Talk:Guru

Talk:Guru/archive1

Biblio additions by Andries

The biblio you added are all Western criticism of Gurus. I would expect that references and biblio are more balanced toward the whole article rather than the narrow Western view of Gurus. After all, the Western usage section of the article is only apprx 20% of the whole article. After all the number of people that believe in Gurus (such as Hindus and Sikhs) will be greately offended by this approach.

I have no problems with you adding these, but we will need to add bibliography for the remaining 80% of the article to maintain NPOV.

An alternative would be to create a separate article about "Guruism" in which you and others can expand the criticism of Gurus. --Zappaz 01:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree. The only really non-Eastern book is the one by Storr though he treats Bhagwan too. The psychiater Deutsch (literally) treats Jeff/Baba, who is in turn a follower of the Hindu guru SSB. Mary Garden was a follower of a string of Hindu gurus. Van der Lans points out the dangers of lack of personal contact when compared to traditional gurus. Kramer and Alstadt have a very long essay that could apply both to Hindu gurus as well as their Western equivalents. I have already written hereabove that I think that the distinction between Hindu and Western gurus is artificial and should go. There is too much overlap e.g. Andrew Cohen. Ram Dass, and Adi Da are not from India but learned from Hindu teachers, Bhagwan is from India but is not a Hindu guru. If there is a distinction to be made, then I find Kranenborg's three types more useful than Hindu versus non-Hindu. Andries 02:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You did not understand what I meant. All these books are written by Westerners. This article relates to "Guru" from a much wider perspective than the one offered by Westerm sociologists. I am sure that you can appreciate that for Hindus, Sikhs and Budhists, the guru is a respected person and a tradition that goes back for 1,000's of years. In fact, when Western civilization was still in the dark ages, gurus in the East were a source of light and wisdom. Your approach to this article show a common bias of Western culture, that considers anything "different" such as the concept of guru as something to be feared and criticized. This is Wikipedia, an encylclopedia that respects diversity and respects diverse viepoints. In regard to this article, you must respect the millions of people to which "guru" represents a source of inspiration and great respect. -- Zappaz 02:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should use the most authorative sources regardless from the question whether they where written by Westerners or Indians. And please, when answering me, you seem to forget my background of intense involvement with and respect for a Hindu guru during nine years. Andries 03:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hagiographic or non-scholarly books about individual gurus should not be listed in the bibliography. Andries 03:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, what is the difference between the critical books about gurus by the Indians Basava Premanand, Abraham Kovoor and western critics? I think the distinction is very artificial. Andries 02:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Both these authors focused on debunking false gurus in modern India. What I am talking about is the tradition of gurus as teachers. --Zappaz 02:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand and I agree. That is why I propose to drop the artificial distinction between Hindu and non-Hindu gurus but instead follow Kranenborg's three types, spiritual advisors (traditional), enlightened master, and avatar. Andries 02:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem I am referring. The taxonomy proposed by Kranenborg is, when viewed from a Eastern perspective, a very strange one. --Zappaz 03:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then what is your alternative? I think the current version is worse than Kranenborg's taxonomy. Andries 03:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reasons of slightly negative connotation

I think the reason of the slightly negative connotation is due to several factors and not to one as in the current version. I do not have references so quickly but nor does the current version.

1. Generals suspsicion of foreign philosophies
2. Proselytizing by followers
3. Public came into contact with followers who disseminated simplistic, idiosyncratic philosophies, including surrender to the guru and who sometimes gave up their careers and studies to follow the guru conflicting with the public's common sense.
4. Scandals e.g. Osho but also due to scandals with more traditional gurus.
5. Sometimes bitter complaints of ex-followers who were disillusioned
6. Activities of the anti-cult movement
7. Unpredictability of some of these gurus (similar with charismatic authority) and their strong influence of their followers

Andries 13:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You keep missing the point. For Sikhs, Hundus and Budhists, "guru" is to be respected and part of a tradition that spawns thousands of years. ll what you say is related to a very narrow interpretation of "guru", that of the Judeo-Christian tradition. --Zappaz 20:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I admit that the more traditional part spiritual advisor of the guru needs expansion but that is one part of Hinduism that I do not know much about. Andries 21:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. At this rate I can see already two different articles emerging. One that deals with the traditional aspects of Guru as in the great religions of the East (Budhism, Hinduism and Sikhism) and another article that deals with the critique/analysis of Gurus by Western sociologists and thinkers. Intertesting is the fact that Western civilization always had a problem in trying to understand the complexity of the Eastern traditions, such as this one. --Zappaz 23:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, could you explain what you want with this article and explain why you moved van der Lans' and Kranenborg's citations to "Western context" though Kranenborg and van der Lans make statements that apply both to Hindu and westernized gurus? Andries 08:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is very obvious why. Both Kraneborg and der Lans are Westerners. For a Sikh, a Hindu or a Budhist, these assertions are tainted by a western world-view. The more I think about it, the more I feel that we need to create two separate articles. One that discusses Guru from a Western perspective, and one that discusses guru from a Budhist, Hinduist and Sikh perspective. --Zappaz 18:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See this example: Imagine I am a Budhist that passionately studying Jesus and Christianity. I then come to Wikipedia and start editing the article. I am, of course, writing about Jesus from my world-view, that is Budhist. I compare Jesus with the Dalai-Lama, I start making comparisons between the Jesus' teachings and the Gautama's. Surely Christians will not be very happy about it. They will have no problem on a short section about "Budhism's views on Jesus", what they will be rightly upset if that section becomes the predominant section in the article. Do you see the problem...? --Zappaz 18:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can imagine a distinction between religious views (Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Sant Mat) on gurus and secular views (psychological, sociological) but to make separate section and even articles on Western views is wrong, I believe. Some originally Indians hold Western ideas and some Westerners hold Hindu ideas. I do not think that there is much difference between an Indian enlightened master and a western enlightened master. I met a Western guru from the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, who followed an Indian guru and who held Hindu ideas about gurus. Lane has followed and written about an gurus for decades. Kranenborg started to study gurus in the early seventies. Andries 21:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I intend to merge the Hindu view and western view. I see no good reason why they should be separated. Andries 21:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please don't. Please respond first to the position that I have explained above. If you stil intend to do so, I would suggest to bring this to RfC to see what other editors think. --Zappaz 03:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attraction by gurus

Andries, I imagine that this is your writing. You will need to either provide attributions for the text in that sub-section (Guru#Attraction_by_gurus statements or I will move to delete it. They way it currenty reads and without attributing it is not within NPOV.

There are several reasons why people in Western cultures are attracted by gurus.

• How do you know of these reasons? (yo do not know what people think)

The most common is that people look for the meaning of life and are disillusioned in traditional religions.

• Says who?

Gurus provide answers to the meaning of life, often free from the intellectualism of philosophy.

• Which Gurus?

Other people who have traditional beliefs seek to intensify their religious life and see a guru who can help her or him with this.

• Says who? Which "Other people".

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.

• this is a awful generalization. Some Gurus do not address Karma or re-incarnation. Others dont's speak of Moksha or Nirvana.

This text as is needs to go or be re-written with less generalizations and providing some attributions or citacions. See if Kraneborg or der Lans say someting on the subject and attribute the text if you want. IMO, this is an example of the lack of understanding about cultures other that their own by Westerners and the assumptions and generalizations made. This is pretty bad... --Zappaz 03:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please Zappaz, stop the harassment, you are less picky about what you vrite than about others write. Now, I confirm what andries said, and many people would confirm it. Is that OK for attribution? Please, don't dare to delete a text, a really stupid menace, just because you want to make the article unbalanced. If so, the whole article should be deleted, and all articles in wikipedia that don't give an attribution to every sentence should be deleted. All this propaganda of yours, either in this article or in the cult article, to the point of spitting at democratic laws in some paragraphs, is really becoming silly. Wikipedia is not here to recruit adepts for cults and gurus. You know, cigarettes pack include warnings, even aspirin notices include warnings, so certainly guru and cult articles should include warnings. --Pgreenfinch 08:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would encourage you to lower your tone and become more knowledgeable on how Wikipedia works, before making unwarranted assessments of my requests for attribution:

• Please read NPOV, the foundation of Wikipedia. Your coment above shows a lack of basic understanding on how WP works.
• Note that Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Read Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia is not here to recruit adepts for cults and gurus, neither it is here to "warn" people about what some think to be nefarious. The basis of Wikipedia is that if information is presented in a neutral voice, with attributions of POV where needed, readers are intellingent enought to reach their own conclusions. Why do you see yourself to be authorative to spoon-feed readers your own biases? This the exact opposite of what WP is all about!

Andries, knows all the above, and I am sure he will find a way to keep the essence of that text, after he has found good sources that support it.

Regarding what I write, I expect that you hold me accountable to the same standards. If you see any text that I add without attribution or sources, let me know. --Zappaz 17:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lower your tone also and don't try to impress me with lessons on how Wikipedia work. I didn't see you being the perfect example on those matters. You know perfectly well for example that attributions can be used to cover some biased presentations. The OSCE bit in the cult article was a good example of that. --Pgreenfinch 22:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My tone is loew already. And yes, I still think that you will benefit from reading NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research. I do that myself from time to time to refresh my memory. --Zappaz 04:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I wrote it. Feel free to remove statements that you feel are doubtful or overly generalizing in that section but please do not remove statements that you cannot seriously doubt because it will cost me a lot of time to find references for them even if they are obvious. Andries 18:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I could try Andries, although I think that given you are the author, it should be you the one to make the edit and remove generalizations and POV. I can offer this edit:

As an alternative to established religions, some people in the West have looked up at spiritual guides and Gurus from the East to provide answers to the meaning of life and to achive a more direct experience free from intellectualism and philosophy. Gurus from many denominations have traveled to the West and established a following, in particular during the 1960s and 1970s.

I would collapse that text within the section "Criticism and assessment of the guru's authenticity". --Zappaz 04:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removals of non-Hindu gurus by Jossifresco

Jossi removed Marshall Applewhite and Benjamin Creme which may be correct but he is incorrect in removing Shoko Asahara (whom I re-added) who has often been referred to as a guru, for example here. [1] [2] Andries 11:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Japanese newspapers call Asahara a guru. See [3] Searching on google for Ashara & guru yields 5,900 results. In other words, enough evidence to list Asahara as a guru. Andries 16:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought that this a list of of people that either call themelves "guru" or that his followers call him "guru". Not people that others call him guru, particularly if used as a pejorative. Maybe we need disclaimers for each one on the list establishing these distinctions (i.e. Shoko Asahara - called a guru by Japanese newspapers and critics). In this vein, What about Blavatsky, Crowley and Gurdjieff? Have these been called gurus? By whom? Note that we do not have this problem on the "list of famous gurus", because in Hindu context, Guru is a highly regarded role...≈ jossi ≈ 17:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am certiain that Gurdjief has been called a guru by e.g. Anthony Storr. And it is not true that a guru is always so highly regarded in Hinduism. The existence of false gurus is well known. For example the influential Vivekananda and the Panchatantra warn against them. Andries 17:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Storr called a lot of people "guru". That is insufficent for listing these as gurus. I am remoning a few, leaving the obvious ones. --Zappaz 03:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unattributed text

This must be from you Andries. Care to find an atribution or citation for this?

The history of various gurus, religions, sects, new religious movements and cults has shown that the question how to assess the authenticity of a guru is difficult, especially when the guru is still young.

This text seems to me just an idea and not encyclopedic:

According to the Bible, Jesus said that one should judge a prophet by his fruits, though it is not not clear whether this rule of the thumb also includes gurus. [4] .

Please also refrain of using ""some believe".

Some believe that this rule has the drawbacks that one should know what is good and bad in the first place and that one cannot possibly know all acts and their corresponding fruits of a guru.

Thanks. --Zappaz 23:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I have restored the sentence about Jesus that you removed. This is a notable attributed opinion. Andries 06:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jesus said what he said. The applicability to Gurus need to be attributed. Removed. --Zappaz 20:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

many Christians believe that what Jesus said about prophet in this respect also applies to teachers, not just to prophets. Teacher is similar to the meaning given to the wors guru by Hindus. Andries 00:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now it reads better, has context and is relevant. Thanks Andries .--Zappaz 05:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why did was this text deleted?

He further refers to Eileen Barker's list to recognize dangerous situation in religious movements.

There seem to be an effort to separate cults and false gurus. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:50, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

It was deleted because it is not relevant to that sentence (my highligt):

The British psychiatry professor Anthony Storr argues in his book Feet of clay - A Study of gurus that gurus (in the non-Hindu usage of the word) share common character traits (e.g. being loners without friends) and that some suffer from a mild form of schizophrenia. He argues that the belief system that some gurus hold developed during a period of psychosis to make sense of their own minds and perceptions. These belief system persists after the psychosis has gone away. He further refers to Eileen Barker's list to recognize dangerous situation in religious movements.

A I missing something? The text refers to Storr's book, and explains his views about Gurus (the subject of this article). The subject of this article is not purported "dangerous situations in religious movements". What is the relevance? Deleted. --Zappaz 02:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So are you saying that this discussion of false gurus is more relevant to cult checklists? Wow, maybe we should link the articles. No? OK, I'll copy the sentence over there, where it is relevant. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:10, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. --Zappaz 20:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I have never read a guideline in Wikipedia that says that it is wrong to make links to related subjects. Not writing that sentence would give a one-sided view of Storr's opinion. Besides the sentence is relevant in an article about gurus. For example Barker's checklist contains the sentence.

"Leader who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to their followers;"

Andries 06:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Zappaz, please read Storr's book first before commenting on his book. Thanks. Andries 21:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, what you write about the book is nonsense. Storr never wrote that Freud had special revelations. Andries

Correct. I just made a list of all the people that Storr considered Gurus, and that, believe it or not, includes Freud and Jung. --Zappaz 05:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just reorganized the "Western context" section, grouping the different paragraphs under the more appropriate sub-headings. Is this section is becoming extensive enough to spawn it's own article? I am planing to expand the Sikhims and Buddhism sections. --Zappaz 05:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with the generalization that the role of the spiritual teachers is not understood. I have attributed this to Feuerstein but don't know whether this is correct. I cannot imagine that the many interpretations of gurus by Westerners are all incorrect. Andries

oh, I find the statement the role of the guru is not widely understood very uninformative unless Feuerstein explains how he thinks that the role of the spiritual teacher is (which he hardly does in the current version of the article). Andries 14:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is absolutely informative. Just because it does not fit your POV, it does not make it uninformative. You can read his article and his books. See the referece section --Zappaz 18:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have read his article [5] and find it extremely flimsy and unscholarly and I think it hence cannot serve as a basis for this article. I have read another article by Feuerstein that is a lot better (don't remember where). Andries 18:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, please provide reference for your statement that all gurus in a lineage in Hinduism affirm that they are servants of God. This seems unlikely in the case of gurus who belong to very outspoken forms of advaita vedanta and tantra. Andries

What sentence are you referring to? --Zappaz 18:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the sentence that I was referring to and request references for

"It is worth noting that in all sects with a disciplic succession or parampara, both guru and disciple affirm to be servants of the divine." :::Andries

No problems, plenty of references for that. --Zappaz 01:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kranenborg

I do not agree with moving Kranenborg's analysis about neo-Hindu movements out of the Hindu section. There are Hindus in the Netherlands too. And I think the separation between Western context and Hindu context is artificial. I have met so many Suriname Hindus who were into the SSB Hindu movement. The first three of the four items that Kranenborg mentioned refer to Hinduism. Besides Kranenborg's reference to caste can only refer to Hindus abroad because Dutch/Suriname Hindus do not observe caste due to their indention work in Suriname in the 19th century (complicated history). Andries

Kranemborg's' work is good, but it was related to studying neo-hinduist sects in Holland. It does not belong in that section, Andries. How can you say that separation between Eastern and Western context is artificial? Reverted once again. --Zappaz 00:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not following why it matters which type of sect the author was studying. This is an article on Gurus, who are broadly defined as spiritual leaders. The author apparently specifically addresses gurus. Where is the conflict? Thanks -Willmcw 00:31, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Will, it seems that you are making the same mistake that Andries is making. This is indeed an article about Gurus. The person of a guru is highly respected in Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism (a rather large portion of the earth population, BTW). This article describes gurus in the context of these religions from these religions perspectives. After all, this is an world encyclopedia, not a Western encyclopedia. For that we have Britannica... So, in this article we also have a section on Guru in a western context (now growing in size and one day will surely be split into its own article), in which we have attempted to (a) address scholars that have studied the guru phenomena from a western viewpoint, the criticism against gurus in the West and a few other uses of the word in the West. That is why Kranenborg's stuff needs to go in that section. Putting Krannenborg study (that was related to neo-hinduist sects in the Netherlands) in a subsection dealing with Gurus in Hinduis is (not a big deal) but innapropriate. I have worked hard on this article, and want to make sure it stays in a good shape. --Zappaz 01:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that - I had been under the misapprehension that you wanted the material removed from the article, as opposed to moved within it. Never mind... -Willmcw 05:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I disagree with you for several reasons

1. The fact that Kranenborg writes about caste indicates that his classification is more than just based on a study of sects in the Netherlands. The Hindus here, who came from India via Suriname do not follow caste regulations due to somewhat complicated historical reasons. In other words his remark is completely irrelevant for the situation in the Netherlands. And his remark about the Sikh meaning of the word guru i.e. a book cannot be based on his study of sects here. Summarizing, his classification is not just applicable for Dutch sects. Andries 06:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just re-read the book and Kranenborg gave this classification with regards to gurus in India. The next chapter deals with Hinduism in the West. Andries 12:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I have never heard of a rule that secular and religious views cannot be mixed. In contrast, I think they should be mixed when writing on a certain subject in order to give the reader a variety of view points. It is wrong and I think against NPOV guidelines to treat a certain sub subject only from one perspective. Andries 06:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. I continue to think that the distincinction between Hindu gurus in a Western context and in an Eastern context is artificial. We do not want an article on e.g. Reverend in the East and from an Eastern perspective. I admit that though that the new meanings of the word in the West should be mentioned. Hereunder I mention five reasons why I think that the distinction between Eastern and Western is artificial and inaccurate and should be avoided as much as possible:

1. Many religious seekers, including Andrew Cohen visit India and became there followers of Hindu gurus. The Austrian Agehananda Bharati beccame a Hindu monk (his books would make good content for this article by the way)
2. Or Hindu gurus come to the West and acquire followers here apart from the followers that they have already in India, like centers and Swamis of the Ramakrishna_Mission in Western Europe and the USA, founder of Hare Krisna, Prem Rawat and Maharishi. I have to admit that Kranenborg writes that these gurus do not bring undiluted popular Hinduism to the Western followers which I have to check this before I write it in the article.
3. The criticism of gurus by e.g.Basava Premanand influences both Westerners and East Indians. Same for the criticism by David C. Lane who has written extensively about Radhasoami gurus. I do not understand why and how his criticism should go into "Western" or "Eastern" section.
4. The terms "Eastern" and "Western" are vague and should either be defined or should be avoided as much as possible. Please use more specific terms, like Hindu, Buddhist, Sant Mat, Sikh, Tantra, bhakti, USA, India, Western Europe etc. instead.
5. I do not believe that Westerners have different brains or have a very different mentality or join for different reasons than Easterners though I admit that this may have been somewhat different in the 1960s and 1970s. Then young people in Europe and the USA were disilusioned in political means to change society and hence turned to religion and wanted to get high without drugs. I do not believe that these motivation now still play a big role for starting to follow gurus. I also admit that it is more unusual in Europe to follow a guru than in India.

Andries 06:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I kindly disagree with you Andries. A Western perspective and a Eastern perspective is a very needed distinction. We assess our world around based on the cultural context from which we observe. Would you say that the perception of the world of a Australian aborigine and the perception of a New Yorker are the same? Is it possible to say that one is more valid than the other? Attempting to "mix" both perspectives in one article would be very, very strange and unusual. More useful to readers will be to show both perceptions from their perspectives. That will be very interesting material, rather than a confusing mishmash of POVs. Same here. For a pious Sikh, there is no higher being than his Guru. He will compare Guru with God, sing the glory of the Guru, pray to his Guru, etc. For a secular person living in Paris, these statements could be seen as ridiculously backward. So, how do you present an article on this subject in NPOV? By clearly making a distinction. This issue is one that most Westerners have a problem with. We somehow think (with no little amount of arrogance, IMO) that our Western perspective is the only one. Now, Wikipedia is not an Western encyclopedia, thank god. This is what is so wonderful about this project. --Zappaz 16:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "Western perspective" or "Eastern perspective". There is a perspective of the followers of bhakti movements, Christians, Skeptics, humanists, traditional Hindus, Radhasoami adepts etc. regardless where they were born and grew up. Some Indians are skeptics. Is that an Eastern persective? Some Westerners follow bhakti movements. Is that a Western perspective? Very artificial and very inaccurate to use the terms Western and Eastern perspective and context. Andries 17:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I did include Hindu views in my edits for example by citing Vivekanda and referring to a Upanishad. Please stop talking to me as if I do not know the Hindu viewpoint. Andries 20:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not challenging you on your knowledge of hinduism, but your sometimes innacurate assertions of fact. --Zappaz 22:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not fundamentally oppose separating coherent perspectives into sections, like sociological perspectives, Sant Mat perspective, Saiva perspective, Vaishnava perspective, but I strongly oppose to using such vague and inaccurate classifications as "Eastern" and "Western" as a basis for making sections in this article. The "Western view" is certainly not a coherent perspective. Even the "Hindu view" cannot be treated as a coherent perspective because there is too much variation between the different schools, sects etc. Andries 14:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kranenborg citation

Andries, what from the text below is from Kranenborg's book and what are your additions. The sentences I am referring to are in bold. Also, explain what is the meaning of last point. It does not make sense. Thanks --Zappaz 22:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Dutch theologian Dr. Reender Kranenborg distinguished four types of gurus while studying Neo-Hindu sects in the Netherlands:

1. the spiritual advisor for higher caste Hindus who also performs traditional rituals and who is not connected to a temple (thus not a priest);
2. the enlightened master who derives his authority from his experience, such as achieving moksha. This type appears in bhakti movements and in tantra and asks for unquestioning obedience and can have Western followers. Westerners even have become one, for example Andrew Cohen;
3. the avatar, a guru who claims to be, or who is claimed by his followers to be an incarnation of God, or to be God-like, or an instrument of God, for example Sathya Sai Baba and gurus from the Sant Mat lineage;
4. A "guru" in the form of a book in the Sikh religion.

All is from Kranenborg's book. I only made a very short selection of what Kranenborg had written. The Sikh refer to a book as a guru as explained in the section about Sikhism Andries 04:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that Kranengborg cites Sathya Sai Baba, Sant Mat, Andrew Cohen, etc. as examples of hois taxonomy? How "selective" are you on choosing a citation? --Zappaz 15:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yes, Kranenborg mentions Andrew Cohen, SSB and Sant Mat and a few more that I forgot in his taxonomy. Andries 18:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course I have to be very selective when I cite his book because there is little space in this article and I do not want to break copyright. Andries 22:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Feuerstein's article uses a peculiar definition of a guru

I have a problem with using that article article by Dr. Georg Feuerstein as a basis for this article because I think it is flimsy in contrast to some of his other writings and above all because he uses some unusual tautological definitions of a guru/spiritual teachers. For example he writes.

"Spiritual teachers, by their very nature, swim against the stream of conventional values and pursuits. They are not interested in acquiring and accumulating material wealth or in competing in the marketplace, or in pleasing egos. They are not even about morality. "

This is in sharp contradiction with the understanding of mainstream Hinduism that puts greats emphasis on morality and that its warnings that there are false and incompetent gurus who exploit their followers. Elsewhere Feuerstein writes that there are gurus exploit their followers. Andries 13:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feuerstein is an acclaimed Indologist. I would be cautious in dismissing his descriptions of the meaning of Hindu folkways. --goethean 16:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He has written many books and is a known yoga scholar. --Zappaz 16:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Georg%20Feuerstein/102-0529223-8522535

I believe it but what he writes in that article contradicts both the regular definition and what he wrote elsewhere. Andries 16:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feuerstein is cautioning against using our normal standards and methods in evaluating the actions of gurus. He is saying that when gurus appear to be immoral, they may actually be extra-moral or trans-moral. Feuerstein desribes Indian culture from the perspecive of a scholarly insider, a very valuable perspective. That his statement doesn't make sense to you almost argues for its validity. --goethean 17:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, I know the Hindu mentality quite well and I read Feustein's enty in his encyclopedia about a crazy adept. But in the encyclopedia he writes things that totally contradict what he writes in the article. If you insist on using that article as a source then I will also include Feuerstein's writing that contradicts his article. Andries 17:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goethan, I know from personal experience that Feuerstein's way of reasoning as expressed in that article can lead to disasters. Andries 17:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you insist on using that article as a source then I will also include Feuerstein's writing that contradicts his article.

Just be sure to put it in context and include the date of composition, rather than quoting misleading fragments out of context. --goethean 18:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goethan, I know from personal experience that Feuerstein's way of reasoning as expressed in that article can lead to disasters. Andries

Could you elaborate on exactly what you mean by this? --goethean 18:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have sent you an email. Btw, Feuerstein made a complete fool of himself by writing such contradictory statements. See the article. Andries 18:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Picking and choosing quotations out of context is not an acceptable manner to cite authors. Later in the day, I will come back and review your edits. I warn you again, Andries, that WP is not a place for advocacy. As I said, if you want to express your opinions in this matter and/or advocate against gurus without being challenged, go ahead and publish your thoughts in a blog, a wiki or a website. If it is good material, we may even link it from here ... :) --Zappaz 19:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I quoted from Feurestein's entry in gurus in his encyclopedia and so I do not think that that is out of context. I told you that it was not very wise to use that article by Feuerstein as a soruce but you insisted. Andries 19:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Goethean for cleaning up this section. It reads much better now. --Zappaz 22:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Extensive edits by Andries

Although I am always for being bold in editing, I find Andries unilateral masive editing and deletion of text inapproriate and lacking in consensus. I am reverting all these edits. Go slow Andries, and excplain your reasons for each edit.. --Zappaz 16:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had explained every move and deletion. Andries 16:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where? --Zappaz 17:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not good enough Andries. We have been working on this article collaborativelly for months. Please go aghead and add value if you wish, but bing changes likes the one you made, is better that you discuss them first. Go ahead, go slow, one at a time. There is no rush. Some of the stuff you added is good. --Zappaz 16:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have been saying that I do not agree with the distinction between Eastern and Western for months. Andries 17:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That does not mean anything. Seek consensus before making extensive changes. --Zappaz 17:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pot kettle black. You are the one who first moved without consensus van der Lans and Kraneborg's citation to a separate Western section. See my question to you on 6 Feb. Andries 06:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP is not a place for advocacy

Andries, please note that WP is not a place of advocacy of any kind. If you want to advocate against Gurus and warn the public about the dangers you see, or to tell your personal story, you have all right to do that but not in WP. Get a website or even your own wiki for that. Thank you. --Zappaz 17:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problems with regarding the assessment of a guru and the widespread criticism of gurus is a notable documented discussion and hence deserve to be mentioned here. Andries 17:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course! That why it is in the article already! Note that the "widespread criticism" makes the usual mistake to exclude billions of people that think different. That is what I meant by "western perspective". Tell you what Andries: I need to leave now. Give me a chance to include some of the text you added in the previous format of the article. I will have time later in the day. As I said, some of it is very good. --Zappaz 17:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many of these billions of people India are also critical of gurus and also have problems in assessing the guru. Andries 17:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How do you know this, Andries? --Zappaz 19:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both Traditional Hindu scriptures warn against false gurus and modern gurus, like Vivekanda, Yogananda, Prabhupada, Sai Baba, and Sathya Sai Baba. Kranenborg also wrote that there are tradional methods to distinguish charlatans from true gurus. Andries 19:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is the problem, Andries ... your need to advocate blinds you. In an article about Paper money, how much of that article needs to be dedicated to Counterfeit money? --Zappaz 22:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the problems are so big that even the word guru received a slightly negative connotation then the problems regarding the assessment of their authenticity deserves an extensive treatment. The somewhat negative connotation that the word has acquired is based on real experiences by real people and not just on anti-cult propaganda. If people continue to trust the wrong gurus based on ignorance then the reputation of the word will only suffer more. Andries 07:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I repeat: WP is not a place for advocay and not a place for you, or anybody else for that natter to save people from suffering. Regarding your extensive edits, I do not have much time today, but rest assure that I will come back and clean up after you. I find your attitude of unilaterally editing to be disingenous and lacking in manners. --Zappaz 15:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Andries, your advocacy is creating havoc in this and other articles. This is unacceptable. I have no other way than to revert again all your edits, and I will continue to do the allowed times: 3 times in 24hrs, until you consider editing collaborativelly and seeking consensus before making substantial changes to an article that was stable for months.--Zappaz 16:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are the one who should first seek concensus and give a detailed reply and rebuttal to all the extensive comments and explanations that I have been making for the last few months. Not me. Andries 18:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, you have no right to revert my edits unless you explain in detail what is wrong with my version. And if you have no time do so then you have to accept that my version should prevail for the time being. Andries 19:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not about "who's version" prevails. Note that the previous version was not my version. And theres is not point to discuss issues related to your version. This article does not belong to you... The issue at hand is one of consensus NPOV writing vs. advocacy against or for "gurus". Regarding your extensive comments, if you want to play by the rules, please state each one concisely and let's discuss them. --Zappaz 20:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have already stated my comments many times. I do not have to repeat them over and over again. Andries 21:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A summary of Andries' POV and proposals regarding this article

1. My version contains a lot more information than your version. All information that is in your version is also in my version. Andries 21:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. I cannot see where my version breaks NPOV guidelines so I do not understand why you accuse me of advocacy. Please tell me where my version advocates something. Andries 21:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. I consider making sections based on "Eastern context"/"Eastern perspective", "western context""/"Western perspective" vague, artificial, and inaccurate and instead I propose making sections on Hindu perspectives (preferrably breaking down in yoga, tantra, sant mat, bhakti) , skeptical perspectives, Buddhism perspectives, sociological perspective etcetera as long as the main subjects stay together. Andries 21:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - (my highlights) -- Zappaz 21:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

Please explain where I make advocay. I don't see any advocacy in my version. This is the second time that I am asking you for detailed criticism of my version. Andries 21:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to ask me about your advocacy. Read your own words in this discussion. My last revert for this 24 hr period. There is always tomorrow. --Zappaz 22:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You won't make a good impression on the other editors if you revert without explaining why the other version is better though it contains less information. Andries 22:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not here to impress anyone. Your combative attitude is not helping here. The version you took apart is NOT my version. Is a version arrived by a multitude edits over a period of months by many editors. Please don't play the naive with me. Your anti-guru advocacy is known to anyone that has followed your edits, and can read your own words above. Your deletion of text, your shifting around the text to portray your anti-guru POV is totally unencyclopedic and unfair. Your "pick-and-chose" citations and anything but POV, and your attempt to stuff the text as a later thought to claim "I have added information", is just a game that I will not accept. Period. And I am absolutely serious in challenging you on this. --Zappaz 23:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, pot kettle black about "pick and choose" citations. Yes, I am critical about gurus but I am critical in this article following the NPOV guidelines so that is no advocacy. And I have added a lot of information that you simply remove without trying to integrate it. So your accusation of text removals by me that were minimal and that I later re-added are ridiculous.Andries 23:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, here is an example where you do not follow the NPOV guidelines in this article. The lead section should always contain a summary of the article but you removed the following sentence.

"Critics assert that some gurus do this with the effect or even purpose of exerting domination or receiving inappropriate benefits."

So please stop accusing me over and over again of advocacy without being concrete and detailed. Thanks

Andries 23:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just read your own words. You fail to address my concerns:

1. Unilateral massive changes to the structure of the article
2. Unilateral shifting text to suit your POV
3. Adding text only relevant to criticism of Gurus
4. Unilateral mixing of Western and Eastern perspectives
5. and all the above concerns about advocacy.

Listen, Andries, playing unilaterally will take you nowhere... You see, I can come tomorrow and excise the whole text about Eastern perspecive and spawn it into its own article. What will you do then? Revert my edits, wouldn't you? Put an RfC? If you want to work together, then revert back to the last version by Goethean and come here to discuss the changes. Thank you and good night. --Zappaz 23:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ad 1. I have been saying this for months and you started unilarally moving text, see my comment to you on 6. Feb. A pot kettle black reproach. Andries 07:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ad 2. same for 1 Andries 07:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ad 3. untrue I added a lot of factual information Andries 07:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ad 4. I explained extensively and in detail why I think your structure of the text is wrong and I am still waiting for your reply and detailed rebuttal. Basically, I think that the article should be organized on subject, not organized on the something very vague, inaccurate and artificial as "Eastern perspective" or "Western perspective". Westerners can also have a Hindu perspective and Indians can have a sociological or skeptical perspective. And yes, when organizing the article more on subject there will be more mixing of POVs. Andries

ad 5. You alway accuse me of advocacy but never take to effort to be more specific and explain which text by me are advocacy. Probably because you can't as my edits followed NPOV guidelines. In contrast, I do not accuse you of advocay but try to be specific about the text that I do not agree with.Andries 07:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Zappaz

Thank God for a new day...

1. Restored original article layout;
2. Incorporated new text by Andries into article, in the appropriate sections;
3. Removed text that was not attributed;
4. Removed original research;
5. NPOV'ed several paragraphs;
6. Overall cleanup, rm dups;
7. Added section fron Kranenborg, although it does not warrant a section IMO. We need to look for a more substantial taxonomy on Gurus than this one, but for the time being will do.

--Zappaz 07:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I restored the new structure but tried to address some of your concerns and rewrote some sentences into NPOV style that you had removed or provided references for unreferenced statements.
2. I also removed the following unreferenced statement for which I had requested references you some time ago:

It is worth noting that in all sects with a disciplic succession or parampara, both guru and disciple affirm to be servants of the divine.

Besides, I think that starting a sentence with ``It is worth noting ´´ is a weasel statement (like ``Some believe´´) and should be avoided. Who considers this worth noting?

Andries 10:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptable editing behavior. I tried to incorporate your additional texts, but you are unilaterally making too many edits that substatially change an article that was worked on by many editors before you. This is totally unacceptable behavior. This is about collabrative editing. I ask of you again: Discuss substantial changes to the article here, and seek consensus before proceeding. Until you accept to play by the rules, my activities on this article will be as follows:

1. Incorporating any worthy new text to the original structure
2. NPOVing your edits
3. Removing unattributed and original research
4. Reverting your edits the maximum alloted of 3 times in each 24 hrs, when you do masive editings and change the article structure. Have a good day. --Zappaz 16:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I will follow Wikipedia's rules but not your instant home made rules. For months I have been arguing and explaining that and why the old structure is not good and I have yet to see your detailed reply and rebuttal to what I have written. Andries 17:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I replied to your proposal about restructuring already and presented my reasons why it is a poor idea. I also suggested to bring this issue to RfC. You ignored this and acted unilaterally. The fact that you went ahead with the change without seeking consensus, shows your contemmpt for collaborative editing. As I said, until you relent, I will revert your changes throughout the maximum allowed eachy day, and at night I will attempt to incorporate new text that is worthy of inclusion into the article as it was before your restructuring. Note that I am not only oppossing your restructuring, I am opposing your attempt to make this article an anti-guru article as a mean to advocate your POV that gurus are "dangerous". This is an outrageous disregard for the reverence that millions of people profess for their Gurus, in Hinduism, Skihism, and Budhism and a blatant disregard for the no-advocacy of WP. Have a good day. --Zappaz 21:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I had presented this article to RfC already today. Andries 22:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. I was not at all impressed at all by your rebuttal and reply to my proposals and criticism of the old structure so I went ahead. Andries 22:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. There is very much criticism of false gurus both in and outside India, both in Hindu scripture and by Hindu gurus and also by skeptics who criticize the whole concept of the guru-disciple relationship. This extensive criticism should hence be treated here. Not to treat this criticism here would be advocacy and against NPOV rules. And believe me, I am not ant-guru, I only have problems to distinguish the good ones from the bad ones. Andries 22:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you presented to RfC, how come you don't announce this here? That is disingenous. If you were not impressed by my rebuttal, then you engage me in a conversation about it. That is what we do here at WP: we discuss, give and take, collaborate. I am with you that the aspects of false gurus is both fascinating and worthy of study (I mysefl added tet from Gita regarding this aspect), but it needs to be placed in the correct context, and a minority viewpoint it needs a worthy mention but no more. After all you don't define something by what is not. At ninght I will attempt to incorporate your text additions (some of which are very good, btw) to the original structure. --Zappaz 22:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not have time yet to make a good announcement of the RfC. I talked and talked to you but you did not seriously reply to me. Andries 22:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

False gurus a minority viewpoint? The vast majority of people have a healthy distrust against most gurus. Andries 22:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is a minority! Your attitude is exactly what I am dsiputing: The attitude that a Western viewpoint can override other viewpoints in which the West is clearly a minority. --Zappaz 22:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everything indicates that the assessment of gurus and their criticism is an issue in India too. Both authorative Hindu scriptures and influential gurus have commented on the problem. How do you think that people in India thought about Osho/Rajneesh/Bhagwan? He received trenchant criticism there too, probably even more than in Europe and the USA. If you think that assessment of gurus and their criticism isn't an issue in India then may be you should have a look at the front page of the Kannada/Karnataka version of Wikipedia where the critic of gurus Narasimhaiah (sp?) is prominently shown. Andries 08:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edits Apr 25 by Zappaz

1. NPOVed and expanded intro to include true/false guru in the context of religions and Western perspective
2. Restored original structure of article, now in RfC
3. Expanded Guru in Sikihism and Buddhism
4. Provided background on some of the Western critics
5. Restored text from Andries edit where appropriated
6. Did not include "List of gurus independent from traditional religions", because it is not a taxonomy supported by a reference (i.e. original research)

Hope I did not leave out any valuable new text added by Andries. --Zappaz 02:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Andries, read the article as it stands, disspasionately if you clould, please. It is a good article and presents all the points. It is alreay 33 K so we will not be able to add much more text. The dilemma is that I want to expand the section on Buddhism and Sikhism, and surely you want to heap on the critical aspects of guruism so we will be busting the 32K limit soon. Any proposals about a non-POV split in the article? --Zappaz 03:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with your edits you removed important information about assessment of the guru in Hinduism and India. I restored this information more or less within the old structure. And for example, Osho is universally described as a guru but cannot be listed under "Hinduism" or Buddhism etc. That warrants a separate list for these kind of gurus. I propose making an article Guru in Hinduism which is a big subject. Andries 05:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You think that the Kannada version of wikipedia is a good indicator of popular sentiment in India?! If that were true, then the Western World would be a bunch of Ayn Rand devotees. (OK...bad example) --goethean 11:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-:) --Zappaz 15:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Andries, for chosing to collaborate. It is appreciated. Regarding your latest edit, I am 90% OK with it, I will make some minor changes later on that I will fully substantiante here. --Zappaz 15:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here they are my edits of today:

• NPOV'ed the section about assessment of the guru. Finding a true guru is one of the tenants of Hinduism, so it fits nicely on the section about the importance of guru in Hinduism;
• Debunking of gurus, godmen and fakirs by Indian skeptics warrants, and now has, its own section that could be expanded if needed;
• moved text from Freunstein to western section as it is an excellent preamble for it, showing the East/West context dilemma (that by the way was also highlighted by van der Lans.)

Some other issues/concerns:

1. Article is perilously close to the maximum size
2. Too many citations from Kranenborg. Can we find another scholar to cite from?
3. I think that a section on the guru/disciple relationship could be a worthy addition.
4. We need to expand a bit more the Buddhism and Sihks sections
5. Western section is becoming too big

--Zappaz 15:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with using the extensive unsummarized POV of Dr Feuerstein as a preamble to the Western section. His POV that he himself more or less contradicts in his encylopedia is just one of many POVs and should be treated as such. The section should started with undisputed facts and not with one of many viewpoint to give the reader the "right" perspective. I consider doing so POV pushing and against the NPOV guidelines Andries 17:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can this be POV pushing? Feurstein's text is an excellent way to start this section as it addresses one of the fundamentals of that section: the difficulty to understand the concept of "guru" from a Judeo-Christian perspective. -- Zappaz 19:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feuerstein's POV is a minority POV in the West. Distrust of gurus is widespread in the West. It would be more NPOV to start with David Lane's POV and even more NPOV to start with the facts and leave all the different POVs till later. Andries 19:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Distrust of gurus is widespread in the West - exactly. That is why Feurstein's opening sentence of his "Understanding the Guru" is such an excellent opening for this section. --Zappaz 19:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A minority opinion has only minority space and prominence. Those are the Wikipedia rules. The only thing you can do if you want to convince the majority that they are wrong is to use that limited space at the maximum by providing concise convincing well referenced attributed arguments. Andries 20:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the title for the western section. The title should be "assessment and criticism". If you read David C. Lane's excerpts from his book Exposing cults then you will see that it is not just criticism but more an assessment of the guru's authenticity. Later Lane became more critical about gurus. Andries 17:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lane is one scholar. Just one scholar. The fact that he wrote one book about exposing cults, does not mean that we have to create a section just for his POV. In any case, I don't think it is a big deal to leave your title as is. --Zappaz 19:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the title for the western section. The title should be "assessment and criticism". --Andries

Why? This is an assertion that needs to be argued for, rather than baldly put forth. --goethean 19:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, Lane clearly tries to assess not just criticize, for example he writes in his essay

If after taking the "spiritual crucible" you find out that your guru charges money for membership, lives an unethical lifestyle, self-proclaims his mastership, encourages proselytizing, alleges to be God-incarnated, emphasizes pre-rational practices, and demands total obedience, it can be assumed that you're on the wrong path and that your guru is a charlatan. On the other hand, if your guru/path scores positively in all areas (such an accomplishment, by the way, is rare), then you are very fortunate to have been led to a beneficial and legitimate spiritual movement.

Andries 20:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Difference between the two structures for RFC

Existing structure before changes by Andries - supported by Zappaz

Reasons stated

A Western perspective and a Eastern perspective is a very needed distinction. We assess our world around based on the cultural context from which we observe. Would you say that the perception of the world of a Australian aborigine and the perception of a New Yorker are the same? Is it possible to say that one is more valid than the other? Attempting to "mix" both perspectives in one article would be very, very strange and unusual. More useful to readers will be to show both perceptions from their perspectives. That will be very interesting material, rather than a confusing mishmash of POVs. Same here. For a pious Sikh, there is no higher being than his Guru. He will compare Guru with God, sing the glory of the Guru, pray to his Guru, etc. For a secular person living in Paris, these statements could be seen as ridiculously backward. So, how do you present an article on this subject in NPOV? By clearly making a distinction. This issue is one that most Westerners have a problem with. We somehow think (with no little amount of arrogance, IMO) that our Western perspective is the only one. Now, Wikipedia is not an Western encyclopedia, thank god. This is what is so wonderful about this project. --Zappaz 16:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article structure

1 Guru in Hinduism

1.1 Origin and understanding of the term Guru

1.2 Devotees' views on Guru and God

1.3 Importance of the Guru in Indian culture

1.4 List of notable gurus

2 Guru in Buddhism

3 Guru in Sikhism

4 A taxonomy of gurus

5 "Guru" in a Western culture context

5.1 Additional meanings in contemporary western usage

5.2 Criticism of gurus in Western society

6 Other uses of the word 'Guru'

New structure supported by Andries

Reasons stated

There is no such thing as a "Western perspective" or "Eastern perspective". There is a perspective of the followers of bhakti movements, Christians, Skeptics, humanists, traditional Hindus, Radhasoami adepts etc. regardless where they were born and grew up. Some Indians are skeptics. Is that an Eastern persective? Some Westerners follow bhakti movements. Is that a Western perspective? Very artificial and very inaccurate to use the terms Western and Eastern perspective and context. Andries 17:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article structure

1 Guru in Hinduism

1.1 Origin and understanding of the term Guru

1.2 Devotees' views on Guru and God

1.3 Importance of the Guru in Indian culture

1.4 List of famous gurus

2 Guru in Buddhism

3 Guru in Sikhism

4 A taxonomy of gurus

5 Gurus in the West and their European and American followers

6 Additional meanings in contemporary western usage

7 Assessment of the guru's authenticity and criticism

7.1 Hindu and other religious views

7.2 Skeptical and miscellaneous views

8 List of gurus independent from traditional religions

9 Other Uses of the word 'Guru'

Other disputes

Use of this article as advocacy against gurus and lack of balance between what the article is about (Guru) and discussion about false gurus/criticism of gurus

vs.

use of this article to minimize the documented extensive problems about assessment of the guru's authenticity and use of this article to minimize the extensive documented criticism.

---

RFC

One editor changed the RfC notice to say that it was several editors against one, and assigning a position to those multiple opponents. This dispute appears to be between just two editors. The comment has since been corrected. -Willmcw 22:53, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Will. Your statement is incorrect, the version that Andries changed was a version that was edited by many editors and that was stable for months. As such, Andries changes were unilateral and without consensus. --Zappaz 00:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am mistaken that the comment said that several editors characterized the other editor's work. I see on a more careful look of the now-gone text that it was correct in ascribing that to just one editor. -Cheers, -Willmcw 01:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Will, nonwithstanding the fact that the article was stable for months after the contributions of multiple editors, and although it has bee a while since other editors contributed to this article, Goethean helped as well in containing Andries' unilateral changes and challenging some of his edits. --Zappaz 02:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the structure was only stable because I had been too polite to change it because of objections by one persons in spite of my protests for several months against the structure. Andries 05:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is probably always a mistake to assume that past editors, who may have done little more than correct the spelling of a word, have endorsed the facts, presentation, and organization of an article simply by their failure to change them. This is a disagreement between two current editors, not between one editor and all past editors whohave ever edited this page. Further, there are many articles around Wikipedia that are POV, poorly written, or otherwise flawed and they are stable simply because editors have not gotten around to fixing them yet. So this is also not a dispute between stasis and change. This is a dispute between one view of how to write an article and another view. Both views may be right - but let's focus on how to make the best article for Wikipedia in a collaborative fashion. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:54, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)