Talk:Yogi Bhajan

Update: September 1, 2009

As the author of most of this piece, kindly allow me to make a few remarks and a couple of requests:

1) Proximity to a subject does not automatically mean unrealistic bias. Proximity may also engender familiarity, the kind that leads former White House functionaries to write books about their experiences in the highest office of the land. I happened to like my boss.

2) I have taken the flagging of the section on "During the Sikh Holocaust 1984" seriously. After all, who ever heard of a "Sikh holocaust"? Haha! Well, if you will follow the link to the article you will find a minutely referenced article on that 3rd holocaust, with links to articles on the 1st and 2nd holocausts as well. There are real. It would be nice if that flag could be taken down now.

3) This article is better referenced than it was a year ago, with references to the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Globe and Mail, etc. Regrettably, for the purposes of this article, the mainstream media simply did not consider Yogi Bhajan very newsworthy most of the time. Neither did scholars roam the yoga ashrams taking copious notes. That is why many of the references are to publications of the 3HO organization itself.

4) After a year in the dog house of "This article has multiple issues..." and no substantive corrections, can this article be accepted as is now? If not, how long is the designated purgatory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk • contribs) 17:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Join from every land, from every tradition, from every point of view. Join us as we make peace: peace with each other,peace with the land, peace with ourselves, and peace cereal." - Jonathan Stewart

This is an awfully fawning article, and sounds like it comes straight from the keyboard of any of this man's adherents. A criticism section is needed very badly. I don't have the necessary information to go through this, clean it up and add criticism, but if someone with a better understanding of all this would do so, that would be terrific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.149.141 (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have not the time to clean this up either, but it is a disgraceful article &, since it concerns a dangerous cult, is urgently in need of attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snosher (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yogi Bhajan was a powerful man and leader who inspired many and changed many lives. He was ALSO a cult leader who took advantage of his powerful charisma and position and caused pain and emotional trauma to many of his followers. Many folks continue to benefit from his teachings. And there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of former 3HO members who have left that organization because they were emotionally (and occasionally physically or sexually) abused or because they experienced the dysfunction caused by an organization that in some ways functioned as a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.30.78 (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have little respect for those who make serious and unsubstantiated accusations of abuse anonymously. What is a cult? Is America a cult? Is Wikipedia a cult? "Cult" is a perjorative term, a dirty word. Early on, every progressive social or religious movement has been called a cult or worse. The accuser would do her/himself a favour by familiarizing him/herself with the life and teachings of Yogi Bhajan first-hand. talk

Yogi Bhajan had to settle some of these lawsuits, which alleged his abuses. So I cannot say they are unsubstantiated. Also I would like to include personal accounts of those who had been abused by Bhajan if they are willing to attribute their comments. These are the life experiences of those who went to YB's lectures, Yoga lessons, or attended schools sponsored by YB's organization[s]. These aren't testimonies made to a court, but they are historical accounts of the private and public Harbhajan Singh Khalsa. We should leave it up to the judgment of the reader to decide the veracity of those who speak disapprovingly of YB as well as those who revere him. History is not a court room as most of it is hearsay anyway, but if we run the risk of being too cautious, then we might have the hazard of writing a public relations release for 3HO/Sikh Darma. Present both sides of the man's life and let the reader decide. Also facts should be admitted on the basis of fact not on whether it is not a flattering fact or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and sourcing

It'd be nice to see a bit more sourcing from unaffiliated third-party sources such as newspaper obits (which are more readily verifiable than "in" publications) as well as representing critical opinion - e.g Time magazine had an article in 1977 (Yogi Bhajan's Synthetic Sikhism). I've added appropriate tags.

There's also a deal of material that falsely gives the appearance of being sourced. For instance ...

By the 1990s, there was a culture shift. On a personal level, rising early and overtly being a Sikh was considered more of an option than an implied directive. Meanwhile, the surviving communal businesses had incorporated and many had grown exponentially to keep pace with the rising demand for health-oriented products and services. This period also saw an increased interest in yoga world-wide. To serve the changing times, Yogi Bhajan created the International Kundalini Yoga Teachers Association, dedicated to setting standards for teachers and the propagation of the teachings. (ref to IKYTA Web Shell - About Us)

... where the reference only covers the final sentence. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

> I can do better. I can tell you about James Wilde, the author of the Time article, as he was an acquaintance of mine for a time. He was terribly biased against Yogi Bhajan, partly because YB would not give him an interview. Being a(n Irish) Catholic, James Wilde also had other issues which I won't trouble you with here. YB would not grant the interview because when he had first come to Los Angeles, he had gone to Time to have them do a story on his work and they had refused. Then, back in 1969, he had vowed never to do an interview with the magazine. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee of Amritsar, India, the chief administrative body of the Sikhs publicly opposed the article and supported Yogi Bhajan with telegrams and demands of a retraction.

I lived through this period and witnessed the culture shift and all the other things described. "Objective documentation" for a narrative like this is difficult because mainstream news sources largely ignored it. Scholars are only coming to it lately and with various degrees of insight. As a university-educated veteran of the period, I re-wrote the article in response to a request a few months ago when it was a very little article indeed. contribs) 02:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt your knowledge, and you're the ideal person to help with identifying sources. However, to directly edit the article raises major conflict of interest issues, with all the risk of unconscious bias (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest).

Also, it's non-negotiable here that material is expected to have a previously published source. If it's not - for instance, if a statement comes from your unpublished personal knowledge, or the "culture shift" analysis above is your own - it comes under "orginal research" (see WP:NOR) and shouldn't be in the article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Have fun then. I witnessed the shift. No one wrote about it before. While I appreciate the wisdom of citing published works (though we know that much that manages to get published is not worth the paper) sometimes these criteria simply do not work. Much of this history received only scant or negligible coverage in the mainstream media in the days when it was unfolding. Surely if reporters or scholars had known 40 years ago what a big phenomenon yoga would be today, they would have devoted more attention to it then - but they did not. It remains for a man of my humble abilities to work almost from scratch largely with referencing internal to the organization. talk

Have fun then.

I'm not asking that you go away - just that you work within the editorial guidelines expected here. What you've provided is, largely, an improvement, with some provisos. It's partisan - in breach of WP:NPOV - in a number of areas such as its failure to mention criticisms and the considerably non-neutral account of the 1980s events (you'll notice the term "Sikh holocaust" is not used elsewhere on Wikipedia). And as I said above, some of it appears to be original research. It'd be helpful if you could indicate what is sourced from the references provided and what is your own analysis. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do appreciate your input. Let me try and work with you. It may take a bit of time. Firstly, kindly help me understand just what was (largely) the improvement I made. Secondly, it is interesting that "Sikh holocaust" does not turn up in Wikipedia. Perhaps it should. I remember that period. Most of our huge wave of Sikh immigration here in Toronto dates from then. They came as political refugees. Amnesty International and the foreign press were banned from Punjab for a decade. Perhaps the term ought to be more widely applied. For what it is worth, a google of the "Sikh holocaust" turned up 180,000 items. Thirdly, how do you suggest I indicate what is sourced from the references provided and what is my personal analysis? talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC).

Immigration to Canada

In New Delhi, Harbhajan Singh was faced with a stark choice: to serve his government by joining the Soviet military's psychic research program in Tashkent or leave the country.

WTF? Citation?

The Canadian High Commissioner, James George facilitated his immigration to Toronto, Canada in 1968.

Personally, or this just a hyped description of routine procedure? (just as the Home Secretary nominally facilitates immigration to Britain as head of the Home Office that deals with applications). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. I wrote the article and happen to be the best authority on the life of Yogi Bhajan, as I am currently writing his biography. I have personally spoken with the former High Commissioner and found that he held Yogi Bhajan in high regard. His letter of reference recommending Yogi Bhajan as a yoga teacher, written in 1968, is a matter of the public record.

As for the Tashkent reference, these are Yogi Bhajan's own words. There is not other evidence to support or refute it. As it basically coheres with the rest of his life, it is entered as a matter of fact. We do know that Yogi Bhajan disliked the Soviet system and their policies toward Afghanistan and, later on, the KGB's involvement in the Indian central government's oppression of the Sikhs. talk

I have personally spoken with the former High Commissioner and found that he held Yogi Bhajan in high regard.

WP:NOR again.

As for the Tashkent reference, these are Yogi Bhajan's own words.

That's fine to report, as long as there's a published source for his having said that. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Third party sourcing has been done so far as possible. I hope the Wiki powers that be consider reconsider their cautionary labels. I won't claim to be neutral any more than someone who has seen the redwood forests can be neutral about them. All I can say is I was there. talk dated: October 29, 2008

I think that we should acknowledge that any claims to a extraordinary actions by one man that is unverified should not be colored as fact, but acknowledge as statements by the man, and these statements should be qualified as unverified by other parties. Otherwise we do not give a history of the man, but a mythology. It is now recognized that George Washington never confessed to cutting down a cherry tree to his father. This was campaign propaganda. I think we need to be cautious not to create mythologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Harbajan Singh (Yogi Bhajan) and his organization were and still are being prossecuted for several fellonies. All this info can be trace on the net and readers should have access to that.

http://www.rickross.com/groups/3ho.html#Criminal%20Indictment%20of%203HO%20Leader http://www.rickross.com/groups/3ho.html#Litigation%20Against%203HO%20and/or%20Leaders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.112.21 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuits need inclusion

I took the liberty of including the lawsuits in the article on YB. I will watch to see that the article stays included as this is history, and it is a matter of public record. It is not up to me to say that YB was a bad or good man, but it is up to all of us that the record of his life be inclusive. You do not have to agree with the court actions, but you should be honest enough to let them stay as part of the record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw that the new edit to the Lawsuits against Yogi Bhajan expressed a point of view. So I restored the old fact filled entry that just mentioned the facts of the case. Please make sure that POV, and lack of neutrality does not enter into this section. I will monitor this section everyday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like the section, Lawsuits against Yogi Bhajan, to be closed to further editing as it is perfect the way it is, and it is very factual without POV and conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I received notice that the allegations were without merit, and that they are pornographic. My answer is that if the allegations were so without merit then why was there affidavit to a settlement meeting? As to my wording I used perfectly polite phrasing for bodily functions. They are history! And they had an effect on the people involved. I want the Lawsuits against Yogi Bhajan section closed to further editing.

I would like to speak further on these lawsuits. The lawsuits are an important part of the history of 3HO, and Yogi Bhajan. Families were split apart, and the YB organizations were rent with strife, desertions, and accusations against those who left the Sikh Dharma fold. For years Yogi Bhajan had to keep a low profile in the yoga and alternative health media as the magazines would have been flooded with angry letters from those who knew YB as an outrageous brute. I think the lawsuits are just as much part of the history of YB as the lawsuit against Michael Jackson in the early 90's. I do not want to see a hagiography written, only an honest history of the man. If the lawsuit section is thrown under the bus, then we are cheating the public who has the right to know.

Through my contributions over the months, there are now more lawsuits than even "Sharkbait" had introduced. (He only ever mentioned 3.) These are all factual cases and in the spirit of the law, I have reported them in a factual way without focussing on the emotions involved.

Important details left out in the previous version were: 1) the 2 lawsuits of the 1980s were financed by outside stakeholders; 2) that the plaintiff in the 2nd case later reconciled with Yogi Bhajan; 3) that Rick Ross likes to take these cases and use them to promote his "war on cults"; (I am thinking that "Sharkbait" - the author of the previous version - might well BE Rick Ross.) 4) that it is common practice for insurance companies to pay a lump sum of say $250,000 just to avoid the expense of going to court. There is no moral victory in that though it may seem like a lot of money to you or I.

What was injected into the previous version were needless salacious details and innuendo. Of course Yogi Bhajan would say that dragging these cases through the courts - regardless of the merits of the cases - would besmerch the Sikh religion. That is the way media works. It's not particle physics and it does not prove anything more - despite the obvious innuendo that it does.

So we have a shorter version. There are still lots of cases, more significant details than before, and less lurid details and innuendo. I think that is how an encyclopedia is supposed to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk • contribs) 13:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Death

I decided to include as many wide ranging articles on the death of YB as will be needed to show a large universe of opinion on the man's life. I included the very positive article from the La Times to show that there is a large measure of goodwill toward the man, but I also included negative articles as well in order to show neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Real Character of the Man

Much of what is written about Yogi Bhajan is so bland and obsequious. I wish I could impart more the true voice of the man. I can do a flawless voice impression with the Punjabi accent and the nasal clicks as if he had a sinus condition. He could curse the air blue. Sometimes he would have one of his students up close to him, so that he could dress them down. One account involved a woman with wayward son. He told her that he was no good and not to do anything for him. The poor mother said, "Yes but...", and then bang: the old man gave her a hard right to the nose.

Other times the old man could be down right rude. It was not unusual for him to echo a loud burp into the microphone as he was eating some barfi. You would think it came from a bullfrog; it was loud and round in sound. Other times he would be doing his group white tantra on the stage, supervising crowds of people in white, sitting in rows, and then in the middle of my meditation with my tantric partner I would hear this huge explosion that kind of scared me, until I had this involuntary giggle when I realized that was the largest fart in the universe vibrating the stage and the public address system. I bit my lip hard because I did want the old man to see me laughing at his huge butt explosion. I didn't want to get hit by him.

I wish people had some of his lectures on tape digitized for the internet. In one lecture he was angry at people who never changed their under turban in like 3 months, and had all kinds of crusty, unhygienic materials in their old under turbans. I can't remember exactly what he said, but it was to the effect that they were like lowest forms of life on earth. How could you live 8.4 million lifetimes to come to the Guru, and then be so disrespectful to your essence as to wear a turban like that! It is disgusting!

A lot times he would pick on people in the audience. It was weird. He was like the Punjab's answer to Don Wrickles. Anyway, please come to the talk part of this article as I can be more myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

All I needed to do was not pay attention for a month and the content gets diluted and watered down. I think if I had been way for a month, any mention of the lawsuits would have been totally gone. I am tired of these memory hole propagandists. It is like a perpetual game of whack-a-mole. Shameful!!!! The latest editor did not even have a handle. Show yourself!!! Coward! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. Yogi Bhajan was irreverent. I liked him that way. He helped a lot of folks get over their hangups and needless timidity. If you want to make fun of his ethnicity, go ahead. Did you know Albert Einstein talked funny? By the way, you will find plenty of his lectures on youtube and sikhnet.

Yogi Bhajan wasn't just irreverent. He slapped people, and he made rude noises from out of his colon. BTW, I am going to fix that lawsuit section again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.111.150 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Albert Einstein talked funny, but he was a nice guy. How does punching a woman in the nose help her with timidity? I'm in the twilight zone now. Ethnicity??? That's how he talked. He would defame someone in that accent. How could you not make fun of him? He was an oppressive, imperious creature. He once made fun of a woman who weighed 400 lbs in front of a large audience. And you know what? It didn't do any good. All she did was cry and run out the room. She was still fat months later. Nuts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I find what you say difficult to believe. Obviously, you think it to be true and have passionate feelings around this. What can I say? I have spent time with the man. I have interviewed many of his associates, past and present. What you say does not correlate with anything I have experienced - nor the acclaim of popes, archbishops and members of the US Congress. By the way, Yogi Bhajan's talks may be found on youtube and elsewhere. They are not difficult to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Guru Fatha Singh your view is yours, but it should not be the only view. Many dark figures can have themselves photographed with the Pope. Mother Theresa was a frequent guest of the Duvaliers of Haiti. She spoke well of them. Are you going to tell me the Duvaliers were saints? I remember the testimonies and oral histories of people who had been abused by Bhajan. I know people he had slapped in public. His frequent form of abuse was public embarrassment of a 3HO Sikh in his presence. These histories should be known as well. BTW, here is a pic of an earlier pope meeting with Hitler. http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetropoulos/church/tamerpage/hitler26bishop.gif I suppose this makes Hitler holy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"By the way, Yogi Bhajan's talks may be found on youtube and elsewhere. They are not difficult to find." Guru Fatha, those are talks that 3HO has deemed worthy of publishing on Youtube. There are many talks that would prove embarrassing to 3HO if they were widely published. As a matter of fact. I was at an Ashram where the Sangat voted to discontinue subscribing to the Bhajan lectures as the membership had no interest in listening to them. I suppose they got tired of his tedious harangues and rants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In my hometown of Toronto we have a tape library of some 1,000 recorded lectures. I have listened to all of them. And as a biographer of Yogi Bhajan's I have seen many hundreds of transcripts various edited and unedited. I have known him to outspoken and to speak on all manner of subjects. Mostly, he returned again and again to the wisdom of doing one's yoga and meditation each morning. Some didn't like to be reminded of that all the time. I will agree. But I wouldn't agree the talks would embarrass his legacy or the legacy of his teachings.

What I think you don't get is the psycho-spiritual dynamic of a lifestyle with God-realization as its stated goal and a rigorous daily routine of rising for a cold shower and Kundalini Yoga at 4 am as the central practice. When you fall from that ideal after a year or several years, it is a very big fall indeed. And those who have fallen will love to have someone to blame.

There is nothing wrong with the teachings. They work. If you practice them with love, you do become a healthier, happier, more shining example of what a human being can be. If you don't do it with love, it can take longer. But if you fall, who better to blame than the one who taught you? You can say: "It's all my teacher's fault! He's a bad man. He talks too loud and he farts too."

This discussion is starting to remind me of the Indian parable of the blind men and the elephant. Do you know that tale? I must have luckily stumbled onto the trunk or something and you are fixated under the animal's tail. Perhaps neither of us have the whole story, but it serves us both to have some perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jackass,

I mean you Guru Fatha Singh. Leave the Litigation section alone, you brainwashed loon. At least you can admit your fearless leader farts in public like a rude pig. Now bugger off!! Only you can eat turds and called it prasad, because you have the low consciousness of a lying brown tonguer. Only people like you can ignore rape and battery and call it a slander, when your great leader had to make an out of court settlement. You have no love. You have arrogance and self delusion on your side. I have heard your beloved leader go into great detail explaining to women where their cooter is located. I have heard him bash American males relentlessly as if his sh** didn't stink. Tell me how much did YB love his wife Bibiji? He could show her his upper cut and left cross. As a husband he was a great pugilist. Don't try to manufacture a BS story on YB, because you will lose every time, oh saintly idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Killing with Kindness Technique among Others

The killing with kindness technique was something Yogi Bhajan practiced with snakelike ease. When faced with accusations he would inquire as to the accuser's health or ask them if they needed a drink of water. It was used by him when he did not want to answer direct questions about his misbehaviors by outsiders. He advocated acting very saintlike when confronted by someone who has aggrieved by him. It is like the charm offensive used by today's politicians. He could also laugh or joke with his sympathetic entourage to evade answering embarrassing direct questions. Guru Fatha is well practiced in this technique of Killing with Kindness as also with the show of saintliness. I am sure at some point he will make a gesture of compassion or make observations that YB's detractors are motivated by low consciousness. This will give another opportunity to say that he wishes with all his heart that the detractors could have their consciousness elevated. I know that you can't be directly angry at such people who know such psychopathic techniques. It is like getting in a fistfight with a kung fu artist. The kung fu artist can be the very devil, but if his technique is good he will defeat you in a fist fight every time. There are all kinds of "Gurus" and "Saints" in India who have good fronts but they are actually gangsters. My show of anger will allow Guru Fatha to get the upper hand in the saint game. If you are good at the saint game you can be a frank pedophile and yet evade justly outraged enemies. I wish I was battling Genghis Khan because at least he was direct in his savagery. A spiritual psychopathic will never let you get a direct roundhouse blow. It will always be a frustrating confrontation with at best glancing blows. We westerners need to get educated in oriental ways or they will have us crawling on our knees thanking them for being merciful in allowing us our begging bowls. You may have justified righteous anger at these psychopathic guru figures, but if you succeed in seriously hurting such a criminal, the bastard will be so sanctimonious and self-righteous that he can succeed in making himself look like a martyr, and you like the outrager in front of his flock. The bastard can have a long string of fraud victims, rape victims, and walking wounded, but his manner alone can countervail just opposition. My only solace is knowing that God is just. If Genghis Khan had advance men like Guru Fatha, he would look like the second coming of King Arthur to future generations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbait061 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Were you drunk when you wrote this? All this abuse does not help your case. You are no sharkbait, Rick Ross. You are abusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk • contribs) 01:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Get stuffed Guru Fatha. Quit abusing the article section, you damn pod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.114.211 (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up Weasel and Peacock terms

I removed as many weasel words and Peacock terms as I could find throughout the article. I marked items that still need sourcing with tags. If you can spot any further items lacking sources please tag them individually. At this point I think it is time to remove the global weasel word and peacock term tags from the article and I have removed them today. Michael614 (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please Do No Use Sikhiwiki As A Reference or any Other Wikipedia's

Please do not use Wikipedias as a reference. Thanks --Sikh-History 13:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wack a Mole

Hello Wikipedeans. I cannot be here all the time to keep a correct account of YB's lawsuits. I would appreciate it if others could keep the record straight. The account is by no means complete as one of the complainants claimed her sister had her physically restrain her so that she would be set in place for Bhajan's brutalizations. There are affidavits available urging Bhajan to settle the sexual battery cases as they were proving damaging to the Sikh religion. Anyway here is an abstract you can copy and paste to keep the record straight:

Lawsuits against Yogi Bhajan

There were three prominent law suits against Yogi Bhajan. The lawsuit with the most emotional impact for the Yogi Bhajan community was the Kate Felt lawsuit. This lawsuit alleged that Mr. Harbhajan aka Yogi Bhajan had raped and forcefully sodomized Ms. Karta Purk Kaur aka Kate Felt. Further the complaint alleged that Mr. Harbhajan had ripped a mole off of Ms. Felt's backside. There were also allegations of false arrest and false imprisonment of Ms. Felt. The plaintif was represented by Messers Peter N. Gorciades, Esq. from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Gordon Reiselt Esq of Singer Smith and Williams from Albuquerque, New Mexico. A second lawsuit had been initiated by Premka Kaur for rape, and assault and battery. An affadavit by Manmohan Singh will attest to the fact that Harbhajan Singh and Pritam Singh had met to discuss a settlement for both lawsuits. Harbhajan Singh had expressed the sentiment that the lawsuits would be damaging to the Sikh religion in public opinion. The third lawsuit was a complaint over defamation among many other wrongs. The plaintiff was Mark Baker, and he had left Akal Security in order to become a law enforcement officer with the state of New Mexico. It seems that Yogi Bhajan or Harbhajan Singh had made allegations that Mr. Baker was a danger to the goup leader's life. Harbhajan's complaint was made to the state of New Mexico which resulted in Mr. Baker being dismissed from the police training program. In the end Harbhajan's insurance company made a settlement check to Mr. Baker for the sum of $250,000 in order to have the lawsuit dismissed.

A Lawsuit is a Lawsuit...

It is not a conviction. In the US, legal matters are routinely settled out of court as the costs are less, particularly when the object of the suit is a high profile person or corporation. And especially so when a religion is involved.

Rick Ross [1], who calls himself "Sharkbait" on this forum, has an axe to grind and a business to promote defaming Yogi Bhajan and anyone else Ross might deem to be a "cult figure". Ross himself has seen more than his share of the courts in his lifetime.

Unlike Yogi Bhajan, Rick Ross WAS found guilty and sentenced for serious infractions of the law. See the wiki article. It is Ross who resorted to violence and coercion in the kidnapping of hundreds of members of non-mainstream religions in the course of his business as a "deprogrammer". According to the same wiki article, the FBI says Ross is a "questionable source of information" with "a personal hatred for all religious cults".

This hatred clearly comes out in Mr. Ross's obsession with this article. It is lacking in perception and circumspection. Anyone looking at his latest contribution, the so-called "An Abstract of the Suppressed Public Record of Lawsuits" will see that - aside from fishing up the prurient details Ross has previous posted in this article - the second half (4 lines) of this bit is identical to the last paragraph of the previous section. It seems not to matter to Mr. Ross. The more space he can take up slandering leaders of what he considers "religious cults", the more exposure he gets. It is a sloppy and poorly informed approach.

I might add - as I have in a previous post - that I have personally known Premka Kaur and spoke with her in 2000 when she worked for Ancient Healing Ways, a 3HO company in Espanola, and was hoping to reconcile with Yogi Bhajan. This chance encounter of mine is bad for Ross's slant on this whole affair, but true. Has Ross ever spoken with Premka? It doesn't seem likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me as a possible Conflict of Interest that the person who has worked directly on the law suits himself would be the one with interest in ensuring that these suits are presented. It would also seem that Rick Ross page has grounds for editing or even considered for review as it appears to be a POV Autobiography [2] - especially parts where he mentions his fees and services (see: [3]) - certainly are of a nature of Self Promotion and tend to read like a resume (see also: [4]).

Background on him and of Yogi Bhajan generally valid to include if it can be sourced [5], and is relevant, neutral and notable. But as mentioned, Rick Ross has a COI in presenting material on Yogi Bhajan as it would appear he has personal interest in ensuring the presentation of lawsuits in which he had an involvement.--Fatehji (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)