Talk:Swami Rama

Rick Ross reference

This reference was removed as it violates the original research policy, as well as the WP:NPOV neutral point of view policy. In addition, the statements removed from the article, and those provided at rickross.com are both insubstatiable, and untrue. --Empacher 19:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is documented with a dated news article. Is it untrue there was a news article, or is the content something you think isn't true? If the latter, then it belongs in the article. Venus Copernicus 19:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Being that I am a student of Swami Rama, and intimately involved with the Himalayan Institute, I can tell you unequivocally that the statements made by Rick Ross are untrue. There was no "post-humus conviction", there was no payment made, and there was no victim, other than Swamiji's reputation

Further, the assertion that Swamiji had children was also untrue. --Empacher 16:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(in response to the claim that he had no children)Empacher please do a proper dilligence before making sweeping and unsubstantiated statements, for starters please visit this link http://www.yogachicago.com/sep01/interviewpandit.shtml

I did a simple google search on curiosity and know nothing about Swami Rama otherwise. I didnt know him or anything about this unti lthe other day. All I saw was someone balnking info they didnt like. I got accused by you with having an axe to grind and you saying so tells me there is a problem on your end.

It is not for YOU to decide if the source is true or credible. It is the purpose of quoting sources so people can decide for themselves. This is common wikipedia sense. Really, how the hell is referincing the reports of a real newspaper and well-known magazine article slander? Venus Copernicus 01:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I added the specific sources thta are not yet available online directly. But let me make this plain. Here is a tatement:

"More than 10 women have accused the swami of sexual abuse since 1979"

If you read it, it says he was accused. It doesn't matter if he was guilty or innocent, but THAT HE WAS ACCUSED is a reported fact. You can't just get rid of a fact because its about some battle you want to fight over who was right or wrong. Wikipedia isn't about proving things. It's about reporting them by documenting whta other people have found.

The statments on Rick Ross's website, no matter what the motivation, are simply news reports. You don't have to agree with the events as they are reported but you have to accept them like anyone else. If you cannot be objective about this, Wikipedia isn't for you.

Here is your first warning against blanking, and you are the one reverting all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 01:45, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I checked with the newspaper on their online archives. The artcile from Rick Ross's site is REAL. Venus Copernicus 01:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for encouraging me to find the actual court documents. They are now cited directly. Venus Copernicus 02:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You found them, but did you read them? You're still wrong. --Empacher 13:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If the newspaper article is inconsistent with the details of the official court judgment, the former reference of course should be removed from this entry. Have you read them? Are they inconsistent? If there is any major inconsistency, I will compeltely back you to remove the Rick Ross link, as original documents takes precedence over the reporting of them.

Also, I don't like the 'negative' stuff lumped in with his achievements. I'm not a fan or a critic of Swami Rama but it might be more fair to put the accusations and judgment at the end of the whole article under the heading "controversy" so the artcile can focus on more important things such as his apparent role in modern Yoga. What do you think? Venus Copernicus 13:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Request to Stop Blanking

Someone who blanked the section related to the above asked "Why is Rama being singled out?" Answer - it's HIS FREAKING ENTRY. Reference to other people belong on other pages.

Use some common sense people. If there is a list entry for "gurus who were indicted on sex-related charges" and simply added the tag at the bottom of the page, would that make you feel better?

All this blanking is making it harder and harder to assume good faith. Sadly, even if you don't believe any of it is true, it is part of his public biographical history and you can't change the past. Debate it somewhere else instead of depriving people of the right to know and make up their own minds. Or if you have a leg to stand on, add documented contradictory information -- it will be welcomed with open arms by those of us who prefer objectivity and balanced view. But blanking it is worse than any imaginable breach of NPOV. DON'T DO IT, or we'll ask the thread be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ridiculous and frivilious claims

Women's rights have far exceeded their means and clearly such income is far beyond their means too, such is the case of such frivilious claims and worse nonsensical ones too. As the previous edit claims that only the swami's reputation is at stake, such blanks are unwarrented in the only realisation that such women ONLY WANT TO MAKE MONEY this way.

---

The author is a senior scientist and a swami who only knows the swami rama system far too well and the saint to realise from a number of investigations that all these claims are untrue. Instead of the scientific investigations on parapsychology, maybe the need of the hour is an investigation on these women, their psychology and a reasonable way to predict when the next such case will emerge, maybe someday even a female anti crist too? ANY funding for this? Clearly $1.67 million for this Dr Bheemaiah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.109.103 (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• That tirade is just ... sad. Such rediculous comments about women have no place in a fee society. Wikipedia information is or isn't true, but at least it is honest ond open so people can decide for themselves, which is why your attitude doesn't belong here. And what kind of ego do you have to introduce yourself in the third person to invoke some kind of credibility? You are obviously not deserving of anyone calling you a 'Swami.' You are a obviously a cultist, as only cult leaders teach people to hide from truth by investigating and attacking critics instead of their claims. If you have ANY facts that have ANY credibility to contradict the facts others have added here, we WELCOME YOU to provide them. What, you can't? Didn't think so. Put up or shut up, wannabe scientist swami. Welcome to the world of equal rights and free speech. Venus Copernicus (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Children of Swami Rama deleted

The entry was made by Robert Walkter himself, which is against the rules. Further, Walter has been publically discredited, and his memior roundly disabused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.118.244 (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

MAYBE he added it, but I cleaned it up for NPOV. And it's not for you or anyone else to decide if a source has been "discredited" - something you offer no reference or proof of, but are welcome to, and add it to the article if such counter-proof actually exists. Then let people decide for themselves. In the meantime, stop blanking. Venus Copernicus (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanking and belief parenthood of Walter was discredited

I've received childish threats and insults that don't belong here, or anywhere mature discussion takes place. Two things must be made clear:

1. ANY accusations that I have a personal interest in this article is FALSE. I have never had any relationship with anyone related to "Swami Rama" or his Institute. I am completely impartial, and my edits are based on what is properly referenced, not what I believe or don't believe. This is simply an article that I found with information regularly blanked without just cause, and I watch it to protect the integrity of the information available. If someone has a problem with that, they need to find another place to play, not here. This is grown up time.

2. If sources referenced here are "discredited" then anyone is welcome to prove it, not just say it and expect us to accept it like they are God. And don't argue it without backing up what you say, because this isn't the place - the right thing to do is cite sources (if they exist) AND ADD THEM TO THE ARTICLE FOR MORE BALANCED NPOV. Both sides can then be considered. But just arguing the information is incorrect and therefore shouldn't be allowed to be referenced is HEARSAY unless there is a source. Common sense. Like any other honest editor, I welcome ANY reference on this issue, for or against this claim or any other information.

The bottom line is that if someone can properly reference that information from one source (such as reports of Walter's claims) is contested by another (such as DNA testing), I applaud them. But no one will decide which sources are true for the rest of us. Not on MY watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 01:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're impartial, why is it that the only contributions that you've made to this article are consistently negative? Why is it that you attacked Empacher repeated here and in other venues? Why is it that you make no other contributions to this topic area excpet this page?

Ansd where do you get off telling someone to 'stay off WP"? The only one playing God here is you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.150.96 (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Meat Pupper, whomever: You need to get off WP because you can't follow even the basic premise of WP. You can't tell the difference between a claim asserted (reference) and a fact (asserted by you or I), journalism versus truth.

I edit several pages (but few need such babysitting), attacked no one, and made potentially slanderous statements NPOV so they would be taken as what they were instead of fact. That is in FAVOR of Swami whoever if anything. The only reason I patrol this page is because people who don't belong on WP are screwing it up, including you and the person who first referenced about Walter which I fixed. If that isn't impartial, you don't know what is.

PROOF: You have not given any that the source is uncredible, and I have made it clear it would accept any if given. I would NEVER blank positive things that were referenced, and UNBLANK them if they were. Nothing to do with what side I'm on because I am only on the side of fairness and the integrity of WP. Stop whining and get your head screwed on straight about what is fair and impartial. Meanwhile, I am reporting you for blanking (which certain people with an obvious agenda have been warned on several times). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, in spite of editors who are unable to follow basic WP objectivity and accusing me of same, I improved the NPOV on the article as much as I could. Then I did a Google search to find references about DNA testing showing Robert Walter was not his son. I can't find any. Please, if anyone out there can find evidence Robert Walter isn't his son, or at least some official statement otherwise (from the Himalayan Institute perhaps, or an interview with family in a news source), I wish to add it to the article so it's more balanced - IF ANY EXISTS.

The accusations about my having bias are blind and need to stop, and I am willing to make everyone happy if they can play by WP rules, which as of yet they have not. However, the truth and evidence available is whatever it is, and it's not my fault for being the messenger or preservationist of information if someone disagrees. Venus Copernicus (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Most of the changes made by 76.248.150.96 (talk) since my above statement improve the article and maintain reasonable NPOV, even though there are still no citations on the "other side." However, he did catch uncited accusations, which I of course agree with him, except for one which already was cited (published book). It would be nice for other editors with more expereince to clean it up further. In the meantime, I may look for more references on both sides of the issue to add for proper citation, if they exist. Improving the article, making it rich with information, is the goal, and I will try to assume good faith from now on that we are finally working toward it. Venus Copernicus (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Venus Copernicus. The comments by that first IP were way out of line as we are to comment on the contributions, not the contributers. ~ Troy (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing mind about references regarding children

I just looked over the citation for the "book" by Walter, and dug around Google a bit. I now believe the book was never actually published, and all the information is from this one source, though possibly repeated here and there from this same source.

If there are publicly documented accusations about this or any other isse that is newsworthy to the artcile, they belong here. The question is if they exist, why are they so hard to find? Were there no articles about Walter's claims or the other son's lawsuits in public court documents?

At least instead of blanking them without discussion and consensus, they are being handled fairly at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find citations to support both Walter and refute him. I agree that the book appears to be privately published, as the Library of Congress has no ISBN/copyright record for him or it, nor is it listed at Amazon, Borders or BN.

In addition, I can find no evidence that the two other children even exist, as the one newspaper article that makes the claim is no longer on-line. Someone has to go to a library for that one.

I also could find no public document citing the HIs disavowal of Walter and Panditji says it's an unfortunate non-issue, but there is no record, public or private, of a Shirley Walter ever having been associated with the Institue's first incarnation in Illinois, as Walter claims. And although it's irrelevent, IMHO, it doesn't take a geneticist to see that this guy looks exactly like the man married to his mother.

PS VC -- sorry you had to endure the personal attacks. As a Yogi -- and a student of Swami Rama -- I can tell you that people get very territorial about their gurus...very yogic, right? Namaste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.134.137 (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for kind words amidst the previously less-than-enlightened dailogue. On another note, I went to the photos on Robert Walter's site, and I don't know if the 1950 photo is who you mean by Shirley's husband, but from his earlier pictures, Robert has what I would consider quite "Indian" features IMO. Was his mother's husband you speak of Indian? Not that any of it proves anything really, just interesting enough to take a look, as resemblance is perhaps more often than not in the eye of the beholder. I know someone who is adopted and people swear they see the resemblance to some (non-blood) relatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, someone mentioned the existence of DNA testing that refuted the father-son relationship. If that is out there somewhere, it would end the debate for everyone I would think. Anyone know anything about that or is it just a rumor? Venus Copernicus (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I know for a fact Swami Rama had children. I am married to his grandson. y mother-in-law is his daughter. Robert Walter is most certainly his son as their DNA matched. Swami Rama was a womanizer and a frau 2601:380:837E:F930:ED7A:F167:B74C:7497 (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Son of Swami Rama

My name is Robert Walter and I am the son of Swami Rama. I am in the process of publishing my book and hope to have it available in the Spring of 09 through Random House. I have court documents, my fathers will, and the original Himalayan Institute docs which show Shirley Walter was infact the original founder of The Himalayan Institute which will also be published. So why am I doing this? The Truth nothing more nothing less. My Mother and I have endured a life of lies, threats, and abuse. If you are looking for court documents I have them and will publish them in my book. I would guess they should be available to the public if you have the courage to request them from the The Court in Dehradun India. What amazes me the most is that the current leaders of the Himalayan Institute continue to lie and cheat despite their knowlege of the Truth. If my story can just arm one person with the knowledge to make the right decision it will be a success. Respectfully Robert Walter...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwalter89 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot take your word for it, and simply saying you have documents doesn't mean anything here. It's not about being true or not, it's about being verifiable and scholastically credible. Your book as a reference will be a far better reference once it is published. In the meantime, if you have links to court records or other documents, that would be appropriate to add to the article. News articles we could link to stating your case may be appropriate, while just making your case is a voice in the crowd that gives no reason to hear over anyone else's.

The other problem is that just stating what you may or may not be able to prove can be perceived as advertising, and a website with all the claims in the world is not credible unless it is third-party, preferably a recognized journalistic source. Do you see the problem? No offense, but I just fended off people who want to silence you outright, but it's time to put up or wait until you can instead of adding more currently-unreferenced facts to the article.

As for the "courage" to request court documents, I don't know what that's all about, but YOU are welcome to make them available (or supply a link to them if they are online), or anyone else who wants to do the research, I suppose, but it's no one's "job" ... the point of WP is to have reference to specific documents - if they exist and are pertinent to the subject - AVAILABLE HERE and not just a suggestion to do one's own primary research. Venus Copernicus (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

VC is correct, Walters. Put up or shut up. If you have these documents, scan them and post them as images here. Else, despite your claims, it is you who look like the liar. Your claims are unsubstantiated up to this point.

Further, while court documents are nice, they aren't DNA. If you really someone to believe you, hunt down your alleged half-sibs (if they exist) and get DNA tests. You can do it for $20 through Geneology.com or some similar site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.118.244 (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He is absolutely the son of Swami Rama. Who was a sad pathetic man. I hated being in his creepy presence

 2601:380:837E:F930:ED7A:F167:B74C:7497 (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That is fair enough. I guess when you know what the truth is (especially when it involves your father) you just assume everyone will take your word for it. Therefore, the following actions will be taken. 1) I will sort through the docs I have and post what is necessary. 2) I will share all of the information and docs I have with a very well known and respected journalistic source. 3) I will process my DNA. I hope that these actions will satisfy the need for your "scholastically credible verification". In the meantime feel free to do what ever you want to this site. All I want is the facts to be posted. I do think it is funny however that the user who posts under 69.120.118.244 who calls me a hoax and sends me insults and threats on my blog under an fictitious name does not even have the decency and respect to identify himself and tell us what makes him an expert on the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwalter89 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would you draw a line between harrassment on your site and this site. When a URL comes up, it points to a common router that could be anywhere in the world. Just because the same URL shows up in two places means nothing, excpet that the signal line is passing through the same server for both people.

To that point, I am in New York. The URL that will show up at the end of this post (Ipurposely did not sign in) will trace to somewhere in Texas. --99.173.20.171 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Supposed True Knowledge versus Verified Information over Opinions - the REAL WP objective

Am I pessimistic for thinking that cleaning up all the non-conforming nonsens added to the article will result in me being accused of taking sides? Before anyone starts, let me say that I removed SOME of the changes recently made because they are the kind of comments (not facts or references) that don't belong in ANY Wikipedia article, ANYWWHERE.

Waxing on about how great Swami or is people are is mere opinion. There may be truth to it, and I may or may not agree, but it is OPINION and therefore does not belong here. Also, asserting inside information as to someone's MOTIVES does not belong here. Lastly, praising and worshiping someone in a Wikipedia article ist he furthest thing from what belongs here, exactly the same way that an isnult would not belong. This is not my opinion. This is common sense. These are the rules, and you can ask any authority here to back me up on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone please edcuate the user who keeps vandalising this page with total non-POV propaganda. I'm trying not to get rid of any facts and references they post, but it's 99% opinion and imposing religious views about the person/subject as facts. If they have anything to say based on their own personal experience (ahem, no Original Research belongs here) they are welcome to publish it somewhere credible, in which case I personally will link to it if to be completely fair. In the meantime, this total disregard for objectivity has got to stop. If they are too close to the subject matter to do otherwise, it's best they stay away from the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 18:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity is not the exclusive terrain of one single person. WP is about collective wisdom and 'true knowledge' defined by crowds - as Plato said. So, let us go for that step-by-step. Relax, take a deep breath, do some good readings and carry out some research and publish the facts as they are, and no need to use such language, and avoid being a WP-guru. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asrwiki (talk • contribs) 02:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity is every single person's choice - they don't decide what is objective, they DETERMINE it, which is what I and every other editor is called to do. You can't "haggle" over what is objective, you can measure it, such as calling someone "selfish" versus listing acts reported by courts or news articles. One belongs, the other dioes not, no matter what your personal beliefs are. Besides, Plato isn't here right now. WP is, and they have WRITTEN STANDARDS for objectivity you can look up. representing WP's standard's, not my own beliefs. And WP is NOT about collective wisdom, only KNOWLEDGE - where are you getting this stuff?

Bottom line - there can be discussion over the quality or pertinence of information and references, but much of what belongs and doesn't is in black-and-white according to the rules. I disagree with you on the former - which we can discuss here - but am simply enforcing the rules like any good editor on the latter. And I will continue to do so, as this is apparently a controversial subject with people on both sides more willing to propagandize than educate.

You ask me to do research, when my edits are based entirely on it, as are most other editors here, as they should be. However, most of your edits are assumptions opinions and essays explaining people's motivations and all sorts of other stuff you have no tight to put here. You have totally trashed NPOV, right down to adding such ridiculous phrases as "Selfish Seekers" - why the hell would any of this belong in a biographical article in an encyclopedia?

Look, you claim you are trying or willing to improve the article, but you are turning it into some kind of essay to prove or disprove your personal opinion instead of adding REAL INFORMATION, which if you have any you are welcome to do. I don't care if you're Swami's best friend - unless what you say meets WP standards, it doesn't belong. And most of it doesn't even come close.

But you need extreme help in learning what belongs on WP and how to post it. If you want, I can go line by line and show you what you've done wrong and help you put what you want up there PROPERLY. I will explain it all in great detail until you get it, and help you any way I can. But if you can't handle me being at least a little frustrated and abrasive toward you or other people who think they can use OR, vandalize, blank, and utterly destroy NPOV at every turn, then get help from another editor. Read the pillars and guidelines and look back at how you broke almost every one.

Seriously, if you want to put up information that contradicts the existing facts and references, you are very welcome, and I (or others) will help you do it right. But right now you are doing little more than using WP to grandstand one position over another. If you do it like you have been I will have ask the article fixed back and locked for the sake of WP's integrity.Venus Copernicus (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Edit Wars

I am willing to go over, point by point, every single edit I reverted and explain why. But most of them are so obvious, I'd rather jsut have a moderator step in and clean this up. Just look for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs) 14:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Lock This Page

Or at least a bot should be set to prevent blanking. The new IP user is very likely the same person ans the previous one doing the same thing over and over. 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus Copernicus (talk • contribs)

More Children?

I notice a recent addition to the section on Swami Rama as a father, saying he also had a daughter named Miranda Marbaniang, who lives in Shillong, India. I would love to know more about her: Who is her mother? Was her mother married to Swami Rama? If not, what was their relationship? I'd especially like to know who contributed this information, so I can learn more. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.66.183 (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As Swami Rama's Son - Robert Walter - I am also very interested in finding out more about Miranda and her current contact information so we can hopefully meet someday. Thank You. RW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwalter89 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to Miranda Marbaniang, who lives in Shillong, India as there are no records or proof of this person. If someone can provide information to the contrary I would love to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwalter89 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can WikiProject Biography project be used for wilfully maligning persons?

The trend of using wikiproject biography to malign personal lives should be disallowed. the link http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/vanaskie/94v1118.pdf is given as a proof for maligning the person discussed in this page- where that document does not exist!The second link given as http://books.google.se/books?id=7zjavfN2XukC&pg=RA1-PA373&dq=swami+rama+defend&hl=sv&ei=0po9TfK8N-qK4ga6wr2hCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=defend&f=false is also not a proof. The section "Sexual misconduct controversy" Cannot stand any objective scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.129.72 (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia should take a policy decision against malignation of personal lives by opponents who may belong to rival political/ religious/... organizations or cults. 123.237.129.72 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC) The very first reference in this article is from the notorious extortionist gang rick a ross institute who is notorious for extortion by malignant defamation: http://www.rickross.com/reference/swami_rama/swami_rama2.html. Wikipedia should be serious about quality of references in biography projects. What is the trustworthiness of this http://www.sonofaswami.com/. Wikipedia should take special care in biography section. Inauthentic references and malignatory statements should be strictly removed unless & untill it is scientifically established and rich with unquestionable evidences.123.237.129.72 (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironic that the IP is making an attack on another BLP/person in this. The url doesn't work, but the court document is at [1] and says "On September 4, 1997, a jury returned an award against the defendant Himalayan International Institute of Yoga Science and Philosophy of the U.S.A. (“Himalayan Institute”) in the amount of $275,000 in compensatory damages and $1.6 million in punitive damages for the sexual misconduct of the Himilayan Institute’s former “spiritual leader,” Brijkishor Kumar, popularly known as the “Swami Rama.” Answering special verdict questions, the jury found that Swami Rama (a) had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff Jasmine Patel, who was 19 years old at the time of the sexual abuse; (b) had abused his position as Patel’s guru to secure her consent to the sexual relations; ( c) had breached the standard of care and fiduciary duties inherent in the relationship between him and Patel; (d) had intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Patel; (e) had acted maliciously and with conscious disregard for the welfare of Patel; (f) and was acting within the scope of his agency relationship with the Himalayan Institute when engaging in sexual relations with Patel."

As for the book that the IP says 'cannot stand any objective scrutiny', I'm at a loss as it's published by a press of the Himalayan Institute, founded by Rama himself. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not find it good to read bad taste biographies. What is this first section labels one a spiritual leader and second section presents him as sexual pervert. What is the point of view from which editors write biography? I hope many will express their displeasure with wikipedia style of biography writing. I do not agree with this style of biography writing. It sounds sick when an official wiki-editor promotes such thing as biography! 123.237.129.72 (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)123.237.129.72 (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)123.237.129.236 (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The person that you say sounds sick is Pandit Tigunait who is the Spiritual head of the Himalayan Institute and the successor of Swami Rama. He holds two doctorates: one in Sanskrit from the University of Allahabad in India, and another in Oriental Studies from the University of Pennsylvania. He was a student of Rama for 20 years. I don't know why you are maligning him like this, but he is clearly a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Children

Here's the section that was removed: "Swami Rama is reportedly survived by one daughter and two sons. Two of these children have been acknowledged in "At the Eleventh Hour," a biography of Swami Rama written by the current spiritual leader of the Himalayan Institute of the USA, Pandit Rajmani Tigunait (see also Tigunait's 2001 interview with Yoga Chicago). http://www.yogachicago.com/sep01/interviewpandit.shtml</ref> These children are his son, Mohit Kumar (or Mohit Dhasmana), http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1233164/</ref> and daughter, Devyani Mungali, http://www.sanskritischoolpune.org/aboutus.php?id#section2 by his former wife in India, Lilu Kumar, whom he married after leaving the post of Shankaracharya. Lilu and Mohit Kumar have been involved in several lawsuits in India (notably Original Suit No. 865 of 1997 filed in The Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dehradun), challenging the current leaders of the Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, founded by Swami Rama.

Robert Walter, an American registered securities broker, claims to be the younger son of Swami Rama. He and his mother, Shirley Walter, plan to publish a double memoir of their relationships with Swami Rama and their involvement with the Himalayan Institute, "Son of a Swami: A Life of Lies." http://www.sonofaswami.com Shirley Walter was a founding director of the Himalayan Institute USA, according to the original incorporation papers filed with the Illinois Secretary of State. Her yoga center became Swami Rama's first base of operations in the United States (also described in "At the Eleventh Hour" by Tigunait).

Another woman, Miranda Marbaniang of Shillong, claims she is Swami Rama's oldest daughter."

Obviously the last sentence would need a source. The other sources need to be checked to see if they meet WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a year ago, any updates on this, his alleged son and his book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Psychokinesis

There's a remarkable paragraph in Psychokinesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis) about Swami Rama, complete with citations about how he demonstrated psychokinesis (moving a needle a few feet away). How is this not mentioned in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.125.101 (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of flags

After multiple contributions, the flags at the head of the article no longer seem pertinent. If no objection(s), will remove them in 30 days. Elfelix (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I just added this to "Criticism":

In 1997, a woman won a lawsuit regarding multiple sexual assault through Swami Rama while she was attending the Himalayan Institute in 1993. [2]</ref>

Please add further information, I find this very important in a spiritual and human sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.5.60 (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)