Talk:Guru/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

SATGURU MEANS --- ONE WHO TAKES TO TRUTH / SHOWS WHAT IS FALSE

This article should be adapted following the French example i.e. paragraphs original meaning, current meaning and cult problem What should be mentioned too is Anthony Storr's book 'A Study of Gurus' in which he argues that gurus suffer from a mild form of schizophrenia. Please help. I have limited time. Andries 21:17, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Not only Christians use this 'alternative definition'. But it is current usage by everybody. Some Christians use the word guru even for Jesus. Andries 08:20, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

User Mkweise says that satguru means teacher of truth but I think s/he is wrong. It means true guru i.e. the oppposite of false guru. Andries 19:12, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

User Mkweise says that all sects of Hinduism say that a living guru is necessary to attain Moksha. I think s/he is wrong. Do the followers of e.g. the late Shirdi Sai Baba say this? I don't thinks so. Besides how can s/he be so sure about this (It is written as if it is a fact)? Surely MKweise has not studies all sects of Hinduism. Andries 19:12, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hello, MKweise, you wrote that sat guru means teacher of truth but I always thought that it meant true guru, i.e. the opposite of fraud guru. Do u have any references for your assertion?Andries 18:57, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the word satguru predates false gurus. One dictionary I have says that a satguru is "one who is able to lead others along the true spiritual path" - but I'm not too happy with that wording, since Hinduism acknowledges that other paths (even those of other religions) may also be true. Mkweise 23:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
False gurus are very old. One is even described in the Panchatantra, an old classic book from Kashmir.Andries 18:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What I mean is that, arguably, false gurus are a phenomenon of Kali yuga. Mkweise 21:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
MKweise, look here is some evidence for my assertion that your translation of satguru is wrong http://www.sannyasin.com/s.html Scroll down do sat guru. Andries 19:40, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If you're sure of the etymology, by all means change it. Mkweise

By the way, where is your evidence for your assertion that all sects of Hinduism say that a living guru is necessary. To be honest, I don't believe at all that you are right in this case. Besides, how can you state this as a fact. Have you studies ALL sects of Hindsuism? If not, how many have you studied? Andries 18:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The belief in the necessity of a guru is one of the defining traits of hinduism - see for example http://www.swaminarayan.org/faq/bapsgeneral.htm#1 or http://www.himalayanacademy.com/books/dws/lexicon/s.html (scroll down to "Satguru"). Mkweise 21:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Mkweise, thanks for the reference but I think the followers of Shirdi Sai Baba don't agree that one needs a living guru. Andries 21:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I wrote all Hindu denominations; Sai Baba Sansthan is, by their own account, a universalistic movement. From http://www.shrisaibabasansthan.org/saibaba/saibaba_introduction.asp:
Devotees of all faiths find their meeting point in Sai and people from all communities and all walks of life are united by the great love and reverence Baba inspires in them. Baba had great regard for His Hindu devotees and their Gurus [...]
Mkweise 22:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi Mkweise, I believe that the Shirdi Sai Baba Sansthan is more than 50% a Hindu movement in spite of their propagandistic claims to be a universal movement. E.g. in the holy book of the Shirdi Sai Baba devotees the Sri Sai Satcharita, Sai Baba says that karma and reincarnation (typically Hindu) is real. I do admit that they have strong Muslim inluences though. Andries 18:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mkweise, I have another objection to the sentence "All Hindu denominations hold that a personal relationship with a living guru, revered as the embodiment of God, is essential in seeking moksha." ISKCON followers would consider it blasphemy to rever a living guru as God, unless the guru happens to be Krishna or the Kalki avatar. Andries 18:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not as God, as the embodiment of God - not to be confused with incarnation, it means that God speaks through the guru. What it boils down to is similar to the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility.
Also, the problem our friends at ISKCON have with gurupuja is due to this mess.
Finally—and this will shock you!—Prabhupada during his lifetime made many statements calling his movement an independant religion that evolved from Hinduism, akin to Jainism and Buddhism.

He said: "The Krsna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu religion or any system of religion", and on another occasion wrote: "One should clearly understand that the Krsna consciousness movement is not preaching the so-called Hindu religion." Caitanya, OTOH, did consider himself a Hindu—making the issue an excellent source of endless, pointless arguments.

MKweise, I can't seriously doubt that Hare Krisna's are Hindus regardless of the claim of Prabhupada. Even the word Catholic means universal but Catholicism is, of course, a form of Christianity. I don't uncritically accept the claims of a religious group. We continue to disagree strongly on the sentence that you included. Andries 20:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) isn't so much a specific religion as a set of religions that share a body of religious concepts and terminology. Such vertents may and do turn out to have _very_ significant differences in doctrine, yet mainly for pragmatic classification purposes are all generically called "Hinduism". If my understanding is correct, and considering that the IKSCON movement definitely uses and emphasizes the language and text of the Baghavad Gita (about as solidly Hinduistic a text as one is likely to find) it really becomes hard to find any reason to say that they are not Hinduists. They certainly have their own doctrine and identity, but them so do most religious movements. Luis Dantas 00:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Luis, I completely agree with your remarks about Hinduism and ISKCON.Andries 18:44, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Mkweise, another example of a Hindu denomination that says that a living guru who is seen as the embodidment of God is necessary is Arya Samaj. I have now given 3 examples that prove that your assertion is wrong so I now take the liberty to change the disputed sentence. Andries 18:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mkweise, with regards to guru again. Why did ur remove the section 'original and literal meaning? I found it very useful. I reverted it. Andries 21:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Didn't, I just removed the section heading above the intro paragraph since it's standard wikipedia practice to have at least one paragraph before any section headings. Mkweise 21:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I removed

v • d • e
Cults
Definitions
Lists
Organizations
Opposition
Theories
Wiktionary definition · Wikisource · Wikimedia Commons · Wikiquote · Wikinews · Wikibooks

I removed the footer {{msg:cults}} from the article since this article is not primarily about cults. Davodd 11:02, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)


Removal of .140 edits

I removed the edits by .140 that said that Guru is greater than God according the Svetara upanishad. I checked the upanishad and it does not say so. This ip is used to defend Elan Vital and to defend its FAQ against its critics [1]. Andries 15:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would much like to get integrated the Buddhist notion on "Guru" into this exelent article. --Mitrapa 17:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)Mitrapa

Added references provided by Zappaz in the talk page of one of Prem rawat articles regarding the "guru as greater than God" assertion as expressed in Hinduism and Sikhism. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:51, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Attraction by Gurus (??)

This section Guru#Attraction_by_gurus seems to me to be just a POV, but it is written as a fact. Either someone cares to re-write it in NPOV voice and provide references, or it should be deleted from the article. ≈ jossi ≈ 02:32, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, you are right. Most comes from Storr's book and I will give references for it, or provide examples without offering general conclusions. What assertions do you find doubtful in particular? Andries 19:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The wole sentence as follows: ≈ jossi ≈ 22:04, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
There are several reasons why people in Western cultures are attracted by gurus. The most common is that people look for the meaning of life and are disillusioned in traditional religions. Gurus provide answers to the meaning of life, often free from the intellectualism of philosophy. Other people who have traditional beliefs seek to intensify their religious life and see a guru who can help her or him with this. Gurus offer a belief system that offers fulfillment and purpose and sometimes promises of a peaceful happy life. Many gurus claim that they can bring people closer to God, facilitate enlightenment, moksha, or nirvana, or can help people to achieve good karma and a correspondingly better next incarnation.

Literal meaning of the term "Guru"

I can see that there are discrepancies of understanding in regard of the meaning of the word "guru". I offer this from the Darmayoga.org dictionary [2]:

Guru: (lit., one who leads a seeker from darkness to light – Gu, Darkness; ru, light.) A master; teacher. Literally, 'Gu'= Darkness or ignorance. 'Ru'= Illumination. Guru is therefore the spiritual Master who initiates and guides a seeker across the sea of Separation to the shore of Union and therefore, liberation. Guru is not simply the psycho/physical human form - the Model. Guru is principally the function of Self Revelation through the power of grace. Direct and continuous contact with the Guru function within ourselves is both the practice and the goal of the Guru/Disciple relationship. For the seeker who understands this, there is yet an intoxication, an inexpressible sweetness and desire to be close to one who perfectly embodies the Guru principle.

There is also a prayer by Ram das as follows:

Heal me, lead me,
Love me, guide me
Guru Guru wahe Guru
(Indescribable wisdom, Guru Ram
Das guides me from darkness to light)
Guru Ram Das Guru
(Gu: darkness or ignorance)
(Ru: light or knowledge)

And finally, quoting from an article from Kathleen Hunt in Jai! magazine (from the Samadi yoga website, that includes a good explanation of Aarti as well)

In the practice of yoga we are given the tools with which to beautify our mental state. The Guru in all aspects shines the light into the darkness (Gu=darkness, Ru=light). We learn to bring all our Love into our living. We surround the challenge with the ‘nacre’ or reflected light of the Divine. We see our obstacles as stepping stones. What before seemed to be randomly ‘inflicted’ on us, we now begin to see as our own creation, a lesson we asked for at some time in the recent or distant past. [3]

--Zappaz 16:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i think there are different opinions in the wide wide world of indian religion, so sikhs(and also sant mat) claim this use of guru for them, see Guru Grant Sahib, others translate ru as remover ( this was the first version in this article), please see Guru and Teacher, there is no evidence that the explanation of gu means darkness and ru means light is valid all over india. and there is no way to derive it from hindi as well. so the meanings of the syllables may happened to be added more in a poetic way, like gu means greater and ru means god ;-) ; i would suggest to present all meanings that appear on this term and explain where they come from instead of scratching for example the "remover" in favor of the by prem rawat prefered "light". this was some kind of an encyclopedia, wasn't it? thomas

I don't think that you are fair in your assessment of Zappaz contributions. Clearly Darma yoga.org, and Samadi .org agree with that definition of gu -ru, and they have nothing to do with Skikhism or Sant mat tradition or Maharaji. In any case, you are most welcome to present an additional interpretation of the term, with the references you provide.≈ jossi ≈ 18:41, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Of course, gurus say that they can lead you from light to darkness. That is an advertisement. A reliable reference can only be a scholarly dictionary. Andries 19:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andries, this has nothing to do with "advertisement". The root words Gu and Ru in Sanskrit mean light and the opposite of light respectively. And the term "GuRu" means teacher or spiritual guide. References are provided above (many articles in WP are referenced to online resoures as the ones I provided, so I do not know what your point is.) Regardless, can you explain why is there such contention about this?--Zappaz 19:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
hey look down and check the dictionaries please, i thought we wanted to be accurate. there is no doubt that on religious oriented websites, their dictionaries have that explanation. But they do not seem to be scientific anyway, they sure have their meaning but i thought you'd be happy to have some serious information about that. what's the matter? maybe LordSuryaofShropshire can clarify that.thomas
I am no sanskrit scholar, but I understand that you need to have the correct transliteration of the root terms gu and ru, otherwise these dictionaries are useless. See [4]. Maybe someone with access to a good dictionary can help here. Mitrapa, could you tell us the name and edition of your Sanskrit dictionary? ≈ jossi ≈ 21:44, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
in the dictionary in colougn Sanskrit-English Lexicon you can enter the english term the same way, feel free to try "darkness" and light". i asked dant again and he is willing to ask some authorities he knows about that, if we want.thomas
FYI, the Advayataraka Upanishad (14Ð18), defines guru as dispeller of darkness. --Zappaz 23:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A western reference is Dr. Georg Feuerstein, Ph.D. author ofThe Yoga Tradition (ISBN-1890772186). Feurstein assserts in an article named "Understanding the Guru" that:
... Tradition explains the term guru as being composed of the two syllables gu and ru; the former is taken to represent darkness, while the latter is said to stand for removal. Thus the guru is a dispeller of spiritual darkness, that is, he or she restores sight to those who are blind to their true nature, the higher Self. --Zappaz 23:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Zappaz, thanks but what does this mean for the article? I mean the literal meaning from scholarly dictionaries say that it comes from heavy. That should be the only acceptable reference for the literal meaning. The article already says that the other literal meaning of dispeller of darkness is claimed in Hindu scriptures. Andries 23:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andries, you maybe missed this: the Advayataraka Upanishad, defines guru as dispeller of darkness, specifically by referring to the root words 'gu' and 'ru'. I added this to the definition --Zappaz 00:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Advayataraka Upanishad is to be refered often as a source to that. but that does not prove that these interpretations derive from their sanskrit meaning. you can find here an example that explains gu as the dispeller and ru as the darkness using the Advayataraka Upanishad as reference, so what? and here the same "Etymologically, the term Guru means one who gives light by eradicating the darkness of ignorance. According to the philosophical Hindu text Advayataraka Upanishad (14Ð18), Guru means ‘dispeller (gu) of darkness (ru)." at [5]. We have different meanings to the syllables gu = dispeller, and ru = darkness. others say gu = darkness , ru = dispeller and then we have gu = darkness and ru = light(BTW nobody claims that ru = light in Advayataraka Upanishad). please, think about it .thomas


so everbody thinks everything is ok? i don't; the sentence Another etymology claimed in Hindu scriptures is that of dispeller of darkness (wherein darkness is seen as avidya, lack of knowledge both spiritual and intellectual), 'gu' meaning darkness, and 'ru' meaning light (the power that disperses the darkness of ignorance.), implies that Advayataraka Upanishad says that ru means light which it does not. Please use another source for this allegation or i will do it myself. and a bit of research should be done about the indian habit of giving meanings to sanskrit syllables that do not at least seem to derive from sanskrit; real experts for apocryph and historic scriptures are asked.thomas
I do not know understand what is disputed here. Plenty of evidence has been provided for this assertion, much more than for any other item in this article :
  • Advayataraka Upanishads
  • A Ram Das prayer
  • Several websites in which they assert same meaning to these syllables
The assertion of an ethimology related to guru as "dispeller of darkness of ignorance" (avidya) is absolutely correct. If you disagree, please explain why you consider all these references invalid.
You seem to have a lack of understanding about symbolism in sanskrit. Dispelling darkness, for example, can ony be done by shining light. In this case it is the light of vidya. Avidya <=>Vidya; darkness <=> light; ignorance<=>knowledge. That is what the Advayataraka Upanishads refers to.
--Zappaz 20:40, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Take the ram das prayer as evidence for ru means light, for heaven's sake or the other websites but not the upanishad, because that is not was is written there in this upanishad, it is not accurate. i read several translations and none says light, all say dispeller. your maybe logical conclusion that dispeller must be light is no evidence by no means. you may also forget that even the term darkness is used as a metapher for ignorance, did you ever consider that removing ignorance needs more than to switch the torch, but needs personal action, dispelling, which is done by the guru. that is what stands there and nothing else. if you want to publish this upanishad as a source of giving the syllable ru the meaning of light, i expect a bit more from you than just playing with metaphers.i do not know what degree you have in sanskrit, if you have one, but i will definitely ask somebody who has. This seems to be simply to amateurish, maybe from both our sidesThomas h 21:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Zappaz, I have no problem with the current version of the article on the literal meaning of the word guru, though personally I consider the evidence in the website flimsy. Andries 20:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am getting confused about the nature of this "dispute". Clearly there is plenty of evidence to support the current text. I have spent way too much time on this one already. Unless someone can come up with a better text given the substantial references provided, please lets put this one to bed. Thanks. --Zappaz 21:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
With Another etymology claimed in Hindu scriptures is that of dispeller of darkness (wherein darkness is seen as avidya, lack of knowledge both spiritual and intellectual), 'gu' meaning darkness, and 'ru' meaning dispeller as expressed in the Advayataraka Upanishads i will be fine. if ru shall be light combine it with it's sources directly, please. It would be also interesting how this meanings came to live, probably more through religious emphasis than common evolution of language. that would explain the several meanings and even the switching of the meaning ru and gu as i have found. sleep over it. good night.Thomas h 22:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Let us not make an unnatural distinction between Western culture and Hinduism

I changed back the title of a subsection that Jossi had changed. As if people in India, both gurus, their follower and the critics of gurus differ so much in the Western countries from those in India. I do not believe it. That is an artificial, unnatural distinction that I believe is not based in facts. Quite a lot of people here in Amsterdam follow a guru. Andries 23:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guru.

I took a look in the sanskrit dictionary and actually it do say that Gu = Darkness and Ru = Light. And GuRu = Teacher. --Mitrapa 18:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)Mitrapa

Thanks Mitrapa. I found the same.
An interesting fact: in the Old testament in Hebrew, they call Jesus "moreh". That word is from the root "roeh" (the one that sees), and its meaning is "the one that can show". The common translations to English are "teacher" or "master". Same here, "guru" many have special meanings when looked at from a linguistic viewpoint, but the meaning is one of "teacher" or "master". --Zappaz 19:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


i have the upanishads at my home(in german), but for sanskrit translations i prefer to use a scientific dictionary that you can access online on Sanskrit-English Lexicon there i found no trace of that meanings, unfortunately.thomas
i asked dant from forum8 who studied sanskrit, he says there is no way to this interpretation, he once, as a premie presented this meaning to his professors and it was really emberassing. Here is another on line dictionary another online dictionary, still no trace, so any comments? thomas

Devotees' views on Guru and God

I disagree with your edit, Andries. In all sects the Guru is also a disciple, due to the disciplic succession or parampara. Thus, the assertion that only in a specific sect guru and devotee are servants of God, is incorrect. That assertion applies to all sects. I will correct your edit to reflect this.--Zappaz 20:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, hmmm, you may be right. It may be inaccurately formulated. And sorry for forgetting my edit summary. But what should be written down is that for many sects the phrase "guru is greater than God" is heterodox. Andries 20:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Zappaz, you did not need to delete the whole sentence. The phrase "guru is greater than God" is only used in some sects of Hinduism. In many sects this is a crazy statement, which the article should reflect. Andries
Many sects? That may be interesting. I am moslty familiar with sects of Hinduism that feature gurus and a disciplic succession. It will be good to quantify the "many" in your assertion. Till then I have changed the text to reflect the singularity of that specific sect (that I have to admit I know nothing about it). I have not deleted your sentence: it is at the end of the section. --Zappaz 21:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
okay, I missed that Andries 21:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


On the Gaudiya website, I could not find any support about your assertion. But I found this:

In his Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu, Rupa Gosvami has divided the various practices of bhakti in sixty-four categories, beginning with accepting a spiritual teacher (guru), receiving initiation and instructions from him, serving him, living a life following in the footsteps of the saints, and inquiring about matters of worship (bhajana). An extensive discourse on this matter is not in place in this context, so we shall only focus on five of them, which were declared as the most important by Sri Caitanya.

This seems to mean that guru in that tradition is pretty similar than in other sects (that by the way it is has an extensive paramara starting with Sri Krishna himself...). Read also their theology.. quite fascinating: http://www.gaudiya.com/index.php?topic=theology Can you point me to the right direction to find a reference to your assertion about this sect?--Zappaz 21:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will try but I cannot proof the absence of something. I know Gaudiya Vaishnavism pretty well and I never came across something outrageous as "Guru is greater than God." Andries 21:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please note that the "guru is greater than God" is a coloquism used in India. The quotations from Kabir and Brahmanand talk about it in a more explicit and interesting manner from which that coloquism is derived. You made an assertion that seemed to be well researched and substantiated, but if you do not have a reference for that assertion, please delete it or explain where it is coming from. Thanks. --Zappaz 21:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits by PGreenfinch

We had a good, NPOV article. Your edits deleted useful information and made it to be based on a negative POV and negative connotation of the term. I have reverted these edits. Next time you make such a drastic edit, please give your rational in this page. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:28, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

The rationale is that the article was NPOV by omission. You can change the wordings but in no case censor some meanings of the word guru which were skipped. Your suppression is vandalism. --Pgreenfinch 08:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pgreenfinch's version implies that the Western usage, when applied to a religious/spiritual context, always carries a negative connotation, which is untrue.
Additionally, by making a contentious change and then reverting an edit back to his change, he is deliberately trying to start an edit war. --Goethean 19:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Pgreenfinch, you are most welcome to insert additional meanings of the word Guru. Just do it without deleting important information from the article. You could add your data to Guru#Additional_meanings_in_contemporary_western_usage, or if you want, removed the redirect from Guruism and expand on that concept there. Thanks. I will give you some time to do it yourself, otherwise I will do that myself. --≈ jossi ≈ 22:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
The edit does not make sense. There is already text that refers to the use of the term guru within a western context. It reads:
The original meaning has evolved to a broader one. In more recent usage of the word guru, it means anyone who propagates a philosophical or religious belief system independent of an established school of philosophy or religion and attracts and accepts followers because of this.
I will revert most of the edits, and leave only the new text about "guruism" with some much needed NPOVing, as follows:
That label has been generalized and extended to any leader seeking to impose obedience to a secular, religious organization or school of thought, or to promote a belief system based on his personal influence.
--Zappaz 22:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You edit as you want, but what you cannot take out is the meaning that refers to domination or fraud, some countries even have laws about such things. Why didn't you leave it but gave your own wording ? I will have to reinclude it, and then you are free to word it in another way. --Pgreenfinch 10:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I hear you, but the burden is on you to provide supporting material for such statement ... You cannot say "Legislation in some countries..." You need to specify which legislations and which countries, otherwise it is weasel speech and does not provide any useful information to the reader. --Zappaz 21:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

France (loi About-Picard sur les mouvements sectaires, in 2001), Germany, Belgium, among others. As for accusing me of weasel speech, it doesn't honor you. Well, your problem. --Pgreenfinch 22:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just pointed to you that "weasel speech" in the context of Wikipedia articles is not well received. Please Read Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms. Regarding the About-Picard law, that law is fully discussed in Cult#The_About-Picard_law. I do not recall any specific information about "Guru" in the About-Piccard law [6]. Your text [sic] protection against people and organizations using methods of proselytism that endanger personal freedom. is not anywaere in the wording of that Law and it is irrelevant to this article, unless you associate it with a specific case related to the term "guru". Otherwise it will need to be removed for lack of relevance in this article. --Zappaz 00:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you are joking to take your sources about that law in ...another wikipedia article. This is called self reference, or am I wrong? But as I appreciate your efforts, and I see that, little by little, you start to see that from the beginning there was ground for the additions I made, although they were not to the taste of some that don't like too much digging into realities, you are welcome to bring your own contribution, for the full information of the readers, by replacing "methods" by "techniques" and adding the bit about "personal judgement" to my wording. Thanks for your good cooperation and will to help in this subject where information should be complete. Then we will not be fully out of the workshop, as will come the question to give a clear structure to this article, which presentation is a bit messy and where important things are not well highlighted, as if they were shameful and better kept in the background where their image fuse with the wallpaper. I can help, of course, but would it be appreciated by some who would prefer to keep some confusion? Maybe you would be better than me to bring that finishing touch, as you seem to have go-between talents, even if sometimes you do it a bit, let us say, harshly. --Pgreenfinch 08:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "self-reference" is not really valid. Wikipedia articles are edited by a large community of editors (one of the largest collabs efforts in human history!), and I know that given time, each WP article will tend to reach a status of "excellent". The About-Picard law text in WP (some of which is, ahem, mine), was written with the collaboration of many people and it is quite good IMO (you can read the law itself and commentaries both pro and con and you will realize that the summary in WP is pretty accurate, balanced and NPOV). Regarding your other comments, yes I agree that I may seem a bit "harsh", although I would call that "being bold while editing". Concerning your remarks about structure, I believe the current structure is pretty good. After all, there are more people in the world in which "Guru" carries a meaning of respect, than people in the Western world that for lack of appreciating cultural differences, believe Gurus to be nefarious. After all, this is a world encyclopedia. Lastly, and continuing with being bold (or harsh) I will work on the last sentence regarding Picard. --Zappaz 17:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Pgreenfinch's latest edit is egregious, gratuitous, makes the sentence awkward and should be reverted. --Goethean 21:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The sentence might be akward but yours was NPOV. The word "argue" cannot be used with an hypothesis like the one you stated. In such case you should have written "pretend that" or "make the hypothesis that" instead of "argue that". --Pgreenfinch 22:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)