Talk:Muktananda/Archive 1

Life

I felt that "become one with Parabrahma" was a concept that would not be easily understandable by an average reader of Wikipedia. Parabrahma does not have an article. I decided to remove that phrase and simplify the sentence it originally belonged to.

I also simplified the sentence about Muktananda's meditation experiences in yeola. The experiences were characterized as extraordinary. Yet there is no easy way for a Wikipedia reader to understand what was extraordinay about them without reading the book.

TheRingess 14:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the sentence about the number of centers and ashrams. A lot of SY's centers were established after Muktananda died. Also, that figure is not mentioned in either article. Probably to determine how many centers that Muktananda started we would need a figure from the SYDA foundation. It might be more accurate to say that the SYDA foundations established the centers.

TheRingess 14:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Parabrahma

A search of wikipedia will reveal that there are 4 or 5 articles which use the word and perhaps the time is right for someone to write about Parabrahma. Lumos3 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't object to the word "Parabrahma". I know that it is in use in several other articles and agree that it would make a nice article. What I object to is the phrase "one with parabrahma". As far as I know, there is no accepted, neutral definition of that phrase. It is as meaningful as saying, Nityananda said, "Ooggaaa boogga boo". It does not add to the article, it detracts from it.

TheRingess 01:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Meditation experiences

The key moment in his life was Nityananda's declaration of Muktananda's spiritual achievement. I have restored the bare facts. It would be wrong to exclude this signifcant point in his life. Lumos3 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the word "intense" that was used to describe Muktananda's meditation experiences. I believe that it is a non-neutral word.

It's also impossible for the reader to determine how the author of the article arrived at that assessment. So in the interests of keeping the article neutral, I removed it. Otherwise, we will have to allow other editors to give their assessment of Muktananda's experiences, and this could be problematic at best. If the casual reader wants to do further research, they can read the book and determine for themselves whether his experiences, were "intense", "extraordinary", "fantastic", "wonderful" or somewhere in between. TheRingess 01:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Further Reading

I think that this section does not need to be split into two parts, it seems to clutter the article unnecessarily. I don't think the article really needs a complete bibliography either, but can't decide which ones to delete. I also removed the word "important" from the description of the Caldwell essay, as it is my general opinion, that assertions of importance need a source and none was provided. Also, I replaced the word "insider" with the word student, as it seems to me that in this context, a casual reader might not be familiar with its meaning and the word "student" seems simpler. TheRingess 01:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I shortened the sentence concerning the Caldwell article. The article might be better served, if Kaula had a definition with sources then another editor could add a section here that details the similarities (and perhaps differences) between the two teachings, and uses Caldwell's article as a primary source. TheRingess 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think it is correct to mix books by the subject together with books by others. I have seen other articles with a bibliography section. Since he authored books, there should be a clear list of them. IPSOS 05:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that we leave one section called "Further reading" and split the books section into 2, books by him and books concerning him. TheRingess 05:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the division. At the least the bibliography probably should be at the end after the notes section. TheRingess 05:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, there's a standard, apparently. It should be part of the article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). IPSOS 06:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ganishpuri

Isnt Ganishpuri the state in india? Is it misspelled?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.118.64 (talk • contribs)

No it isn't. Ganeshpuri is a small village in the state of Maharashtra. There may be a state in India called Ganishpuri, but it has nothing to do with this article. Thanks for asking.TheRingess (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Muktananda's message

I think this section in the body of the article might best be deleted. At least the bad transliteration of the English message should go. Muktananda wrote a large body of works which contained his view of ideas suitable for the progress of his devotees. These ideas ranged from the processes of Guru yoga, meditation, Kashmir Shaivism, chanting, karma yoga, etc. If there was a single identifying "message" as promulgated by Muktananda or the SYDA, it is already announced in that section. Adding to it won't really clarify the message further. So, I propose to keep the section in English and remove the tag, or remove the entire section. Most of Muktananda's "teachings" apart from the SYDA message are also a part of other traditions with seperate Gurus, so giving these "teachings" notice in this article as a notable contributions of the subject is a bit off the mark in my view. Less is often more, in my opinion. -Vritti 07:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the non English additions. I think that the section should stay. I also think the tag could go. Editors can expand the section as they feel. It might also help to rewrite it into prose format rather than list format.TheRingess (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi TheRingess. I think you improved the article. Do you know who put the tag on the section? I looked at the history, but missed it in the message summary. Why did they think it was appropriate to add the tag in the first place? I easily give a benefit of the doubt, but I don't really get its inclusion. I'd be happy for an explanation from any informed party. -Vritti 06:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I added the tag. My original thought was just that the section was too short and could benefit from an expansion. I have no qualms about removing the tag. Though I still think that the section should remain. One other possibility would be to simply merge the section with the rest of the material. I agree that Muktananda's teachings were part of other traditions it might be worth noting what those traditions are. Thanks for helping improve this article.TheRingess (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the effort to discuss with me. I have no problem with this section as it now stands and think it improves the article. In my own opinion, I think that this section as now named is complete. It might be formatted differently, but this is a minor quibble. If aspects of Muktananda's "teachings" are to be considered in the article, I think the section would benefit from being retitled, something like, Muktananda's message and teachings. I think a far better solution would be to leave the short message section mostly "as is" and to create a section placed before the message section entitled, Siddha Yoga. This could be where a brief section with proper citations explains the sythesis of ideas which Muktananda used as the broader platform of his teachings and his broader definition of what Siddha Yoga was meant to be and what patterns of thought it contained, according to Muktananda. I don't have the reference books handy, or I would write it myself. Since this article is also being edited in good faith by others, I prefer to discuss on the talk page first, before jumping in. I also think the article is in pretty good shape overall. -Vritti 07:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas. Siddha Yoga already has an article, so I'm not sure we really need a new section here. Thanks for discussing.

Today I added to the "Muktananda's message" section a 3rd bullet point. The key point of Muktananda's message was that he himself had a rare special power to transmit or awaken a magic invisible energy in those who came to him. It was this particular message that drew such large crowds to him in the 70s; followers flocked to his programs in the hope that this magical invisible energy would give them good feelings and pleasant-to-amazing inner experiences, and improve their lives in many ways. This particular message (the promise of the magical energy) was far far more responsible for Muktananda's fame than say "See God in each other" (a nice thought, but hardly original or unique). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomstu (talk • contribs) 16:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved the quotes into the life section, and attributed it to SY, not Muktananda, since the quotes were copied from the SY website, and the website had no direct attribution to him. I do believe the quotes in the messages section can be directly attributed to him and probably need refs. Since the quotes used weren't direct quotes, it seemed more appropriate to stick them in the bio section. Happy Editing.TheRingess (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Muktananda's spiritual autobiography was first published under the title Guru by Harper & Row in 1971. The 1978 edition from SYDA has additional material. I am not sure this information is worth adding to the the Muktananda article except that the 1978 publishing date is a little misleading, no?

LC Control No.: 77148442 LCCN Permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/77148442 Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Personal Name: Muktananda, Swami, 1908-1982. Uniform Title: Citśakti Vilāsa. English Main Title: Guru: Chitshaktivilas; the play of consciousness. Edition Information: [1st ed.] Published/Created: New York, Harper & Row [1971] Description: xxx, 175 p. illus. 22 cm. ISBN: 0060660457

CALL NUMBER: BL1175.M77 A313 1971 http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&SAB1=guru&BOOL1=all+of+these&FLD1=Title%3A+All+(KTIL)+(KTIL)&GRP1=AND+with+next+set&SAB2=muktananda&BOOL2=all+of+these&FLD2=Name%3A+Personal+(KPNC)+(KPNC)&GRP2=AND+with+next+set&SAB3=harper&BOOL3=all+of+these&FLD3=Publication+Info+(KPUB)+(KPUB)&CNT=100 Alfalfahay (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure it's very representative to say that Siddha Yoga is based on Kashmir Shaivism? Vedanta is listed ahead of Kashmir Shaivism on http://www.siddhayoga.org/teachings/scriptures/sacred_texts/sacred_texts.html

Muktananda spent a lot of time in Maharashtra both before and after initiation by Nityananda. He quoted the poet saints of Maharashtra a lot. Maybe more than Kashmir Shaivism? Ranga Avadhuta was Muktananda's friend and Muktananda had Rang's picture in the meditation halls in the "Gallery of Siddhas". Akkalkot Swami's picture was also in the gallery of Siddhas. Both Rang Avadhoot and Akkalkot Swami and also Sai Baba of Shirdi (picture also in SYDA Gallery of Siddhas) were in the Dattatreya tradition strong in Maharashtra. Probably of those three, Rang Avadhoot Maharaj was the only one whom Muktananda met in person in this life.

See Natha Sampradaya article in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nath . The detailed branching of these lineages is beyond my knowledge. Muktananda used to go to arati at Shirdi during his meditation at Yeola after (and before?) inititiation by Nityananda.

The fact that his personal relationships with Zipruana , Hari Giri Baba and esp. Nityananda were so important seems to make it somewhat misrepresentative to consider Siddha Yoga to be based on Kashmir Shaivism or even mainly on Kashmir Shaivism? unless one can establish for a fact that most of these gurus that I just mentioned above are in the Kashmir Shaivism tradition. It seems that the Nath tradition can trace it self back from the twentieth century to ancient times unbroken? Not sure whether the Kashmir Shaivism tradition can say that much or not?

The following two gurus of the twentieth century are apparently in the Nath tradition: Nisargadatta Maharaj (1897-1981) - past master of the Navnath Sampradaya
Shankar Maharaj - a Nath Avadhuta

It may be useful to make a distinction between literary lineage and shakti lineage? Certainly Kashmir Shaivism is part of the SYDA literary lineage. However, in the sense of shakti lineage or initiation lineage I wonder if it is even accurate to call Siddha Yoga a "new religious movement"? --Alfalfahay (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

removal

I disagree with this edit and suggest that The Ringess revert herself. There is no harm in summarizing in this article content which is available elsewhere on the web. — goethean ॐ 02:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

my edit reverted...

I made an edit adding this:

'Some of Muktananda's most important former followers charged that the guru repeatedly violated his vow of chastity, made millions of dollars from his followers' labors: and allowed guns and violence in his ashrams. The accusations were denied by the swamis who took over his movement after the master died.'

I sourced this from Rodarmor, William (1983). "The Secret Life of Swami Muktananda"; a source already acknowledged in the references, and I added it to the section which already had a cite to this source (in effect I was just expanding that very brief section from the same source).

This edit was then reverted with an 'unsourced' comment.

I think this edit is sourced and fair. At the moment there is almost nothing concerning the rather serious allegations of sexual and financial impropriety that were levelled at Muktananda, as a reader coming to this page to learn about this figure it only seems right that these allegations should be referenced properly, otherwise it looks like a whitewash. Significant Gravitas Shortfall (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to initiate a dialog with the person who reverted my edit here and on their talk page, if I get no response and no-one else has an objection I will add edit in some information about the allegations tomorrow. Significant Gravitas Shortfall (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

О каких фактах вы говорите, если информация, на которую вы ссылаетесь всего лишь слухи. Были ли судебные процессы, которые доказывали вину Муктанады?

Если нет, то и по сей день в том числе в мире шоу-бизнеса широко распространена практика, когда одно лицо пишет о какой-либо известной личности гадости, желая подняться и получить свои прибыли за её счёт.

User:178.203.76.78 13:18, 19 September 2011

Translation:

On what facts do you tell if the information to which you refer are just rumors. Were there trials that proved the guilt Muktanady?

If not, to this day, including the show-business world, it is common practice, when one person writes about a famous person nasty, wanting to get up and get their profit at its expense.

Muktananda's sexual habits

A Wikipedia article should communicate information, NOT hide or cover-up information.

This article says that Muktananda "engaged in behavior at odds with wider societal norms." This phrasing is deliberately used to hide information. What Muktananda did was make sexual advances towards his disciples. This happened many times over many years, and is not in dispute (even within Muktananda's organization, no one denies it). Many of these advances were made at underaged girls, who had been told to worship him as God.

"Behavior at odds with wider societal norms" is so vague as to communicate next to nothing. It's the type of phrase you use to describe someone who farts at the dinner table. No one would use such a bland phrase to describe sexual harassment of children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.161.55.226 (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The source is ALREADY provided (i.e., the footnote to the William Rodarmor article). Although the source is correctly noted, the actual text in this wiki is deceptive, since it attempts to hide the actual misbehavior that Rodarmor detailed in his article. My correction of the wiki text makes clear exactly what William Rodarmor revealed about Muktananda, rather than trying to hide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.161.55.226 (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Muktananda's sexual habits #2

The article has always had a footnote to William Rodarmor's 1983 CoEvolution Quarterly article, which detailed Muktananda's sexual involvement with his (often underaged) followers. But the text of the Wiki article did NOT accurately reflect the content of the Rodarmor article. I've corrected this many times, but someone keeps changing it back to the original, dishonest text that avoids accurately reflecting what's in the Rodarmor article.

50.161.55.226 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2016

Fansite

While restoring critical info which was removed diff diff, I noticed that the "Reception" section reads like a one-sided list of appraisal by fans. Not really informative. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I've restored some relevant threads; it looks like someone is trying very hard to keep out critical info, and even tries to block any discussion of it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are some more relevant sources:

• John Paul Healy (2016), Yearning to Belong: Discovering a New Religious Movement, Routledge
• Greg Bogart (2015), In the Company of Sages: The Journey of the Spiritual Seeker, Inner Traditions / Bear & Co
• Lola Williamson (2010), Transcendent in America: Hindu-inspired Meditation Movements as New Religion, NYU Press (p.115 also refers to Rodarmor's article)
• John Philip (2009), Yoga, Inc.: A Journey Through the Big Business of Yoga, Penguin Group (Canada) (p.179 also refers to Rodarmor's article)
• Lis harris (1994), O GURU, GURU, GURU, The New Yorker

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This one-sided presentation, nay, cherry-picking, of a source is also discutable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Praise

I've removed the "Praise" section, since it's WP:UNDUE cherry-picking:

• New York Magazine and Time Magazine: this boils down to: "Both New York Magazine and Time Magazine published an article on Muktananda in 1976." The New York Magazine is a story about one (1) follower of Muktananda. This is trivial and non-encyclopedic information; at best, they belong to the "External links" section. The quote could be applied to any Hindu (or Buddhist) sect from the 1970s.
• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's praise: they worked together; what do you expect? This is an advertisement text, not encyclopedic information.
• Reverend Eugene Callender: another example of n=1. Who is Eugene Callender, what is his relevance?
• Shatipat :this may be relevant; I've re-inserted the info + quote, minus the peacockery.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Insufficient Photo

Could someone please find a sufficient photo to identify Muktananda. The current one is only useful for people who want to study his distant seated posture. It is more appropriate within the content of the article. 49.183.157.100 (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)