Talk:Five Tibetan Rites

How-to

The the 'How to perform the exercises' section of this article is somewhat difficult to understand. Aghost 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford

RE: Colonel Bradford returned to England after 23 years and looked younger. He was over 70 and looked like a 45 year old man – without his stick, youthful, agile, and his previously grey hair had turned dark. According to whom? Edwardian 22:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The classic text is by Christopher S Kilham, ISBN:0-89281-450-0. In the book, Kilham describes reading a book by Peter Kelder describing the "discovery" of the five Tibetans by "a retired British army officer". There is no mention of a near-miraculous rejuvenation. Moreover, Kilham claims that we can never know if the exercises are in fact Tibetan, which suggests that Kelder is not the source of the story of a youthful "Colonel Bradford". On a separate point, most of the external links are to sites offering the same pamphlet for purchase. Only the last three links seem to contain any useful information, namely diagrams. --Plw 11:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the original book was called "The Eye of Revelation" and was written by Peter Kelder in 1939. It was updated in 1985 with the title "Ancient Secret of the Fountain of Youth". [And still later, "Ancient Secret of the Fountain of Youth: Book 1".] Kilham's book is his interpretation of the exercises in Kelder's, from a more orthodox Yogic viewpoint. And the "near-miraculous rejuvanation" of Bradford is explicity written about in Kelder's books. -Rob, Jan 12th, 2006

A few comments to User:58.179.174.84's recent edits:

While I agree that the rites are not original tibetan lore, we should be careful not to violate WP:NPOV by emphasizing it too much. For example, replacing the "some people believe..." part by "some Westerners fall into believing ..." sounds too strong.
Please be more careful whether an s comes with an apostrophe or not (it's vs. its).
I will re-add the alternate names, since they add information (and since I, at least, originally knew the rites by one of them).

Yours, --Huon 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To user 58.179.174.84 Your edits have a very strong and opinionated viewpoint. An Encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral in perspective and give the facts as they are known. Whether or not you personally believe the rites are valid or not is irrelevant. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The purpose of the article is to talk about the Five Rites and what we know about them factually. For example, it is a fact that there are many who believe the Rites have the ability to cure specific ailments. Whether or not they actually do possess such powers is irrelevant. The point that they are believed to possess these powers is a fact and comes directly out of one of the books referenced. You have taken a stance of attempting to invalidate the Rites by deleting certain portions of the article and rewording certain parts so as to make them seem like nonsense. Perhaps they are nonsense, but again, this is the reason you use phrases like "some people believe" and "there are those who dispute the Rites". The article as it was before your edits was completely neutral. No claim was made that the Rites were of a genuine origin or that they worked as believed. I am restoring some of what you deleted as well as attemting to restore a stance of neutrality to the article. If you are going to make such bold assertions, I suggest you cite specific references to support them. I have personally read all of the books cited as well as the external links which were used as references. Please do not delete or change facts that are referenced directly from the books and websites.

Here is a quote and reference which you chose to ignore in your edits: Another series of movements said to be Tibetan in origin is known as "The Five Rites of Rejuvenation" or "The Five Tibetans." These unusual, rhythmic movements, which have circulated for decades among yogis but are finding new popularity today, have been credited with the ability to heal the body, balance the chakras, and reverse the aging process in just minutes a day. Legend says that a British explorer learned them in a Himalayan monastery from Tibetan monks who were living in good health far beyond normal lifespans. Skeptics say that no Tibetan has ever recognized these practices as authentically Tibetan, however beneficial they may be.

Yoga teacher Chris Kilham, whose book The Five Tibetans (Healing Arts Press, 1994) has contributed to the practice's current popularity, makes no claims of certainty about the series' origins. "Whether or not the Five Tibetans are in fact Tibetan in origin is something we may never ascertain," Kilham writes. "Perhaps they come from Nepal or northern India...As the story has it, they were shared by Tibetan lamas; beyond that I know nothing of their history. Personally, I think these exercises are most likely Tibetan in origin. The issue at hand, though, is not the lineage of the Five Tibetans. The point is [their] immense potential value for those who will clear 10 minutes a day to practice."[1]

To recent vandal

The edits you deleted are verifiably true. They linked to other articles within wikipedia and also to Chris's quotes himself. To call the Lamas who laugh at this nonsense skeptics is a wild POV. Please go to Tibet before you start asserting this program to be Tibetan in origin. All printed materials promoting the Five Rites is Western in origin -- verifiably true. If you are truly looking for a NPOV you will work with facts. If you push me on this I'll just feel like including the even more damning information there is on the Five Rites, and I doubt that will serve your agenda. Blessings to you. 58.179.182.246 00:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To 58.179.182.246

To accuse me of vandalism is ludicrous and disrespectful. My only concern is to keep the article free of opinion. I personally don't believe the claims made by practitioners of the Rites. I have practiced them personally and have found them to be nothing more than a form of physical exercise. And I do believe in a neutral point of view. It is you who seem to desire to discredit the Rites. If I am wrong in this assumption, then please forgive me. As I have already said, our purpose is not to discredit, but present and report information gathered from books and other sources, hopefully as reliable as possible. To threaten me with including more damning information is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. I have no agenda in promoting the Rites as a panacea. If you have damning information, then by all means, please include it in the article as long as you cite your sources. As it stands now, you have put much information in the article without any citing of sources whatsoever. And I'm certain that you are correct in the assertion that all printed material promoting the Rites is Western in origin. However, if you say this in the article, you have to cite your source. I have no desire to get in an edit war with you. If this is your agenda, then consider yourself victorious for I will not accomodate you. All I request is that you maintain an unbiased attitude in editing, that you cite your sources and that you do not delete that which can be confirmed through cited sources. As I said previously, the article as it stood before your edits cited all sources which were able to be confirmed. If you do not cite your sources, you won't have to worry about me; there are countless other editors who will find there way to the page and check your work. Inevitably, that which cannot be confirmed is deleted. That which can be confirmed is reverted if intentionally deleted. That which is inaccurate or biased is corrected. There are no sides to be taken, just a very large group of people who enjoy sharing information and making certain it is accurate and unbiased. As far as Chris's quote, I have already posted it in my previous comment above. I am the one who originally supplied the link in the article. Chris said that he knew nothing of the origins although he believed them to be Tibetan. Perhaps you should have said this in the article? It certainly paints a more complete picture of Chis's viewpoint than what you had written. As far as calling lamas who laugh at the Rites skeptics . . . that was never said. See the portion of the article I posted above. The sentence reads, "Skeptics say that no Tibetan has ever recognized these practices as authentically Tibetan, however beneficial they may be." In the introduction to the article, the word "skeptic" was used. It was not said that "Lamas are skeptics". The information you added questioning the origins and validity of the Rites is interesting and informative. However, where are your sources? I would like to see all factual information remain in the article, whether in favor of or against the Rites. I would encourage you to not get defensive and cite your sources, it will only make the article better. Best Wishes to you.

Citations needed for the following

From the Introduction:

Although the Five Rites are practiced and promoted extensively in Western countries, Tibetan Buddhist and Bon practitioners in Tibet and India opt to engage in the already well-established forms of Tibetan yoga.

From Historical inaccuracies section:

Most scholar's of Tibet and authentic lineage holders state his publications are works of fiction...
3. Yoga in Tibet never included whirling.
7. An authentic Tibetan practitioner will always reveal the name and lineage of their teacher, usually with great reverence and spontaneous poems that may go for several hundred words.
8. Authentic, and often ancient, Tibetan texts are intrinsic to all Tibetan spiritual practices. To attempt a practice without reciting from or memorising an authentic ancient text is unheard of in all Tibetan spiritual lineages.
9. To share anything but minor spiritual practices with Westerners was unheard of in Tibet in 1939.
12 It is an essential quality of all Tibetan teachings to disclose the lineage behind the teaching. This not only guarantees authenticity and protection against foreign imitations, it also ensures that practitioners develop the aspect of faith which is considered integral to all Tibetan practices.
13. There is no lineage holder, of either high or lower stature, from any tradition in Tibet, that acknowledges anything to do with The Five Rites.

71.2.170.103 19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The books and links I added are widely accessible and authored by the higest of authorities. There is plenty more where they came from.

Now. Please. Since Kelder is not notable himself, who else asserts this yoga to be authentic? Someone who doesn't cite Kelder's work. Just give us one Rinpoche from Tibetn. That shouldn't be too hard. There are thousands of them and thousands of books and traditional texts also. If this yoga is authentic, finding a single reference in these modern times should be a piece of cake.

Without an authentic reference I feel we'll need to highlight this omission in the opening of the article. 58.178.157.210 03:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

The article reads okay at the moment but there is a persistent bunch of promoters putting ridiculous POV links in. Recently someone put 3 different editions of the same book in an attempt to fluff out the abismal number of notable references supporting the rites. If the page can't be kept as a non-advertisment it will obviously have to be deleted. 58.178.186.181 01:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 58.178.186.181, all of the books in the references section are simply that, references. Each book is supportive of the rites which is why they are in the section specifying references which support the Rites. Each book is revised and expanded with new and quite a bit of additional information not found in previous books. Accordingly, these are all valid references and shouldn't be considered as SPAM. The website links which were added relate to energy healing and the use of the rites in this field. The energy healing book devotes almost all of chapter 12 to the five rites. I think that the original purpose of this article was to disseminate information about the Five Rites. It therefore seems completely proper to include any and all information, whether positive or negative. For example, I read in the "Tang of Tibet" article that, if not performed correctly, the Rites can cause dizziness and nausea. I have also read that some of those who perform the rights have complained of lower back pain. Clearly, not positive attributes. From your choice of language both on this Talk page and on the History page it seems that you really don't care much for the Rites. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, in my opinion. However, I feel it is vitally important to maintain a Neutral Point of View. I don't think we should make a habit of deleting edits by other editors, but rather, try to "improve" upon them as Wikipedia states. Wikipedia discourages us from taking ownership of articles. We have to allow others some input. I think it's quite clear that the origins of the Rites beyond Kelder isn't known. However, this should not be the theme of the article, but an integral part of it. I also think that it would be a shame to put into action measures which would lead to the deletion of the article. This would not serve the greater good. Even though there are obviously those who don't care for the Rites, there are also those who do, regardless of their origin beyond Kelder. Many people practice them and many people testify to the benefits. Just for the record....when I tried them I also got terrible backaches. Kind of ironic for something which is supposed to be helpful ;). But still, just because they gave me backaches doesn't mean I'll abandon an attitude of neutrality. When I contribute, first and foremost in my mind is to remain unbiased. After all, that's what an Encyclopedia is supposed to be. Please do not be offended. I have carefully chosen my words so as not to offend you. If I have done a poor job of this, then please accept my apologies. I would very respectfully ask that you please allow others to contribute information which is both supportive as well as unsupportive as the article is about the Five Rites in total, not just whether or not they are valid. Thank you for taking the time to consider what I have said and have a great day or evening, whichever the case may be. With respect, The SG 14:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the "Pranic Healing" book: Choa Kok Sui was deleted from Wikipedia for being an unnotable cult leader. This book you're defending devotes half a chapter to gushing about the Five Tibetan Rites. Yet Eric B. Robins is merely an unnotable disciple of Choa Kok Sui.

That really doesn't mean anything, just an opinion of a person who did so. --Kalimera 11:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation should be deleted as being part of a personality cult. Perhaps even this entire article deserves an AFD nomination for being a POV magnet fad. I agree with 58.178.186.181. It is not acceptable to have four separate references to the same source book. Currently there are only 'two' actual acceptable tibetan rites citations. The rest is POV filler. 58.178.103.56 23:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Article should remain. As far as POV fillers, I think the entire section on "References contradicting or unsupportive of the Five Rites" is nothing but POV filler by an editor who has an obvious dislike for the Rites. I also think that anonymous editors 58.178.186.181, 58.178.103.56 and 58.178.186.181 are the same editor. The IP adresses and edits are both strong indicators that this may be so. I think the Rites are nothing but hype and the miraculous claims made by those who practice them are absurd. But that is my biased opinion. Let's try and remain neutral shall we? 68.232.143.152 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 68. I think you skipped the section "Citations needed..." above.

The section "references contradicting or unsupportive of the five rites" was actually requested by a Five Rites Fan who wanted supporting material for what is in the Questionable Origins section and Introductory paragraph. The citations have nothing to do with people trying to push their POV. As a bonus, the material balances the article perfectly. 58.178.196.55 09:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book's author

I don't have any verifications, but someone I trust, claimed to have met the author of the book at a writer's conference about 10 years ago. At that time, the author was in his thirties, and claimed that that all was just a story to sell the book. Apart from that, the rites are beneficial, but the background story is just that - a story. --Kalimera 11:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text refuting the Rites seems to be hung-up on the possible non-Tibetan origin of the rites, not on their efficacy or lack thereof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.240.97 (talk • contribs)

I can't comment on the origin of the rites but I do have the 1939 version of "The Eye of Revelation" and the first publishing of "Ancient Secret of The Fountain of Youth". I've had the "Ancient Secret of The Fountain of Youth" version since 1985 which means it is 22 years old as of 2007. A thirty year old would have been 8 years old to have written the 1985 version. Obviously, the book was not written by the author at the writer's conference written above. The original version was written in 1939. I also agree with the comment above that "the text refuting the Rites seems to be hung-up on the possible non-Tibetan origin of the rites, not on their efficacy or lack thereof." 69.68.191.99 15:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is another source of the 5 rites. This is widely unknown. It is Samael Aun Weor: [2]. He claims that he personally was in the tibetan lamasery.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk • contribs)

Interesting link. I added it to the External Link section of the article.71.63.18.205 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga posture name associations with the rites

I removed the Yoga posture name associations from the Performing the exercises section of the article due to the fact that neither Kelder nor Colonel Bradford made any such association in "The Eye of Revelation" nor did they identify the Five Rites using the particular asana names as previously identified in the article. In fact, all Six Rites were simply called "Rite 1", "Rite 2", etc. To attribute the Rites with these named yoga asanas is original research and prohibited by Wikipedia.71.63.18.205 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]