea of the practices. Detailed instructions and how-to instructions should be avoided, but at the same time we should not interpret this in an overly broad fashion that excludes even a basic description for the reader. Vassyana 11:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Vassyana. Would you be amicable to the idea of giving it a try and summarize a description? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. User:Vassyana/ToK (Descriptions). I think I provide descriptions and explanation, while avoiding the concerns about a how-to. Is that an acceptable compromise version? Vassyana 16:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am supportive of a compromise version that will stabilize this article once and for all. Hopefully editors that have been reverting back and forth will accept it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'll leave the user subpage up for people to check out. I hope it is acceptable to all parties. Vassyana 17:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good compromise. It might be a good idea to include that Melton's and Kranenborg's description are second hand.Momento 22:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment via RC and WP:COI. I think Vassyana's version looks an extremely good compromise. I don't see the disputed long version as "instructions", but it's just far too verbose, and the Kranenborg and Melton descriptions are easily melded.

I do agree with User:Andries that there is a danger of COI here. If anyone is under a legal obligation or solemn vow not to disclose particular information, it's bound to raise suspicion if they remove that information from the article - even if it's done for perfectly good faith reasons under WP:NOT. Tearlach 21:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tearlach, my understanding is that people who are taught the techniques are told not to show the techniques to others. It doesn't say that they should stop others from doing it.Momento 22:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I hope you see how it could look like COI to remove such details or be obstructive about their inclusion. I agree with others who have commented that neither the "instructions" nor "risks" arguments hold much water.

With the former, you've interpreted WP:NOT way more stringently than is usual. Per User:Will Beback's example, no-one has criticised Mass (liturgy) for being instructions, and it goes into far more step-by-step detail than anything that has been said about Techniques of Knowledge. Also check out Haidinger's brush or Solar eclipse#Viewing; again, no complaints about detailed description of procedures.

With the latter, there are plenty of articles that describe, in sufficient detail to know how they're done, risky practices that make pressing the eyeballs look pretty tame safety-wise (e.g. freebase, tracheotomy, Nitroglycerine#Preparation, etc). This sort of content is covered anyway by the Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. Tearlach 02:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried a tracheotomy on my partner last night but the Bjork flap confused me. Is that the one where she hit the photographer or when she wore the flamingo dress to the Oscars? Perhaps we need to expand the instructions. It is not just a matter of danger; Wiki:NOT precludes recipes as well.Momento 04:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statement

This statement: "Formerly he taught a version of the techniques that were claimed to lead to "a deep spiritual self-knowledge", but Elan Vital (organization) have since retracted such claims" is unsourced. Please provide a source, or delete it if no source is forthcoming. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not having responded sooner. The source is as follows

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat

"Knowledge is not spiritual, nor is it a religion. Knowledge belongs in neither of those two categories. Knowledge says there is a consciousness inside of you, that you are complete".

(Maharaji, Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles 1998)

I trust you will reinstate the edit?

The text was "Formerly he taught a version of the techniques that were claimed to lead to "a deep spiritual self-knowledge", but Elan Vital (organization) have since retracted such claims.". I am not sure that the source is supportive of the text you added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions

I have no doubt that Kranenborg's and Melton's instructions on "how-to" practice the techniques are in violation of Wiki policy. It clearly states "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or ....... contain "how-to"s". K & M have included their version of "how-to" practice the techniques. But since some editors have difficulty understanding the difference between a "description" and "instructions or how-tos" in this article, here's an example. The same Wiki policy says not to include "recipes". So we are allowed to describe a chocolate cake (it's brown with icing on the top, maybe some cream and is flavoured with chocolate) but we are not allowed to include "how-to" make one (take four cups of flour, two ounces of chocolate, one cup of milk and two eggs, mix together put in an oven for 45 minutes at 450 degrees). It's OK to describe the techniques but we are not allowed to describe "how-to" do them. I will uphold this policy for ever. Andries called for RfC, two people responded one person disagreed, one person agreed. I have removed the instructions.Momento 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The description of religious rites and similar procedures are withing the the scope of an encyclopedia. I don't see it worded as an instruction to the reader, but as a description. Compare e.g. Surya Namaskara and Endowment (Latter Day Saints). --Pjacobi 13:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Surya Namaskara article is how it should be done with one exception. We learn that there are twelve asanas or postures and they are listed. The exception is the seventh or Bhujangasana asana which is linked to its own article where instructions are given how to perform it. This is clearly against Wiki policy so I have removed the link and the Bhujangasana article should ber deleted.Momento 19:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. What is being argued is that a description should not contain instructions, in particular when these instructions as described (e.g. "presses with the thumbs on the eye balls with as a consequence that they move towards each other") can be dangerous and harmful to a person following them. So, the proposal we have been discussing is to use the material from these two scholars to describe these techniques as they have researched them, without providing instructions that may be harmful to a reader. Will wanted to assist with this but probably did not have the time. Would you be interested in lending a hand in crafting a version that balances the needs to have an encyclopedic article with descriptions of the subject while avoiding instructions that can be harmful to a reader? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite unintuitive to some, there are two potential reasons to not include stuff, which aren't considered valid by most editors and precedent (in enwiki):

Dangerous or "illegal" information: You find a lot of stuff in Wikipedia which may put you in trouble in some legislations and which may put you and others in dangers. Wikipedia contains rather explicit information about easy to DOY explosives and date rape drugs, with external links to even more detailled information and instructions.
Information which may be considered offensive. Skipping the issue of our porn pages, there are many precedents on the religious sector. I must have given the list many times in past already, sorry to bore you.
- Not respecting the taboos around the true name of god, the tetragrammaton יהוה‎
- Not respecting the wish of the LDS church to not expose their "temple secrets"
- Not respecting the wish of the Bahai to not show the photograph of Bahá'u'lláh

Heck, true believers in magick even would consider our article Sigil (magic) (or the somewhat better de:Sigillenmagie) to be dangerous.

I'm not entirely happy with Wikipedia is not censored, but if this is our policy, it should at least be applied consistently.

Jossi, I'm just (and not for sure) returning from a Wiki break, so I better don't promise anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pjacobi (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Peter. If you have the time, that would be wonderful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, have you considered merging this article with the main article? After some thought about the issue of descriptions or instructions, I really don't think it's necessary to have either. But, given that the title of the article is "Techniques of Knowledge" it implies there would be some kind of description of the techniques. I'm just not sure of the necessity of this whole article, given the reluctance to include the descriptions. I really do agree with you that it would be very unfortunate if someone tried the light technique and squeezed their eyeballs -- it just wouldn't be good for people to try that out. I can say from personal experience that that hasn't been how Maharaji teaches that particular techique since the late 70s -- it's something different, not described in the literature that I'm aware of. I think by considering a merge you could avoid this whole discussion. Or not. Either way, I won't argue for inclusion of the descriptions any further. Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 19:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your comments Sylviecyn. If we don't have the instructions it makes sense to merge with the Rawat article. But I wouldn't want a merge if the argument about instruction is resurrected in the Rawat article. Let's let this article settle for a week or so and then revisit.Momento 19:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have come up with a compromise version that can be acceptable. See above. Vassyana 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise version

The compromise version of technique descriptions I proposed above has been updated to indicate the second-hand nature of Kranenbord's and Melton's knowledge. You may view the compromise proposal here. People seemed supportive of that rewrite, with only a request to indicate the second-hand nature of the information. Is this now acceptable to everyone? Vassyana 13:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As we have not heard any objections I would suggest you make the edit in a day or so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Vassyana 15:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose removing sourced information without good reason. Andries 16:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You oppose a compromise version mediated by a non-involved party? I will wait until other editors comment on the proposal by Vassyana. If you remain on your position of not accepting third-party opinions, we will have to take the next step in dispute resolution. Seems that you can only be convinced by escalation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But before we do that, I will still ask for the edit to be made. You can revert if you want, and that will force us to go to the next step in dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Andries, have you looked over the compromise version I proposed? If so, what specific complaints do you have about it? What information is it missing? Vassyana 17:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Vassyana and thank you for taking a stab at this article. I would change one sentence in your compromise version to the following:

Hunt, Kranneborg and others refer to these techniques as being secret, and Maharaji asks practitioners to promise "not to reveal these techniques to anyone.

The sentence as written previously (which you've included in your version) implies that Maharaji doesn't ask that people keep the techniques secret or confidential when, in fact, the "three promises," and previously the "Knowledge Vow" confirm the Hunt and Kranneborg statements that they are secret. I'm not sure why the statement was written that way originally, because it's logically incorrect. Thanks! Cynthia Sylviecyn 13:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the compromise version is correct. There is a big difference between something being "secret", and asking a person to not to "not to reveal these techniques to others". Asking a person to keep something confidential, does not make that something secret. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I have crafted a compromise statement to try and meet the concerns of both sides on this. I added:

Maharaji asks practitioners to promise "not to reveal these techniques to anyone", but does not encourage censorship, saying "[l]et other people go through their own journey".

Does this satisfy including the statement about not revealing, while also addressing the concern that censorship is not part of the promise? It is referenced with the "three promises" so a reader can draw their own conclusion. How's that work for people? Vassyana 15:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That works well, Vassyana. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're incorrect, Jossi. The English language definition of "secret" includes "confidential" as a synonym of "secret." This is a matter of semantics, but the meaning is the quite the same, especially in this context. Please peruse and compare Dictionary dot com definition of "secret, dictionary dot com's thesaurus, and Dictionary dot com definition of "confidential," and Dictionary dot com thesaurus "confidential. Maharaji's required promise statement confirms what the scholars say. I don't believe this should be a matter of contention because it's really the truth and I don't believe there is a negative connotation to it, either. The scholars confirm the truth of the matter. My sentence revision should stand, imo. Cynthia Sylviecyn 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Best would be to have both assertions, side by side: that the scholars called them secret and that PR "asks practitioners to promise "not to reveal these techniques to anyone". Vassyana's wording would leave these two assertions side by side without asserting one or the other. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sylviecyn, do you object to the way I contructed it in the compromise proposal? If so, why? Vassyana 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I read it -- that was implied in my post to you above. The fact is that Maharaji requires that anyone who asks to receive Knowledge to first promise not to reveal the techniques. The words "secret" and "confidential" are synonmous words, therefore, the sentence as it stands has modifiers in it that cause the two statements to seem to be at odds with each other when they are actually in agreement. It's simple logic. In other words, if the sentence read: "Hunt, Kranneborg and others refer to Knowledge as potatoes, but Maharaji only calls them spuds." Here's your sentence, the strike-throughs are my sentence:

~~While~~ Hunt, Kranneborg and others refer to these techniques as being secret, and Maharaji ~~only~~ asks practitioners to promise "not to reveal these techniques to anyone.

The techniques are secret and/or confidential (once again the two words are synonyms in the English language. That's why I have a problem with the sentence's meaning as it stands. Plus, it would be great to win an argument around here once per millennium, especially because I know I'm right. Cynthia Sylviecyn 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read this compromise proposal. The sentance you point out is not in the compromise draft. I will ask again, do you object to the construction of the compromise proposal? If so, why? Vassyana 05:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In your compromise version, the sentence I am discussing is the first sentence of the third paragraph. Please read your own draft. Here's the paragraph; I've bolded the sentence I am questioning. I am discussing the first sentence and I don't know how I can be much clearer. Please let me know if English not your first language and maybe I can explain it another way This isn't rocket science. :) Thanks.

While Hunt, Kranneborg and others refer to these techniques as being secret, Maharaji only asks practitioners to promise "not to reveal these techniques to anyone. Let other people go through their own journey, and when they are ready, like you, they can get it. There are no shortcuts to it. There are shortcuts to many things in life, but there is no shortcut when the heart is going to be the judge. The heart cannot be talked into anything. The mind can be convinced, but the heart has to feel the real thing. Let people prepare. Then they, too, can have the techniques when they are ready."[5] Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vassyana/ToK_%28Descriptions%29" Sylviecyn 10:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) That's my fault, it should have been edited out as redundant with the last edit. Tad lack of sleep. ;o) Please accept my apologies. Do you still object to the properly revised proposal? Vassyana 13:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem and it looks great to me now. I hope you get some rest. :-) Sylviecyn

Thanks Vassyana. It works for me as well.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

When you're not getting enough sleep, you do silly things sometimes. But, I did some rest in, thanks. :o) Momento was supportive of this direction. Tearlach indicated that the compromise of the contentious portion was acceptable. (If Momento or Tearlach object to the latest revision for some reason, I'd encourage them to let me know.) Since this now seems acceptable to both sides, I'm going to insert it into the article. As a note, I've repeatedly invited Andries to comment on this proposal, but they have declined to participate, so I was unable to take whatever concern they may have into account. I will leave the user subpage up as a reference for everyone. Vassyana 14:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I need more time. Andries 17:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I also added an editor note to make sure future editors are aware this was a carefully crafted compromise.  Vassyana 15:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I will remove that notice because I am not sure that I agree with this compromise. Andries 17:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not take unlateral action against a mediated consensus. Consensus does not require unanimous support. I have reverted your edits appropriately. If you disagree, please discuss it on the talk page. I would politely remind you that you have been sanctioned for this sort of behavior and beg you to reconsider acting in this fashion. Vassyana 18:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no mediation nor is there a consensus because I did not have the time to react until now (after only three days), nor can there be consensus when one of the very few main contributors to this article does not agree with the version. Andries 18:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone but you has indicated agreement with the compromise. That's consensus. One editor alone does not make or break consensus. I will again remind you this attitude earned your sanctions and you should refrain from taking action in a unilateral fashion. Please take a step back and reconsider your attitude. It was an informally mediated/negotiated/handled compromise. I did not mean to indicate that any formal mediation had taken place and apologize if that was the impression you received. Vassyana 18:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Even informal mediation worth the name should take into account that some people are busy and need time to make up their minds. Andries 18:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You were the only involved editor who did not respond. All other editors agreed to the compromise. You edited during the time period when I made repeated requests for you to participate. It would have been easy enough for you to post a note here or on my talk page asking for more time to consider the matter. Instead, you avoided discussion until the compromise was settled with the other editors. Also, being disruptive and demanding is not going to help you get your point across. Please remain active in discussion. Vassyana 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a short note on here that stated on the 13th that I objected to removal of sourced information. I continue to do so. For exampe, why are details of the meditation techniques removed? It will be clear that I continue to think that removal of sourced material for allegedly violation of WP:POINT is completely without merit and if that is the reason then I may seek formal mediation. Please do not continue to falsely portray this dispute as one editor against a consensus of editors, because the same sentiment against removal of sourced material for alleged violation WP:POINT was voiced also by user:GRBerry [4]. Andries 10:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)GRBerry's suggestions are close to what was done. The two authors' descriptions were merged. Some discussion of the techniques' origin/relations is included. GRBerry also did not take part in the compromise discussion. The portrayal of one editor against the consensus of the rest is not a unfair portrayal. You did not take part in the compromise discussion. All editors who took part in the compromise discussion approved of the compromise, or the direction the compromise was taking. You are the only editor objecting to the compromise. If you wish to seek formal mediation, you should review both WP:DR and WP:MC before doing so. You must take all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute before seeking formal mediation, which you have not done. Also, all involved parties must agree to mediation, so you should consider whether all of the other editors would agree to it. I would also ask you to reconsider carefully if you actually desire to escalate your disagreement to WP:MC or WP:ARB. I will also ask you once again to detail exactly what is lacking about the current compromise. If you will not explain what exactly is wrong with it, your complaints serve no purpose but disruption. Vassyana 12:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I explained that hereunder. Andries 20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that after you voiced your vague and unhelpful complant,[5] that I responded soon after asking you to explain what was wrong.[6] Despite your complaints about not having enough time,[7][8] you found the time to make other comments on this very page later that day and the next.[9][10][11][ You have repeatedly refused requests to clarify what exactly you don't like about the compromise. Please stop this behaviour and lay out for us what specific issues you have with the current compromise. Vassyana 12:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It took me more time, because I found it a bit complex. Some matters are more complex than other, so they also take more time. Andries 20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1."Kranenbord and Melton claim these techniques are secret"

ad 1. change "Kranenborg and Melton assert these techniques are secret" See Wikipedia:words to avoid.

2. "based upon reports they received from others."

ad. 2 Redundant, because this is true for everybody.

3. "but does not encourage censorship,"

ad 3. This is doubtful and unsourced

Andries 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1. I changed "claim" to "state that" for more neutral wording.
2. This is not redundant, as it distinguishes what they learned from others as opposed to first hand knowledge. 3. If you wish to assert censorship is encouraged, please provide some proof of that claim. The promises are clearly quoted indicating while followers promise not to divulge the practices that others are to be left to their own devices. Vassyana 18:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The stament of from the terms of conditions comes close to censorship, though again, it is not my duty to provide source that disprove a statement in an article. It is the duty of editors, like you, who wish to retain material to provide sources for a statement.

Terms and conditions

"I understand that the material on this website is private and proprietary, through copyright and/or common law rights, belonging to The Prem Rawat Foundation ("TPRF") and its agents and assigns.

I understand and agree that by accessing this material I am entering an agreement that I will not copy, redistribute, or publicly display anything on this website or on any discs obtained through this website.

I also understand and agree that my purpose for accessing this website and any related material is limited solely to my personal interest in Maharaji’s Knowledge, and by agreeing, I expressly waive any rights I may believe I have in terms of creating commentary, research, or any other “fair use” purposes.

Andries 20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of a do about nothing, Andries. That wording is 'not in the proposed version. I would appreciate it if you take the time and read the discussions, rather than wasting everybody's time including yours. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I did read the discussion, but I noticed that a doubtful unsourced statement is still in the article, because I got reverted when I tried to remove it. I find it very strangeand against policy that even my {{fact}} tags get reverted. Hence I chose to give a belated reply to Vassyana question to makes things go faster. You always preach about good sourcing and are so quick to play tags of "unreferenced", but now I do not see such behavior from you. Can you please apply Wikipedia policies fairly and consistently? Andries 20:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I do my best, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Vassyana. You've really helped here.Momento 18:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Vassyana 18:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

ad. 2. Do you have soure for that? Kranenborg does not write how he knows about the techniques of Knowledge.

ad 3. The burden of providing sources is on the editor making a statement. I do not have to prove that censorship does not exist.

Andries 18:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

2. I will double check this, but I believe when I looked into it, due to joining this discussion, that both Kranenborg and Melton clearly use sources outside of their personal experience.

3. The promises, which are clearly linked. Do you see any encouragment to censorship of others? It is distinctly lacking, along with a statement encouraging followers to allow others their self-determination, which is quoted. However, the explicit editorial comment can be removed about censorship, provided the other editors who agreed to the compromise find that acceptable

Vassyana 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

2. I believe it too, but I learnt not to write down what I believe, but only what the sources state.

3. You cannot write unsourced comments according to Wikipedia policies even when there is consensus. (and there is not even consensus)

Andries 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Andries, I would argue that your behavior here is becoming very disruptive. Rather than editwar, you could simply engage in discussions. Adding NPOV tag, as a way to trump a mediated compromise accepted by all editors but you, is not the way to this and goes against the grain of WP:DR and WP:CON ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I did explain my objections. There was no mediated compromise, because there was too little time to respond for me. Andries 18:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior is a good example of WP:POINT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Andries, you botched several mediations in the past with the same excuse of "too little time to respond." I would argue that you seem to have time, only when it is convenient for you. There was no reason for you do as you did. You could have asked for clarifications and make suggestions to improve the version proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think that three days is too little time. I do not consider this a valid informal mediation when there are only three days to reply to a proposal. Andries 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition

Jossi, will you please revert your own edit so we can discuss it here to make sure it's not controversial? Just being fair and applying the same expectations to all editors. Vassyana 18:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Here is the text and source:

Michael Drury, describe these techniques as helping the practitioner to develop "a deep and spiritual self-knowledge." ^[1]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jossi. Vassyana 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would recommend it reading:

Michael Drury, says these techniques help to develop "a deep and spiritual self-knowledge."

That's really just a style consideration with a preference for consise writing, and a preference for a slightly more neutral word to report his view.Vassyana 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. No objections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Being fair, anyone object to the addition? Vassyana 18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to be objecting, so I'd say go ahead and add it. Thanks for moving it to the talk page to make sure no one had an issue with it. Vassyana 21:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change

Proposed change:

Maharaji asks practitioners to promise "not to reveal these techniques to anyone", but does not encourage censorship, saying "[l]et other people go through their own journey".

to:

Maharaji asks practitioners to promise "not to reveal these techniques to anyone", but says to "[l]et other people go through their own journey... [so] they, too, can have the techniques when they are ready."

Is this acceptable? Vassyana 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Revised per Jossi's concern. Vassyana 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine for me. Andries 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer:

"Maharaji asks practitioners to promise "not to reveal these techniques to anyone", and advises them to "[l]et other people go through their own journey", so that and when they are ready, they can also learn the techniques themselves.

Otherwise it lacks the context to understand why he is asking people not to reveal them. (as per stated in the source) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Revised proposed statement. Vassyana 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is it, Vassyana? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Immediately above. I just revised the proposal. Here's the diff for ease.[12] I've also added a couple subheadings to this talk page so people can follow the proposals a little easier. Vassyana 18:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. That version would work for me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Adding it to the article. Vassyana 13:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Anyone have any further objections? Or is this revision OK by everyone? Vassyana 19:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK by me.Thanks for your help.Momento 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why a more detailed descripton was removed. For example why was the following removed or worded unnecessarily vague. I think the following wording is more precise and informative, especially in the case of nr. 4. "name meditation"

1. light meditation means that one closes one's eyes and presses with the thumbs on the eye balls with as a consequence that they move towards each other.

2. sound meditation means that one closes the ears by pressing on them with the thumbs, with the hands on the temples.

3. nectar meditation means that one tries to get one's tongue behind the uvula.

4. name meditation consists of following the breath going inside and of using mantras during exhalation i.e. hamsa and soham which means respectively 'swan' (the divinity) and 'I am that' (that is the divine).

Andries 13:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The first three were all inaccurate and/or incomplete descriptions when related to the sources. For exaqmple, the first gives less explicit but more useful information now. It's not simply mashing your eyes with your thumbs, but rather an application of specific and careful pressure. What exactly do you feel needs to be stated without using an incomplete and inaccurate description? On the fourth, it now conveys much the same information in a much more concise fashion. What detail(s) exactly do you feel is missing from the current version? What does it need to say that it does not? Vassyana 13:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your comment that the descriptions are inaccurate, I think that is irrelevant as per the policy WP:ATT that states.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."

I will reply later to your question what detail I would like to have included, though I think that it is clear that the above statements contain information that is not included in the current version even before I give a detailed reply to you. I do share your concern about staying concise. Andries 16:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, the current mediated version has been accepted by all involved editors with the exception of Andries. Why should this effort that has been made in good faith be lost on the basis of one editor's stubbornness to accept third-party input and consensus? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

By definition there is no consensus if somebody disagrees. If you are unwilling to pursue further discussion then I may take the next step in dispute resolution very soon. Andries 17:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No Andries, you are absolutely wrong. Wikipedia does not work by unanimity, but by consensus. There is a big difference between these two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Disruptive editing ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also argue that your tendentious editing in this and other articles, Andries, are becoming disruptive to the point in which you may be exhausting the community patience. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that removing {{fact}} tags without providing sources is tendentious editing [13] I do not think that I have edited tendentiously. Andries 18:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior is, Andries. And I am not the first, and seems that I am not the last to tell you that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I think that your encouragement not to pursue further relevant discussion regarding the contents of this article is disruptive. The items that I would like to discuss have never been discussed in detail. Andries 20:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome to engage in further discussions, Andries. I was referring to your stubbornness in not accepting a mediated compromise version that everybody else has agreed to. If Vassyana has the patience to continue discussing this with you, fine. But note that the acceptance of this version by all other editors means that the burden is on you to accept it, or to submit a different proposal. Endless complaining without proposing solutions to disputes is disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Andries, how it read before was inaccurate and incomplete in relation to the sources. It was not a judgement independent of the sources provided, because I am unfamiliar with the techniques outside of my interaction with this article. So again, I will ask you to be specific in your criticisms. Answer my questions above. I will only ask so many times. If you persist in refusing to answer questions asking to you specify what exactly is wrong with the current version, I will have no choice but to discount your input. Without a coherent explanation of what is wrong, it is simply impossible for me to take your concerns into account. Vassyana 21:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely do not understand how the extensive version was "inaccurate and incomplete in relation to the sources." I made a lot of effort to stay very close to the sources. Andries 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate by way of the incomplete description. It's as though the entry said baseball players swing sticks and run. Its not that the entire source needs to be repeated word for word, or paraphrased similarly. Rather, we should ask whether providing that level of detail is proper for an encyclopedia article. We should also consider what would help a casual reader best understand the topic. Of course, additional details that illuminate the topic without confusing a reader can always be added. Vassyana 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, why is the name meditation not phrased as follows

"Name or Word meditation consists of concentating on the breathing. Acording to Kranenborg, one concentrates on the breath going inside and of uses mantras during exhalation i.e. hamsa and soham which means respectively 'swan' (the divinity) and 'I am that' (that is the divine)."

Here is the current version for a comparison ""Name", or "Word", employs mantras, seeking to connect the practioner with the divine."

Andries 21:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you feel is missing? Are you concerned about the lack of breath-work mentioned the current version? What if the current reading:

"Name", or "Word", employs mantras, seeking to connect the practioner with the divine.

Were expanded to:

"Name", or "Word", is a breath-meditation concentrating on inward breath and employing mantras while exhaling, seeking to connect the practioner with the divine.

Would that be a more accurate and acceptable description to you? Vassyana 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be an improvement, but I would omit the statement "seeking to connect the practicioner with the divine" which seems either unsourced or an unattributed opinion and a doubtful generalization about the motives of quite a of of people. In addition, it diverges somewhat from Maharaji's claim to bring peace. Also I would prefer the mantra-thing to be attributed to Kranenborg, because this seems a bit doubtful and e.g. phrased as follows.

"Name", or "Word", is a breath-meditation concentrating on inward breath and, according to the religious scholar Reender Kranenborg employing mantras while exhaling."

Andries 10:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The old version explicitly states the connection with the divine in its description (which the sources provide more detail of):

uses mantras during exhalation i.e. hamsa and soham which means respectively 'swan' (the divinity) and 'I am that' (that is the divine).

Additionally, it does not diverge from a claim to bring peace. As an active editor on guru articles, you should be well aware that "peace" and "connection with the divine" are not divergent, but in fact commonly linked goals. Finally, the entire paragraph is sourced already, we have no need to provide additional in-text explanation, unless you have a specific reason for it. Vassyana 20:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You are changing a sourced attributed statement about the meaning of mantra into a generalization about the motivations of people. That is a free interpretation of sources generally frowned upon and unacceptable for controversial articles such as this one. Please stay close to the sources. Andries 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional material?

There is also other material that could also be used in this article, this from Prem Rawat himself answering questions about Knowledge:

Well, the thing is that we have the inclination that we have something inside of us that is incredibly precious. We feel that what we are looking for is very much inside of us. But there is so much that has been put on top of this feeling. Because when we don’t understand something, we either tend to ignore it, or we cover it up. We don’t think that we can live with this ambiguity, we can’t live within a vacuum. So when something comes along in our life that . . . that we don’t understand, we let go of it. And this is the same thing that happens with this feeling inside of us. We know that there is something very beautiful inside of us, but what we do is, when we don’t understand it, or we don’t have a means of fulfilling this feeling, we go ahead and ignore it and get on with other things, and those other things start taking priority in our life. And other things become more important in our life.

But now comes the time that perhaps we have this possibility to be able to go inside and experience it again, and this is so much the process of discovery because we are rediscovering. To me, this is not creating a new experience. This is not about creating new elements. This is not about bringing new elements into our life. This is about rediscovering what we have. Because we have incredible strength and we have an incredible potential. And not only that, we have an incredible peace inside us. Sometimes we search for that peace here and there, sometimes we look for it on top of the mountain, sometimes we look for it in the caves. We don’t need to go there. It’s here. It’s within inside of us. Rawat, Prem (July 2005). An Introduction to The Keys (video TC 00:49:00). thekeys.maharaji.net.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I object. Quoting Maharaji about what Knowledge is only confuses people more. (I can't believe he's still calling it "within inside" lol.) Sylviecyn 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If quoting a person is confusing to you or if you believe it confuses people, that has no bearing in an argument on including material or not in Wikipedia articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, an encyclopedic article cannot inform readers by adding an unintelligible quote, except may be that the quote informs readers that Maharaji prefers to stay vague and unintelligible. Andries 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is unintelligible to you, does not mean that it cannot be used. In Wikipedia we let our readers to make these kind of assessments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Then may be you can try to explain what Maharaji says, because I do not understand it. Andries 21:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I can email you, if you want. These pages are not a discussion forum. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the contributors have the right and duty to decide not to include a quote if it is unintelligible. Andries 05:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the above quote is specific enough to the techniques to warrant inclusion. I think the simple description from Rawat in the lead is succinct and to the point.Momento 07:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me Jossi. I didn't say that the quote confuses me (it doesn't), I said the quote would confuse people more and of course I mean readers. The clarity of Maharaji's statement absolutely has a bearing on the article because there are thousands and thousands of other quotes to choose from where Maharaji talks about Knowledge that are more cogent than the one you chose. You don't have to discuss the quote, Jossi, but other editors surely are free to discuss it's appropriateness for the article, so please don't attempt to shut the rest of us down because you don't want to discuss it.

"Guru Maharaj Ji is a physical focal point where we can really concentrate, where we can really focus. And through that, through Guru Maharaj Ji, everything can manifest for us. That is the only reason why Guru Maharaj Ji even comes in this world. Knowledge is always there, but Guru Maharaj Ji comes for us, because he provides that focal point in our lives. That is something we can communicate with; that is something we can see, something we can perceive, something we can experience. And through that, Guru Maharaj Ji then weaves us into the experience of Knowledge, gently and slowly and beautifully, and then helps us. As we, by our ignorance, untie ourselves from that weaving, Guru Maharaj Ji sews us back again - if we surrender to him, if we really let ourselves go. This has been a thing of time immemorial. (Denver, Colorado; February 20, 1977) From The Living Master or

Knowledge is itself the path and also the destination. It is what it is and it is what it should be. Knowledge is the path to itself and takes us into itself, for it is that vibration we are seeking. It is everything. It is merged with everything. It is the Knowledge. It is the primordial vibration. It is the path to it. And it is it itself. This is Knowledge. London, England; October, 1971 From The Living Master or

Is this like meditation? Maharaji answered this question: "You could say this is the meditation. But it is far beyond meditation, because it is not just contemplating a thought or trying to control your mind or control your thinking. This is like a person who is hot and dirty, jumping into a beautiful, cool, crystal clear pond. The difference is how refreshing it is. To be refreshed every moment. To appreciate. In a way, it is the meditation. But it's not meditation because it's much beyond meditation. It is not trying to control or conquer something. It is appreciating something. Big difference." From Elan Vital (North America) FAQ on Knowledge

Cynthia Sylviecyn 12:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there are thousands of quotes about Knowledge. After all it is what PR teaches. In any case, I maybe we have enough quotes already in the article. We could add these quotes to Wikiquote instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, you're the one that wanted additional material, but you picked a clinker. Sylviecyn 23:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A clinker? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's American slang. And this is a wonderful example of how language differences, i.e., idioms, slang, etc., can cause miscommunications on Wikipedia. Note the British slang version. Dictionary.com Sylviecyn 02:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revisions

Proposed revisions to: Techniques_of_Knowledge#Descriptions

2nd paragraph, 1st sentance

Kranenbord and Melton provide a description of them in their writing, based upon reports they received from others.

change to

Kranenbord and Melton provide a description of them in their writing, based upon their research.

reason Wording may be misleading. Both books are written based upon broad research, not simply interviews or material given to the scholars directly, as the current wording would imply.

2nd paragraph, 6th sentance

"Name", or "Word", employs mantras, seeking to connect the practioner with the divine.

change to

"Name", or "Word", is a breath-meditation concentrating on inward breath and employing mantras while exhaling, seeking to connect the practioner with the divine.

reason More accurate and complete description of the practice.

Thoughts? Feedback? Vassyana 20:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No comment. But would not oppose. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement "seeking to connect the practioner with the divine" is a free interpretation of what Kranenborg wrote and I therefore oppose including this statement. Andries 00:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A minor point. Should the fact that Kranenborg & Melton contradict each other be covered? Otherwise readers will assume that the description provided comes two independent researchers who came to the same conclusion. And is therefore bound to be accurate when, in fact, at least one is wrong. Perhaps we can say - Kranenbord and Melton provide differing descriptions of them in their writing, based upon their research. Momento 21:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That would work. Well spotted, Momento. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How do they contradict in your view? While I got the impression they were differing to some degree, I did not receive the impression they were contradictory. Vassyana 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Momento is suggestion differing not contradicting, Vassyana. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I am late to this.

About light - Kranenborg wrote - that one closes one's eyes and presses with the thumbs on the eye balls with as a consequence that they move towards each other. J. Gordon Melton wrote - to experience the divine light, one places the knuckles on the eyeballs, a process which produces flashes of light inside the head. About Word - Kranenborg wrote - name meditation consists of following the breath going inside and of using mantras during exhalation i.e. hamsa and soham which means respectively 'swan' (the divinity) and 'I am that' (that is the divine). Melton wrote - The Name technique involves concentration upon the sound of one's own breathing. About Nectar - Kranenborg writes - nectar meditation means that one tries to get one's tongue behind the uvula. Melton wrote - to taste nectar, the tongue is curled backward and left there for a period of time. So perhaps - Kranenbord and Melton provide differing descriptions of them in their writing. "Light" involves careful pressure on the eyes. This is comparable to similar Tantric practices. "Sound" involves positioning the hands over the ears and temples, with the goal of hearing the "heavenly music". This is reported to be related to sabda-brahman meditation. "Name", or "Word", involves concerntrating on the breath. And "Nectar" involves tongue positioning, eventually leading the student to taste the "nectar of life".Momento 23:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the material Andries objected to and the unconnected sentence about "yoga breathing". Hope everyone will be satisfied.Momento 07:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I revised the section with the more complete description of "Name"/"Word", avoiding the objectionable "connection with divine" assertion. I broke off the comment about the differing descriptions into its own sentance, and mentioned the similarities. I also restored the references, placing them as an inline citation for the first sentence of that paragraph. If any of this is objectionable, please let me know. You can view the diff for easy reference.[14] Vassyana 18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No comment, but would not oppose. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost there but Melton and Kranenborg do not " agree on a general description of the (Word/Name) practice" as described. Kranenborg wrote - name meditation consists of following the breath going inside and of using mantras during exhalation i.e. hamsa and soham which means respectively 'swan' (the divinity) and 'I am that' (that is the divine). Melton wrote - The Name technique involves concentration upon the sound of one's own breathing. No mention of a mantra. That is why I removed it from the combined description. I'm happy to leave the description as is but it is not what Melton said.Momento 20:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've revised it to claim that Kranenborg notes mantras on exhalation as an additional detail. Check out the revision and let me know if it sufficiently addresses your concern, which was quite correct. Vassyana 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the first breath out of - "Name", or "Word", is a breath-meditation concentrating on breath". To leave "Name", or "Word", is a meditation concentrating on breath". One breath at a time, ha, ha!. Vassanya, I'm going to award you my first barn star.Momento 11:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

breathes* ;) I can't believe I missed that! Doh! Thanks for catching it. I'm glad the revised version seems to accomodate the concern adequately though. Vassyana 11:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)