Mayagaia

Welcome!

Hello, Mayagaia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  ॐ Priyanath talk 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Samadhi

Hi Mayagaia, I'll look at your link when I get the chance. Do read the links above about how to edit on Wikipedia. The entire section on Analagous concepts, other than the Meher Baba citation, is unreferenced. The reference to your own experience falls under Original Research WP:OR, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Published references by authorities in the field are what we're looking for. In addition to the above links, see WP:VERIFY. Also see WP:NPOV. The word 'essential' can't really be verified by references. It depends entirely on your Point of View of what is 'essential.' Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 16:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't normally edit the Samadhi article much, you'll probably be getting more feedback from other editors there, rather than from myself. Also, it's helpful if you're logged in to Wikipedia when you edit - that way it shows your username as the editor rather than your ip address. And, when you leave a message, end with four 'tildes', as described in the welcome note. That will automatically add your username and time to the message. Happy editing, ॐ Priyanath talk 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mayagaia, in regards to Samadhi, each tradition has it's own unique understanding of what constitutes samadhi, although generally it is described as a perfectional trance-like consciousness. For a practitioner of Bhakti yoga samadhi is a state of pure unmotivated and uninterupted loving service to Vishnu or one of his avatars, for a practitioner of Buddhism it is something quite different again. What I would describe as the classical samadhi of Hinduism is described in this linked verse: B-Gita 6.20-23. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 22:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Catching misspellings as if by magic

Well, since you asked, I use a tool called "Live spellcheck" which scans the log of recent updates, looking for known common misspellings. You have to add some Javascript code to your monobook.js page (as described in WP:POP) that enables navigational popups, and it also adds Live spellcheck to the toolbox at the left of each page. It's amazing how many misspellings are logged every minute. Catching and fixing them right away creates some interesting dynamics. Happy editing! Chris the speller 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Samadhi Link

Hi Mayagaia- regarding your inquiry on my talk page- I think in order to keep the article on Samadhi within the realm of what is verifiable and not original research, I think it's probably necessary to limit the discussion to samadhi in the context of the Hindu/Buddhist religious traditions; various other traditions or contemporary figures have identified their experiences as being samadhi, or comparable to it, but whether or not that is the case is not really verifiable- in such circumstances, I would think that it would be appropriate to add text on the page for X that 'X identifies their experience with the phenomena described by Buddhist/Hindus as samadhi', rather than adding text on the samadhi article that says 'what is experienced by X is also samadhi'.

So to more directly answer your question: in the article in question, you have a guy with, by his own description, no particular connection to the Hindu/Buddhist religious traditions describing a transcendent visionary experience which he then goes on to identify with samadhi (as well as some other religious experiences). The event that triggered the experience in question is not the traditional way to trigger that experience (leaving aside the question of tantric practices for the time being; my understanding is that there is considerable ongoing scholastic debate over whether or not sexual tantric practices were primarily meant to be physically carried out, or as visualization exercises and metaphors; naturally, both sides of the debate believe the other is off their rocker).

Essentially, whether or not you accept the linked article as being related at all to the concept under discussion hinges entirely on accepting the opinion of the author that his experience is identical with samadhi- despite the fact that he asserts no discernible connection to the religious traditions under discussion that might lend authority to that claim. To compare (though I was just looking at the links at the time, rather than the article text), the description provided by Paramahansa Yogananda is a description that comes from someone rooted within the tradition under discussion, stemming from practices traditionally accounted with bringing on the experience under discussion, who is accounted a measure of authority under that particular tradition as a recognized and published teacher. Essentially, I think that it makes more sense within the context of an article describing a particular philosophical/religious concept to err on the side of giving the primary attention to recognized authorities within that tradition; if an Indian guru says 'this is what samadhi is like', I question what authority we could really rely on to say 'no, it's more like this'; I don't think that we can count the article in question as being an authoritative resource on samadhi, or symmetrically related per the guidelines in WP:LINKS.

--Clay Collier 03:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Maya-Gaia

The issue has nothing to do with the things you bring up. It's just that Wikipedia doesn't allow linking to personal websites on Geocities. Especially when they are your own. That's considered spamming on Wikipedia. There are criteria for what sites are considered acceptible. This site falls outside these criteria, that's all. IPSOS (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Left-handed issues

I noticed ur chitchat on the talk page of Left-handed issues. That was my playful work at its most expansive and misguided. More work of a similar nature was written principally over a 14 hours period and is enshrined in Trance. I would welcome your assistance in taming the article.

Blessings B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Neotantra

For the moment, I took down the link to Expanded orgasm, as I don't think it relates to your edit of neotantra. I think if neotantra is defined as modern western tantra that much of what you wrote is confusing. I believe my separting it out the way I did was justified, and I do believe that defining 'neotantra' as an uncommonly used word is valid. I know of no practitioners in the west that talk about neotantra. Only critics use that term to refer to the modern practioners in a negative way. I believe your use of the work "appropriations", your reference to the left handed path, your quoting of Georg Fuerstein - especially his reference to "common harlots" and other comments is highly biased. - delicasso.

Neotantra

Your question show that you do not understand Wikipedia's verifiability policy at all. Please read it. In short, everything in an article has to be derived from a source. For example, you can't say that neotantra uses an "open-source" methodology unless you can provide a reference to a third-party source which says that. Otherwise, it is simply your own opinion. You can't say, "some teachers", "other teachers" without giving at least one specific teacher as an example along with a reference from which the information was derived. My point is that the whole article appears to be almost completely unfounded and made up of the personal knowledge and personal opinions of its editors. That is not considered a good article on Wikipedia. IPSOS (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote, "...Although wikipedia is a treasure- the Neotantra article will continue to struggle as watchdogs like IPSOS are welcome to continue summarily deleting copy they find incompatible with a personal commitment to specific Hindu, Eroto-comatose lucidity and other Occult ideology. Cheers."

I congratulate you on your equanimity. One of my pet peeves is the citing of Wiki policy as gospel, setting up a bully pulpit to bludgeon less-experienced editors as they attempt to make sincere contributions to the encyclopedia.

Wiki policy, like any policy, is subject to interpretation. It is possible to engage in "policy combat," wasting a lot of time and energy. While policies are useful, too much affection for them is bureaucratic and stifling. Ignorance of policies, on the other hand, can result in poor quality. The solution, obviously, is to strike a balance.

Personally, I hate rules. In order to coexist successfully with others, however, it is obviously necessary to learn and to follow rules.

I hope that you will persist in your efforts to contribute to Wiki, and particularly, that you will persist in your efforts to expand the Neotantra entry. I personally would like to follow references to external sources which support a strong article on the topic. Obviously, this will require research and editing on your part. I look forward to reading the results.

Estéban (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Article Rescue Squadron

I notice some of your templates on your user page, and I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever to Wikipedia, you may find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)