From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Guru was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 21, 2004 Peer review Reviewed
June 1, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
June 13, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Guru:
  1. Resolve dispute within consensus by active editors
  2. Assessment of the disciple by the guru, including mentioning of "noviciate" (also to add balance to the article as requested by anon .72 and Zappaz )
  3. Section on Guru succession and the lineage/parampara
  4. Try to find out whether Agehananda Bharati has written about gurus. E.g. in his book Light at the Center.
  5. Try to find something about the guru as an object of projection and attachment.
  6. Write about surrender to the guru.
  7. Write about or link to Eklavya.
  8. Section on Guru/disciple relationship
  9. Find more diverse Hindu scholars to cite from
  10. Check whether Reinhart Hummel [1] has written something interesting about the subject. e.g. in his German language books Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen, Kohlhammer 1980, or in Gurus, Meister, Scharlatane Freiburg i. Br. 1996 (this book was sold out when I tried to buy it) .
  11. write down about positive effects of conversion, according to Jan van der Lans in his book followers of the guru/volgelingen van de goeroe
  12. Add a section on Importance of Guru in Jainism which is missing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anishshah19 (talkcontribs) 08:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC).


guru does not mean spiritual master. that is a fabrication of certain gaudiya vaishnav groups who try to get western disciples to obey them blindly, most notably Iskcon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oookrsna (talkcontribs) 07:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You offer no references and I'm not surprised. See Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, OUP, 1899. Part of the entry for guru reads: venerable , respectable ; m. any venerable or respectable person (father , mother , or any relative older than one's self) Gobh. SaknakhGr2. Mn. &c. ; a spiritual parent or preceptor (from whom a youth receives the initiatory Mantra or prayer , who instructs him in the Sastras and conducts the necessary ceremonies up to that of investiture which is performed by the Acarya Yajn. i , 34) RPrat. AsavGr2. Pa1rGr2. Mn. &c. ; the chief of (gen. or in comp.) Ca1n2. Ragh. ii , 68 ; (with S3a1ktas) author of a Mantra ; `" preceptor of the gods "' , Br2ihaspati Mn.xi There are half a dozen references in that extract alone. Could you please provide references supporting your statement? AbelBergaigne (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The usage of guru in Buddhism[edit]

I need a credible source which specifically states that the word "guru" is used commonly in Buddhism. --Nosedown (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be completely rewritten[edit]

This article needs to be completely rewritten. It's not just a problem of style. There's an overall lack of conceptual clarity. The article displays a vague and confused understanding of the topic. It's a jumble and mishmash of sources. It lacks cohesion and an analytically lucid overall organization. Sections, paragraphs, and sentences follow each other in an irrational and confusing way. Many of the sentences are so vague and imprecise as to be nonsensical. There are problems with factual accuracy and intelligibility throughout. Wikixosa (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2009

Some issues can be improved, but a "confused understanding of the topic" and "mishmash of sources" and "lack cohesion" are to a large extent due to the subject matter. I do not think that the issues that I listed can be improved greatly without removing significant information/viewpoints. Andries (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that various good sources are regularly deleted by Wiki Admins as being not notable and biased. Each time there is a clean-up almost completely unreferenced contents remains. The problem is that those sources which are notable on this topic are not notable also in the West. I have already tried to prepare a reorganization, but all sourced material was deleted before that. You can't write about something, without having sourced material. The other thing is that Guru article would have to be protected. It is a very controversial topic with many people adding their own views, making it impossible to manage the contents by the minority. Every single group of people having a Guru will try to add their teaching to the article. This is not wrong. The problem is to organize it properly and keep it organized. Atmapuri (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"The problem is that those sources which are notable on this topic are not notable also in the West." - I'm sorry, but i'm wondering if i understood this correctly. Does this mean that non-Western sources are not notable to Wikipedia in general? That would mean that any sense of bias is gone from this project, if the whole admin-clique disaster wasn't bad enough. ChromeBallz (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Guru Brahma[edit]

In some traditions, the Guru Brahma sloka is followed by the following: dhyan moolam guru moorti pooja moolam guru padam mantra moolam guru wakyam moksha moolam guru kripa Akhandmandlakaram vyaptam yen charaacharam, tad padam darshitam yen ,tasmai shri guruve namah twam ev mata cha pita twam ev, twam ev bandhuscha sakha twam ev , twam vidya darvidam twam ev, twam ev sarvam mam dev dev, Brahma nandam param sukhdam kevlam gyan murtim, dwandaatitam gagan sadrasham tasya masya di lakshyam, ekam nityam vimal machlam sarvdikshakshibhutam, bhavatitam trigunrahitam sad gurum tam namami! I can only attempt a feeble translation but if someone else is up to it, I would request them to go ahead. Btw, I'd like to thank the anon who brought this to my notice by editing my user page! --Gurubrahma (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

guru sloka[edit]

gurur brahma sloka's writer is not Sankaracharya,becouse this sloka from Gurugeetafrom skanthapurana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannan843 (talkcontribs) 13:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Attributes of guru[edit]

I'm having trouble finding the "five signs of satguru" in the Upanishads. E.g. a search for समृद्धि = "abundance" सदगुरू = "satguru" उपनिषद् = "upanishad" only gives two results. English results tend to be just quoting this page. There are a couple of sites that quote contemporary gurus giving this list with different Sanskrit romanization and slightly different translations. Anyone know the source for sure? --Mujokan (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about notability of Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda in Hinduism[edit]

Reliable sources on Vedanta and Advaita can only include those, who are considered an authority on the subject by those who actually study and follow this teachings. Within Hinduism, the Vedanta and Advaita are followed by the seven Akharas established by Adi Shankaracharya. The Mahanirvani Akhara is considered one of the major ones. If you read the biography of the author for which you dispute source reliability and notability, you will notice that he holds the highest title of Mahamandaleshwar in Hindusim as the member of Mahanirvani Akhara. His view is not the view of one yogi, but shared by all followers of Adi Shankaracharya. The Acharya of Panchayati Mahanirvani Akhara said during the Kumbha Mela 2010 in Haridwar that: "... there are many stars among Mahamandaleshwars of Vedanta but among them the very incredible star is Swami Maheshwarananda..." and other member of the governing body said "... Swami Vivekanada also went abroad, but the work of Swami Maheshwarananda is unexcelled... ". The 15min video from Haridwar recorded in Feb 2010 can be seen here.

That level of detail should not be in the lead to a general article titled "guru". It should be included in the hinduism section or on other more indepth sections. Also religious speeches shouldn't be considered reliable sources for definitions and if this person is considered by his followers to be a guru its not okay to include his opinion on the lead.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I dont know how much you know about Hindusim. It is also called a living religion. This means that what is true is not a question of history or books, but what is the current view of the Gurus living today, which are considerd living deities or personal God with direct contact to God. It is not possible to reduce the view of one of the highest authorithies in Hindusim to "be the view of the one considered by Guru by his followers". Hinduism similarly to Catholic church also has an organizational structure. I think it is not fair to completely dismiss its existence. If the Pope has something to say, that is also not considered marginal. I think it is fair that we leave it open for discussion what is considered a deep enough level of detail. Atmapuri (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
As I understand, and as Hinduism confirms, Hinduism is not a monolithic religion with a strict organizational structure. Furthermore I think equating this fellow to the pope is a stretch. But even so, the leader of one religious denomination of Christianity, e.g. the pope, would not have his personal opinion or religious view inserted into the lead of an article like Jesus. I don't think it should be in the lead for a few reasons:
  1. His opinion is not so life shattering that it supersedes the opinions of Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist leaders of the past couple thousand years.
  2. For everything you listed about how notable he is, from his wikipedia page it looks like he peddles yoga lessons
  3. He is obviously not notable enough for inclusion on the Hinduism main page (not a reason in and of itself but shows how unnotable he is)
--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hinduism values the words of a living true master higher than the Vedas (Scriptures). Even though it is true that Hinduism does not have a monolithic organizational structure, it does have one and some of the pillars are very old and very valued. One of the most valued pillars of organizational structure which is present in Hinduism are those founded by Adi Guru Shankaracharya. If you would follow the links in my previous reply that explain the position of Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda in the organizationl structure of Hinduism, you would be able to understand this deeper. We should however concentrate on the specific two additions for which I believe belong in the lede of the article about the meaning of the Guru in Hinduism. One addition cites Guru Nanak. This citing was made by Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda in the chapter which discusses the role and meaning of the Guru. Guru Nanak was Sikh, which is a branch of Hinduism. It has been widely disputed on this and other pages and also in the west in general, if Guru is required to reach self realization or not. Well, here we have a definite reference from a notable person citing the past and confirming in the presence. I think this is a strong enough argument to be included in the lede of the Guru article. The other sentence describes in what way and how is Guru understood to be a deity in Hinduism and have that relates to God and to the role of the teacher. If you have any better reference than what was posted, I am most willing to accept it.Atmapuri (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
You are inflating this person's importance in the Hindu religion, because from the evidence you've presented so far he is not that notable.

We should however concentrate on the specific two additions for which I believe belong in the lede of the article about the meaning of the Guru in Hinduism.

This is the fundamental problem here. you are talking about the meaning of "guru" to your branch of Hinduism but other religions don't have the same definition as you. Guru Nanak was a Sikh Guru which is fundamentally different from the definition that this person believes in. Sikhism is a completely separate religion.

It has been widely disputed on this and other pages and also in the west in general, if Guru is required to reach self realization or not.

This type of indepth discussion does not belong in the lead it belongs in the rest of the article. Once again the lead should be a general definition and not something specific to Hinduism--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
About yoga lessons. Yoga is the method and path through which the self realization can be achieved. What kind of a Guru which would be wanting to help you achieve self realization would not teach Yoga? Notice that all his books are available for free on internet. He is not included on the Hinduism main page, because he was never suggested to be included. Most valued people present on that page, are dead and to add a living person would be almost a precedan. Atmapuri (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe you are trying to insert your personal beliefs into the article. The vast majority of people don't care about yoga or believe it has religious properties. I think the fact that he is not on that page shows how unnotable he really is--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Also your entire edit history revolves around inserting Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda into articles. Your contributions page is basically a collection of edit summaries that say "restoring relevant content" and posting that video (Special:Contributions/Atmapuri). I'm posting a warning to your talk page.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The edit history that you saw is subject of the dispute with user Wikidas, which has taken aim at removing the references about Paramhans Swami Maheswharananda from articles. He is trailing my edits and so I had to trail his. This is not a sign of not following the wiki rules. That "video" was posted only to the talk page of the Wikidas and on this page. Besides I dont know what this comments have to do with "notable person" and "reliable source". Will you post a warning on Wikidas page as well? He is clearly in violation of several points about Wiki behaviour, not to mention the basic ethics. Atmapuri (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that you are inserting books by this person into every conceivable article which lowers the quality of wikipedia.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry but I believe I inserted only the most relevant content which I believe adds to the quality of wikipedia considerably. Every author can be added simply for the sake of the reference or for the sake to make an actual quality and meaningfull contribution to the Wikipedia. His books are very thick and what was inserted is a small drop in the ocean. Blindly deleting a single author from articles regardless of what the content may be I think does have a fairly detremental effect on the quality of Wikipeda. Note that many references deleted by Wikidas have persisted on Wikipedia for more than 2 years, before he decided to take matters in his own hands. Atmapuri (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The person you keep quoting is not the end all be all source for everything. this is simply an attempt at advertising.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, that may be your personal perception, but we dont agree.Atmapuri (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • More importantly, you'll need to find sources that say this person's view is actually reliable and important enough for it to be quoted here. Quite simple as that. —SpacemanSpiff 12:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable scandals and controversies[edit]

Perhaps for balance we should have a Notable achievements and good works section? Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Developer guru[edit]

I missing description of "Developer guru".

Basicly it is guy which is much better then another developers. Usualy make miracles (like coding really fast, do for waiting what another say "imposible" etc.) (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of devotee-published sources[edit]

I have removed the reference to Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu. For discussion, see RS/N and this Talk page. Simon Kidd (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the RSN page you link to that gives you the right to remove referenced text. You are removing valid information from articles acting against consensus. Hoverfish Talk 20:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I linked to two pages. Fifelfoo said on his Talk page: "I'd suggest editing out OR and inappropriately sourced content, citing policy and appropriate discussions, and discussing at length on the talk page." The relevant policy/guideline says that an article "must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if [among other things, it] is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials". Kalchuri fails this test, since he is published by an organisation affiliated with the subject. Simon Kidd (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't unilaterally decide that Lord Meher is not a reliable source. You can't unilaterally decide that it is devotional and not a reliable biography. What is "Devotional"? and who decides. Not You, Mr Kidd. Hoverfish Talk 16:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead definition[edit]

The definition in the lead seems to tell us more about the rather bad use of the term in the USA than anything. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the most important aspects of the article. As it is, I see an undue weight problem in that section. Hoverfish Talk 09:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Devotee Page[edit]

Hi wikieditors, does anyone else think that an article about devotees may be a good article for wikipedia? We have the guru page but not the devotee page. It somehow seems unbalanced. When one types in devotee one gets redirected to a disambiguation page for devotion, but none of the potential pages are about the devotee in the sense that Vivekanada, for example, was a devotee of Ramakrishna. There is Hindu_devotional_movements, but it's not exactly what I am thinking of. So... just putting this idea out there if anyone wants to take it up the baton. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! ? Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

August 2015 cleanup[edit]

This article had many sentences and paragraphs without source, some with cite pending tags for a while. I have added sources in a few cases, but deleted all WP:OR. If someone can find reliable sources for the deleted text, please add it back with the WP:V sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes to lead[edit]

@Sérgio Itigo: The lead should summarize the main article, and mentioning that the Guru concept is also found in Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism is WP:DUE in the lead. Why are you deleting it from the lead? Similarly, I tried to verify the non-English source you added, but it is WP:PRIMARY and you seem to be interpreting the primary source, which is not ok. If you have a secondary source for the interpretation, please provide. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I only supplemented a sudden description not to cause misunderstanding. Buddhism uses ten kinds of honorific titles, but there is not guru there. The words guru seem to be rarely used in Esoteric Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, but it was affected by Hinduism. The description is too sudden and unidentified in context. I removed it. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Sérgio Itigo: Do you have a source for "seem to be rarely used in Jainism and Sikhism"? Per WP:BRD, please accept previously stable content, wait till a consensus is reached. Guru is a well recognized and revered concept in Sikhism, see Guru Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh and others. Similarly Guru is well supported in the main article's Jainism section. If your objection is simply for Buddhism, then I am removing it for now, till more support is offered in the main article. But if reliable sources are found, we need to add it back in per wikipedia content policies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Sérgio Itigo: I intend to add "the Guru concept is also found in Vajrayana Buddhism" to the lead shortly. Two reliable scholarly sources support this, and these sources are now in the main article, Buddhism section. I give you time to offer reasons, with reliable sources, as to why this should not be done. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Traditional Buddhism does not have the tradition of Guru. I checked use of the term "teacher" in Buddhism at a library today, teachers in Buddhism are as follows;
  • Great teacher (大師): vādināṃ-varah / āraya
  • Dharma teacher (法師): dharma-bhāṇaka / dharma-kathika
  • Leading teacher (導師): nara-nāyaka / loka-nāyaka / sārthera-vāha / daiśika
  • Non-Buddhist honor teacher (尊師): परिवार (not clear a Sanskrit)
  • Non-Buddhist teacher (師): upādhyāya
I think that guru is found as a non-Buddhist teacher in Sanskrit Buddhism texts. It had better to be described from when Jainism and Vajrayana imported the word guru as an own teacher here. And I think, all denominations of Tibetan Buddhism had abolished fanatic and stupid the "Vajrayana of the Secret Community" long time ago or did not it from the first. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC).
added the part of bold italic. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The lead now states Vajrayana Buddhism. Wikipedia is not the place to call any group "fanatic or stupid", or suppress information about them. Since you are claiming, "Tibetan Buddhism abolished Vajrayana", you need to provide recent scholarly source(s) with page number that can verify that conclusion. If you do, we can add a summary from them as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I described it with "Vajrayana of the Secret Community", not "Vajrayana". I wanted to only say that "Vajrayana of the Secret Community" caused fanatic and stupid acts. "Vajrayana of the Secret Community" means "Mount a Diamond Head (or Mount Tel Megiddo) of the Armageddon meeting" in Esoteric Christianity or Jewish mysticism. The mad-maximum Armageddon meeting of Aum Shinrikyo cult decided to provide a helicopter for spraying the ultimate poison-gas weapon "sarin". They held the most important Armageddon meeting in their limousine car. Therefore, it is known as the "Limousine meeting" widely in Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sérgio Itigo (talkcontribs) 17:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

unsourced and Dutch language content[edit]

@WebCite: why is this unsourced text appropriate? why is it due? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)