User talk:Meditatorcontemplator

Welcome!

Hello, Meditatorcontemplator, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Siddha Yoga

Thank you for your desire to improve the Siddha Yoga article, but I felt it necessary to revert your edits and want to explain why.

• I thought the existing explanation of the self and Muktananda's aphorisms was more than adequate.
• I objected mainly to the following:

Students have various beliefs about the nature of the Siddha Gurus. Some believe that the Guru is a perfected human being who, by a mixture of spiritual work and grace from the preceding Guru, has achieved full realization of the Divine in their lifetime. Others believe that Swamis Muktananda and Chidvilasananda are wonderful teachers who show them the goodness within themselves and others.

• • You do not provide sources here. Since you do not specifically mention anyone by name or even how many people hold each belief or how you determined those beliefs then no one can verify the significance of your statements. Without providing sources, an average reader has no way of verifying your statements. In my opinion your statements qualify as original research which Wikipedia discourages.

• • Plus you mention a specific belief about what Muktananda and Chidvilasanada do. Without providing a source for this belief, you open the article up for anyone who wishes to talk about their own beliefs regarding SY e.g.:
    • Some students believe in god, some don't.
    • Some students believe the earth is flat, some don't.
    • Some students believe the allegations of wrongdoing, some don't
  • The above statements may be true, but without sources it's impossible to determine whether or not they are significant in regards to the main teachings of Siddha Yoga. It's my opinion also, that in any religious institution, it's a given that adherents will have different views on the tenats of the faith (e.g. I'm Catholic, and Catholic doctrine says that the Catholic church is the only church, yet I don't believe that, I'm still Catholic though).
  • The existing description is a small blurb about what a satguru is and seems fine as it is.

If you got this far, thanks. Feel free to contact me by email or simply leave a message on my discussion page.

Once again, thank you for your desire to improve the article.

TheRingess 17:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Om Guru Om

Hi Ringess, Thanks for the comments. I edited this belief section, now tenet section, because I think that the statement "Students believe that the Guru is a perfected human being who, by a mixture of spiritual work and grace from the preceding Guru, has achieved full realization of the Divine in their lifetime" is inaccurate. It infers that all students believe such, and that is not the case. It gives a misimpression to seekers curious about Siddha Yoga. The mission of Siddha Yoga is to end suffering and help others attain bliss, so that part is fine.

Also, the central tenet of Siddha Yoga is not to believe that the Guru is a perfected human being, but, rather, that the Guru Principle is present in all humans (Gurumayi, quoted in Darshan Magazine.)I have heard her say that she does not want all the students following her around the ashram like a lifeless bunch, she wants us doing our seva and looking within ourselves. This is quite different. The emphasis is not on the Guru, but, rather, on the Self within, and finding that Self within all humans, one's own Self included, and then honoring that Self. So, I have made edits which I believe give that sense.

The Siddha Yoga website refers to the roots of Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta. Why do you object to including Vedanta in the article? I thank you for the hard work you have put into this article, as I respectfully offer my different opinion, Sincerely, MeditatorContemplator

--- Fair enough.

I never really objected to the original statement about the Guru (even though I know some people disagree) because I thought it provided an adequate (yes, just adequate) description of a satguru and could think of nothing better to write. Of course the statement as it was written was problematic for reasons other than what you said, mainly the term "perfected human being" is very poorly defined and loaded with connotations. A sincere thanks for reminding me of what Gurumayi wants for us all. My main objection to include the views of individual users or groups of individual users (especially unnamed users), i.e. the "some students" you referred to in your first edits, need sources so that an interested reader can look up for themselves who you asked, what you asked, and whether or not the summary analysis you gave matched the original answers.

It's my opinion that an article about any religion needs to discuss the tenets of that religion. Its just a given that everyone will have their own understanding of the tenets, and so it's best just to stick to what is easily verified. For the purposes of this article, I've been trying to keep it to what can be verified on the website or in the Meditation Revolution book (I erased the reference to darshan magazine, if you feel inclined, please include it in the references section and provide a footnote to it).

I did not really object to your inclusion of some of the philosophies of vedanta, as long as we keep it short. There is an article on vedanta on Wikipedia (I edited the article to provide a link to that). The problem is going to be that it will be practically impossible to write a summary of vedanta without having a non neutral point of view. And since there is a link, if a reader is inclined, they can go read more.

Thanks for reading my previous post.

I humbly invite you to continue working on the article.

You might want to read the discussion page for the article and maybe browse through the previous edits.

~~Om Namah Shivaya~~

Remember to sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~

TheRingess 17:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Om Guru Om

Hi Ringess, Thanks for your well considered comments. When time allows, I will have more to share, but for now, I want to say thanks, once again, for the hard work you put in on this article. I appreciate your quest for accuracy, and verifiable sources. I do have one more question: where did you see that Swami Nityananda's birth year was 1885? Most accounts I have read indicated that his birth circumstances were largely unknown. Sincerely, MeditatorContemplatorMeditatorcontemplator 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, ha ha, I'm a bit embarassed, I believe that I got the date from the article about Bhagawan Nityananda (which I had to tag as a copyright violation since it was directly copied from the book Nitya Sutras, and the book doesn't have the date). So going by my own standards of veriability, I think I shoul probably delete it, until I can find a definitive source. TheRingess 03:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)