Talk:Kundalini

Comparison to other religions systems

The heading "Comparison to other religions systems" implies that Kundalini is a religious system, which it is not. Some of the terminology used to describe the Kundalini experience comes from Hinduism, but Kundalini is not a part of Hinduism. The Kundalini phenomenon, the chakras, and the nadis, have also been described in other cultural and religious traditions.

84.215.128.216 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Jose Fernando Alvarez jfa2 [at] cornell [dot] edu

Good Article

Whoever has written this article must receive applauds. S/he is the knower of the subject in depth and has good experience in this field. Sarleya220.255.1.29 (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed

I don't see a balanced discussion on this topic because a lot of people also see Kundalini as a very bad demonic influence. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZD2fOyHm7w User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 18:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This article should be treated as an article describing a religious "belief". Youtube sources aren't reliable. We need to stick to documented sources that study religious beliefs and philosophies. As an example, there are many people who think that the holy spirit is evil, but you don't see a section for them on the Holy Spirit article? There are many people who believe that Jesus was not the son of god, or even a holy being. They believe he was evil. Should the article about Jesus include their viewpoints? My point being, that beliefs an article documenting a belief, is by it's very nature, neutral. Again, if there are journals that study kundalini and give well researched viewpoints, they should always be included here, however they talk about it. Happy editing.TheRingess (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comparison with vajrayana section

213.235.233.85 (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC) i think there is something wrong in the 'comparison with vajrayana' part...'red bodhicitta' and 'white bodhicitta'. as far as i know there is no such thing. relative bodhicitta is the resolve to reach enlightenment for the benefit of all beings; absolute boddhicitta is compassion without anything towards one is being compassionate which rises through realization of emptiness. the term i think would be correct is 'tigle' or 'chakra'.

I don't know about red and white bodhicitta but the first paragraph sounds OK to me. However the next paragraph: "This practice of 'inner fire' is seen as a preliminary yoga to a further set of practices; obtaining the 'Illusory body', and obtaining the 'Clear Light', as well as practices such as dream yoga, and consciousness projection." does not seem to be about Kundalini so much as encouraging the reader to learn more about Buddhist practises. So I see this paragraph as furthering an editor's particular area of interest more than adding something to our knowledge of kundalini. Freelion (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Unintelligent deletions and reversions is the same as vandalism

BrahmanAdvaita and Atiyogafan, please try and contribute more intelligently by doing more than simply making broadside selections and reversions. I have restored the article to how it was before Atiyogafan made his/her sweeping changes which had no discussion. I have since made several improvements one at a time with detailed explanations. If you disagree with any of these, please address them individually and not just revert the whole lot. If you would like to make some additions, please do what I have done and make them one at a time with explanations so that they can be reviewed. You are both. Ow on. Office for your unintelligent reversions and any continuation of this will be seen as vandalism. Freelion (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing non-RS material is not vandalism. And there clearly seems to be Wikipedia:Consensus. Lastly, since Atiyogafan added high quality academic material, how can you accuse him/her of vandalism? BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was clearly unverifiable material I removed, as indicated in the edit summaries. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Idle calls of Wikipedia:Vandalism are simply amusing. Atiyogafan (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BrahmanAdvaita, please mention the reason in edit summary while reverting, like (unsourced, advertising etc), it is very helpful sometimes.

Freelion, a friendly suggestion, use the word "vandalism" carefully, or it is going to give you trouble.

Freelion, the revert you are talking about, I'll not comment on its content, but, I found some minor formatting errors, for example–

In your edit I saw those code :<b>Active approach – hatha yoga</b>

It should be EITHER '''Active approach – hatha yoga''' OR, I think better is start the line with a semicolon– ;Active approach – hatha yoga You have used <b>...</b> tag at least four times.

Also, I am not sure why you used indent (colon) at the beginning of sentences! Not a big issue, but, if you ask me I'll suggest you not to use it, since every time I see indent in paragraphs, I think it is a quote (since the similar formatting is followed in quotes, blockquotes, cquotes etc). If you have any formatting related questions, you can ask me, I'll try to help! Best --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the indenting advice Titodutta but I think there are more important issues at hand here at the moment. I have just restored the article to how it was before Atiyogafan and his buddy started this edit war. Let's recap. Atiyogafan made a whole lot of changes which did not have proper edit summaries nor any discussion leave alone consensus. You should try and reach some consensus here on the talk page rather than continually reverting these changes. To argue over the definition of vandalism is a joke. Edit warring is akin to vandalism and you shouldn't have to consult a dictionary or the Wikipedia book of rules to realise that.

I have undone Atiyogafan's massive changes because:

• There were not proper edit summaries (ie massive changes with minimal explanation)
• The changes were not discussed
• They did not reflect any consensus

Since then I made some reorganisational changes in line with what TheRingess, a long standing editor of this article, has suggested. The changes that I made were one at a time and all had proper explanations. As I said above, if you would like to discuss these changes, please address them one at a time and don't simply revert the whole lot as BrahmanAdvaita keeps doing. If you would like to add additional material such as tongue pulling, please make a new topic here on the talk page first and seek consensus as this technique is obviously controversial.

Before doing anything – review what I have done and if you have a problem with it – discuss it here first – do not simply revert. Freelion (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Gatoclass's deletion of all academic material from article

As an admin, why would Gatoclass delete the only material in the article that comes from actual PhD's in ancient studies? Atiyogafan (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm also baffled on that. Its the only section that references actual hatha yoga texts, and comes from a scholar. Gatoclass obviously holds some kind of New Age interpretation of kundalini divorced from hatha yoga and pranayama. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't know that yoga was fringe. Atiyogafan (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the book in question in front of me, so I have no way of evaluating the text. However, it appears to be an anthology of ancient texts rather than a treatise on the modern practice of yoga.

I have read quite a few books on kundalini and I cannot recall ever coming across the tongue-pulling exercise as a method of kundalini raising. I did once read, long ago, a text which recommended using a razor blade to shave back the part of the tongue that attaches to the lower palate, which supposedly assists one in extending the tongue up the nasal passage, but I've never seen that method corroborated either.

The traditional method of kundalini raising is receiving shaktipat through a Guru. Kundalini raising can also be achieved by chanting, meditation, hatha yoga and other forms of spiritual practice. The problem with the section in question as it currently stands is that it effectively presents "tongue pulling" as a primary means of kundalini raising when AFAIK it is a fringe practice which is virtually unheard of in modern yoga. The various recommended bhandas I have less of a problem with, but again, I think any section on methods of kundalini raising should present mainstream methods followed by less common methods in proportion to their representation in practice. Gatoclass (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: After a google search, I have come across a few sources that mention the tongue pulling exercise, as well as the tendon-shaving method, but I still see no evidence that these methods are in widespread use. Per WP:UNDUE, it is important that minority views are not presented as mainstream. The way the section is currently presented, anyone reading it might conclude that the primary means of kundalini raising is to yank one's tongue back and forth, a conclusion for which there is little if any evidence. Gatoclass (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not an anthology of ancient texts. Its a secondary work by an Oxford academic. Shaktipat is not the traditional method of raising kundalini. Moreover, we are merely presenting what the traditional texts say. Please respect the consensus. Atiyogafan (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Shaktipat is not the traditional method of raising kundalini

That is just an assertion. You would need to demonstrate that with reliable sources. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Gatoclass, you are relying on quite incorrect personal knowledge. Since you like Googling, please note there is a whole internet forum where people practice kechari mudra by first snipping the lingual frenum. Its called Advanced Yoga Practices. There are youtube videos on it as well. It is mentioned in the most popular hatha yoga text, Hatha Yoga Pradipika. Yogananda brought American awareness to the method in the 1940's. Tibetan yogis also touch the palate with the tongue in many practices. Yet what does any of this have to do with Wikipedia policies? BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

An internet forum is not a reliable source. Also, the fact that such a forum exists does not prove the practice is mainstream; there are forums in support of practically any fringe belief.

As I do not want to spend too much time on this issue however, I am willing to propose a compromise for the present. I do not have any great objection to mention of kechari mudra or the other bhandas mentioned in the section; I just think the part referring to tongue pulling should go, as it appears to be a far from universally employed (or approved) method of achieving this mudra. And while I still have some misgivings about this information, it might be suitable for inclusion in the kechari mudra article itself provided it is not presented in a WP:UNDUE manner. I am still uncomfortable about the presentation of this section at the top of the article however as it implies these methods are more important than other methods. It would be more appropriate IMO to discuss all the methods in the same section, in proportion to their representation in sources. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not understanding. I have already supported my claims. An Oxford scholar is not a reliable source? You are the one making the fringe claims citing Google.com Atiyogafan (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Gatoclass, you don't believe that the actual traditional Indian methods are far more important than modern "New Agish" ones? Moreover the section is titled "Medieval Texts". People are free to skip that, if they are not interested in the traditional approach. Borakai (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)