Talk:Chidvilasananda/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Siddha Yoga description

The phrase 'Siddha Yoga meditation and philosophy path' seems a bit awkard. Can anyone think of a way to combine all of this information a little more gracefully?

I would suggest leaving off "mediation and philosophy path", just say "she became the head of Siddha Yoga. Short and to the point. If the reader wishes to read more about SY, they can follow the link.TheRingess (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

MahaDave 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hindu?

I wonder if it's correct to describe Gurumayi as a Hindu. Siddha Yoga is regarded as an autonomous spiritual path and I doubt if Gurumayi would describe herself as a Hindu if pressed on the subject. Does anyone have any thoughts on the subject? Neilrobertpaton 09:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. I hesitate to call anything about Siddha Yoga Hindu. Siddha Yoga has a Hindu flavor and appearance, but I don't think it's any more Hindu than it is Christian or Muslim. I wouldn't want to have it in the 'New Age Religion' category either, though. Is there a category for Mystical Philosophies and Practices?

MahaDave 01:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of whether Gurumayi is a Hindu, I have emailed info@SY to see what they have to say on the question. Could take a while, though. Sardaka 08:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Still having trouble with this word Hindu. Since it could take ages to get an answer from SY info, I thought I'd delete the word Hindu in the meantime, since we could easily put it back in the EXTREMELY unlikely event that SY confirms that Gurumayi is officially a Hindu guru.

Someone then put the word Hindu back in the text. It's hardly the end of the world, but could we perhaps agree to drop the word Hindu until we get confirmation that Gurumayi officially describes herself as a Hindu? After all, the chances of that happening would be about a zillion to one, and in the meantime we are probably giving misleading info to anyone who reads the article.

Sardaka 10:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly. She was born a Hindu, and Swami is a Hindu title. Siddha Yoga engages in tradition Hindu practices such as the Guru Gita. Muktananda was Hindu, his tradition is a Hindu tradition. There is no doubt that she is Hindu. IPSOS (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
While I'm interested in hearing your views, I'd suggest that you don't call other people's views 'silly'. I agree that Gurumayi shouldn't be classified as a 'Hindu' guru because while she teaches many Hindu scriptures and supports many Hindu traditions and was born a Hindu as you say, she she so profoundly transcends all religion that she doesn't belong to any. Neither would many of her followers consider themselves Hindus, or be considered Hindus by other Hindus. I would agree that this question should be left open for the time being. MahaDave 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That's an opinion. She's Hindu by birth, and it is she and not her teachings which are the subject of the article. In any case, Hinduism is all-absorbing. It has no problem with teachings which, in your opinion, "transcend all religion", being taught by a teacher who is still considered Hindu. To argue that she is not Hindu, you would have to document her renunciation of Hinduism. Nothing short of that would negate her status as a Hindu. IPSOS (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
When I say that Gurumayi is not a 'Hindu guru' I mean that she is not JUST a Hindu guru. To define her as a 'Hindu guru' in the first sentence of the article puts a false limitation on her and her teachings. I disagree that the article is not about her teachings. You can't have an article about a teacher and leave her teachings out of the picture. You wouldn't write an article about Einstein and say he was a 'Swiss physicist' without descrbing his theories and their influence on society; or an article about Microsoft and say it was an 'American company'. Even though Microsoft is based in the U.S. it is international in its scope and presence . If you want to say she was born a Hindu and is considered by her followers to embody the essence of the teachings of all religions, then I would agree. But it seems to me that to call her a 'Hindu guru' puts a box around her that she would not agree with and nobocy who has seriously studied her life and work would agree with either. So for that reason it is not entirely accurate to call her a 'Hindu guru'. While calling her a 'Hindu guru' is not as clearly a personal opinion as my saying her transcending religion is, it is a use of words that supports a particular viewpoint that is not born out by the facts of the larger picture, namely that she and her followers would not consider her to be JUST a 'Hindu guru'. It is certainly not necessary to document Gurumayi having reounced Hinduism in order to decide on a better way to describe her relationship with Hinduism. If you want to get technical about it, orthodox Hinduism traditionally required that its adherents never leave the country of India. So by that definition, Gurumayi is not a Hindu any more. Please work with us here. MahaDave 13:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the second sentence in the opening paragraph because it was only duplicating the info that comes later, and rewrote the first sentence because it was rather unclear (no offence).

Sardaka 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the word 'Indian' is the first adjective in the article. That is a fact about her, but not a very significant one in light of all of her achievements. I'd suggest mentioning it later in the article, if at all. I think the phrase 'she was born in Mumbai, India' says this more efficiently and clearly than 'is an Indian' and the later 'she came from Mumbai'. I was trying to make a reasonable compromise on the Hindu question when I wrote that she was born to a Hindu family. Also, She is spiritual leader of hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. Can we get this in there somewhere? MahaDave 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I'm going to edit it to remove the word, and I like "was born in Mumbai" more than she came from Mumbai. Not to sound too picky, but we probably need a source for the number of people who belong to SY. I suggest leaving off any mention of numbers until we have that source.TheRingess (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Almost all biographical articles start with the nationality of the subject. The first sentence gives the broad but essential items, date of birth, nationality always important and included. The fact that more detail on the place of birth is given later does not mean that the first sentence doesn't need this information. IPSOS (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Her specific age when she met Muktananda

Does anyone know at what specific age she met Muktananda? If you know that please edit the article to use that information instead of "at a very early age".TheRingess (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Current Leader

I like the way the organization of the first two paragraphs is shaping up. One suggestion: I don't know what the standard is on Wikipedia, but it seems unnecessary to date the documentation of her current status as leader. From what I understand of this community, the status will be updated on Wikipedia within hours of when it changes by some enthusiastic editor. I should think it could be assumed that 'current' means current without having to date when it was current. Could we drop the phrase 'as of 2007'? 208.29.145.8 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's been my experience that a number of articles are edited sporadically only by those with an interest in them. This article will be around as long as Wikipedia is around, and it's a good practice to give the reader an idea of when the information was last checked/updated. We then avoid giving them the impression that there is a group of editors working feverishly around the clock to ensure that all articles are up to date. It's a good observation, I think I'll remove the word current.TheRingess (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Guru?

If she is not Hindu, that suggests that she is not a guru either. Guru is a word which denotes a Hindu teacher. It is sometimes applied in Tibetan Buddhism as well, though the proper word there is Lama. Also used in the Sikh and Jain traditions. Outside those traditions the proper term would be "spiritual teacher". I mean, I guess maybe she didn't take Hindu vows in a Hindu order, and never succeeded a Hindu guru in his Hindu lineage. Then she wouldn't be a guru at all! And not being a guru, she could not transmit shaktipat, so we'd better remove all reference to shaktipat here and in the Siddha Yoga article. IPSOS (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a very practical suggestion. I have no objection to your reinstating material, but to delete references to shaktipat, when the SY literature discusses it and it would be of interest to a casual reader, detracts from the article, rather than improving it.TheRingess (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Then let's stop removing the word Hindu as well, which is equally ridiculous impractical. IPSOS (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from using words like ridiculous. Please assume good faith on the part of all editors contributing here, and understand that although you find something ridiculous they might not. Their intent is to improve the article just as yours is, and their questions/concerns are as valid as yours. Instead of labelling, propose compromises, or be bold and add them yourself, explaining your reasoning on this talk page.TheRingess (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
When you insisted on leaving in the word 'Hindu' even though there were several other voices against it, we didn't keep removing it, but rather offered a compromise which you chose not to accept. The community here is willing to work with you if you will also approach this in the spirit of dialog. MahaDave 03:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Kaśmir Śaivism

I have gone ahead and replaced the word Hindu with Kaśmir Śaivism. This is more accurate. Since Hindu is a broad term that can encompass many different sects and/or branches. Therefore, it is somewhat accurate, but not very precise. I also believe that the statement is supported by the SY literature (please see the teachings section of their website where they mention these two philosophies). The casual reader can now more easily gain a greater understanding of the philosophies of SY.TheRingess (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And I've added Hindu as a modifier, as the reader is not expected to be an expert, and the Kaśmir Śaivism article specifically identifies it as a Hindu philosophy. Shiva is a Hindu god. Sheesh, what is the problem with being accurate. IPSOS (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no problem with being accurate. There is a problem with being relevant. I can think of many verifiable and accurate facts about Gurumayi that are irrelevant to this article. She has black hair, but that's not what sets her apart and makes her worthy of writing about. The fact that she was born a Hindu in India is interesting, but irrelevant when describing her work in the larger world as far as I'm concerned. MahaDave 02:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Gurumayi - title or name?

Is Gurumayi a title or a name? IPSOS (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a term of endearment used specifically with Swami Chidvilasananda that has come into common usage as her everyday name. 71.75.19.219 02:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

monkhood

Women can be monks in Siddha Yoga, just like they can be priests in some Protestant denominations. Gurumayi has never been refered to as a nun. 71.75.19.219 02:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The opening sentence in the wikipedia article about monks says...."A monk is a person who practices religious asceticism..."

Perhaps we might want to link to that article or one that discusses monks in an eastern tradition. It seems from the SY literature that they don't use Swamiji simply for male monks and Swamini for female swamis as other traditions do. I could be wrong.TheRingess (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Kashmir Shaivism

I understand the need to honor everyone's input, but the term 'Hindu Kashmir Saivism lineage' is a pretty awkward construction in my opinion. I'd like to suggest either 'Guru in a lineage of the Hindu tradition of Kashmir Shaivism', or 'Hindu Kashmir Saivite lineage' as a replacement. I also want to add the caveat that Gurumayi has never called her lineage a Kashmir Shaivite lineage that I know of. Swami Muktananda said only that Kashmir Shaivism is the philosopy that most closely resembles Siddha Yoga. Kashmir Shaivism is only one of the traditions referenced in Gurumayi's teachings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MahaDave (talk • contribs) 02:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC).


I like your suggestions regarding the wording and I suggest that you go ahead and correct the grammar. Personally, I'm not sure that we can say that Gurumayi has never called SY a Kashmir Shaivite lineage, as this implies access to knowledge a casual reader might not have. In other words, how would a reader verify that.

To me the real objective here seems to be to come up with an accurate, brief description of SY (for the introduction of both articles only, since the real meat of the article should be detailed enough for a casual reader to gain a beginning understanding).

In my opinion, calling SY a "spiritual organization" is too vague to be helpful, although one can argue that the rest of the article would explain that meaning.

I also don't like referring to the practices/tenets of SY as "Indian yogic practices" because that is also not very useful. After all, most if not all of the world's religions have substantial adherents in India. So which of those many denominations are we really referring to?

Here's a brief quote from the SY web site:

The Siddha Yoga teachings spring from the timeless scriptural traditions of Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta, as well as from the experience of the enlightened Siddha masters.

.

In my opinion this supports the statement that Siddha Yoga is not only a branch of Hinduism, but is closely related to Kashmir Shaivism.

However I realize that statement says the teachings spring from those two traditions and doesn't explicitly state that Siddha Yoga is a school of Kashmir Shaivism.

My personal suggestion is that we remove our focus on the word Hindu and put it on the process of createing together, a description that we all feel is accurate, neutral, useful and supported by the available literature.

Any ideas?

I am copying this discussion to the SY page since it is relevant there as well.

TheRingess (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said the other day, the management at Fallsburg made it quite clear that SY is not Hindu, so why do people insist on labeling it as such? Also, to say that it is Kashmir Shaivism is overstating the case; the literature says that SY is related to KS and vedanta, so it is misleading and inaccurate to make a broad statement that SY is KS.

Sardaka 09:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)