Jump to content

Talk:Paramahansa Yogananda/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Past lives claims

During his stay in America, Yogananda claimed that he was Arjuna and William the Conqueror in his former incarnations. Do you think that we should include this in the article? Of course, there are no hard evidence supporting his claim as reincarnation is difficult to prove. He occasionally mentioned this in some of his books and some of his disciples gave a few hints about this to the public. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Siva1979, It's surely interesting. I think the Arjuna reference is definitely worthy of mention. The William the Conqueror one is sure to stir up some controversy - especially among the people who live on The Island that he conquered.... If you mention these in the article, be sure to cite and reference. I added a statement on the Mahavatar Babaji article that Yogananda said Babaji was an incarnation of Krishna. One person claimed it was 'bogus' because I only had one reference, and a secondary one at that. Since then I added another secondary reference, independent from the first. Both those references also contain Yogananda's statement that he was Arjuna, same page number for both, so you can use them as references for the Arjuna claim also. They are 'Notes' 1 and 2 in the Mahavatar Babaji article. If you have a primary reference (i.e., a statement written by Yogananda, rather than a disciple stating that Yogananda told them...) that would help also. I know....most articles on WP don't have that much referencing - but I've seen that the world of religion, and Yogananda/Kriya Yoga, stir up alot of emotion. ॐ Priyanath 22:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Heavenly Mother

I have read Yoganada's book several times, although I am not a follower of his, and both enjoyed it and gained from it very much. The reason I'm writing is because several times he mentions the concept of a Heavenly Mother, that is God in female form, if I understand him correctly. Anyway some of the Mormons here have started a article on Heavenly Mother and are asking for information from other religions. If you would like to help out please check it out. Wishing you all the best. Steve Dufour 04:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. I included a quote from Yoganada while I was working on the Luther Burbank article; I thought it added something nice to it.

Death at age 59

How did he die? Larry R. Holmgren 21:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Heart attack. - File:ExcaliburSword.jpgSentinel 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Phrasing

Just a quick observation... "His book, Autobiography of a Yogi, has introduced several generations to the timeless wisdom of India." This phrase is a little... well, just see the entry at WP:PEACOCK. This was just a peripheral observation; maybe someone objective could look through the article and ensure this sort of thing, mild as it is, isn't throughout the entire article. I purposely didn't tag anything, as it doesn't very bad, just a wording thing. Alekjds talk 04:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Self-realization

I've proposed moving some content about this traditions view of Self-realization from that article onto this page. Discussion is on the self-realization article's talk page. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hansa/Hamsa

  • In the case of Paramahamsa/Paramahansa, there may be an incorrect interpretation present. It is my understanding that while hamsa does mean swan in general use, it also means wisdom, or at the very least, keen insight and knowledge. It seems to me this would be a more fitting translation, given the circumstances. - Hidoshi 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yogananda himself used "hansa," and everyone refers to him that way -- don't you think its best to stick with that? IANASE (I am not a sanskrit expert), however, and that's as far as I can take the discussion! --jocosley 19:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Hansa" in Sanskrit literally means swan. However, when used in the context we are discussing, it refers to a mythical swan that is mentioned several times in the Hindu scriptures. This divine bird is said to possess the power of separating milk from water when they are both mixed, and drink only the milk. Symbolically, it represents a man of wisdom, who is able to separate Truth from delusion and thus see only the Truth (God) in everything. Paramahansa means the "Supreme swan" literally, and a man endowed with supreme wisdom, symbolically. Perhaps this should be added in the text of the article to clarify the meaning of paramahansa.--Shanks1962 (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

if I might add from a lover of conversation:

it is just the difference between how people speak in different cultures. Though if there are philosophical connotations then such abstruse philosophy is beyond my comprehension.

Actually I think his talk is all about love. First a man should learn manners and not offend others. This makes one happy, because no man should be excepted in any culture to be insensitive to human feelings. And that's it! i am ok, you are ok! of course that's needs a little bit of thinking on everybody's part. I would like to quote Shri Paramhansa from the "The Divine Romance". In chapter "A Scripture of Love" he says- "I am Love. But to experience the giving the gift of Love, I divided Myself into three: love, lover and beloved. My love is beautiful, pure, eternally joyous; and I taste it in many ways, through many forms."

Of course for me his writings stand as a reference, particularly when using the web. That's all folks!

Hamid Bey

The original author of this article has included Hamid Bey as one of the noted disciples of Paramahansa Yogananda, and quoted a reference to support his claim. I read the reference, and all it says is that Hamid Bey came into contact with Paramahansa Yogananda in the 1920s and accompanied him on his lecture tours a few times. I have been associated with Paramahansa Yogananda's organization for several years, and never heard Hamid Bey's name mentioned as a prominent disciple. Definitely not in the same league as Rajarsi Janakananda, Daya Mata and others. Moreover, Hamid Bey seems to be a very prominent person of the Coptic Church, and a religious leader in his own right. It may be inaccurate to list him as a noted disciple of another religious leader without adequate evidence. I suggest that his name be removed from this list.--Shanks1962 (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Bey was at one time 'honorary vice-president' of SRF/YSS, according to some early publications, and was a close associate of Yogananda. Whether he was a disciple is really not very clear, since he had his own teaching to give. 'Associate' rather than 'disciple' would probably be much more accurate. ~ priyanath talk 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Category name

Paramahansa Yogananda is connected with a number of articles on Wikipedia, such as:

And perhaps others. The question is what would be the best name for a category to include these articles? Would it be Category:Paramahansa Yogananda? Or Category:Self-Realization Fellowship? Or something else?   Will Beback  talk  09:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorruptibility

It says here: http://skepdic.com/incorrupt.html that he was embalmed, explaining the incorruptibility. --Simon D M (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever seen an embalmed body after a week? I'm not saying it's true, just that you can't believe everything skeptics say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.73 (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the above, what exactly makes Falk's "Stripping the Gurus" seem like an impartial work, fit for a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.91.212 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleting Photographs from Commons

Someone deleted a photography from Commons that I had uploaded and received from Megog a copyright expert with Wikipedia. Also, I seem to be blocked from uploading images by someone. Replaced the photograph with a similar on for the moment.

I believe this post was from TatSat back in around October 2012Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

signatur

The signatur from Swami Vivekanda was deletet. Gives there reason ? File — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Reinhardt (talk • contribs) 10:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC) When it came now answer i insert it again.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  • My question is, why do you want to add the signature of anyone on Wikipedia? In all the pages I have been on and they are many, there is not a jpg of someone's signature? Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Sri Aurobindo this are busy sites--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed?

In its current incarnation ;), the article contains this statement: "While in India, Yukteswar gave Yogananda the monastic title of Paramahansa." Anyone have a reference for that? One that does not come from Autobiography of a Yogi? I would like to see some independent evidence that the title was bestowed upon him, that he didn't simply adopt it for himself. --96.247.124.78 (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I will look into it Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Idiomatic use of the word 'work' and other NPV issues

I've noticed in the last section a use of the word 'work' which I think is a bit idiomatic to Yogananda's organization. (Religious groups often have their own idioms or nearly-idiomatic phrases). The first usage in bold below is a but idiomatic, while the second is quite idiomatic, and the third is both idiomatic and has NPV issues too since it would be seem to be written from the perspective of his organization.

I'm proposing I rewrite to correct this issue, but I'd like to hear, from some non-SRF/Yogananda people, that I am making sense; or am I just being overly nitpicking?

If people are involved in SRF/Yogananda and wish to comment, that would be fine but do if you could let me know that you are involved because if you are you will probably have been well-exposed to what I consider an idiomatic use of the word 'work' and may already be comfortable with it and not neutral on the issue of whether it is idiomatic.

Thanks.

Paramahansa Yogananda's work is continued through the two organizations he founded - Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) and the Yogoda Satsanga Society of India (YSS).[1][2] Yogananda founded Self-Realization Fellowship in 1920 and incorporated it in 1935.[3] In the magazine Inner Culture for Self-Realization that Yogananda published with his organization SRF, he added this statement in the 1939, Vol. 12 issue:

Paramhansa Swami Yogananda renounced all his ownership rights in the Self-Realization Fellowship when it was incorporated as a nonprofit religious organization under the laws of California, March 29, 1935. At that time he turned over to the Fellowship all of his rights to and income from sale of his books, writings, magazine, lectures, classes, property, automobiles and all other possessions. The corporation, whose affairs are managed by a Board of Directors, does not pay Yogananda any salary.[4]

SRF is headquartered in Los Angeles and has grown to include more than 500 temples and centers around the world and has members in over 175 countries including the Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine.[5] In India and surrounding countries, Paramahansa Yogananda's work is known as Yogoda Satsanga Society of India, which has more than 100 centers, retreats, and ashrams."[2] Daya Mata, an important religious leader and a direct disciple of Yogananda who was personally chosen and trained by Yogananda, was head of Self-Realization Fellowship/Yogoda Satsanga Society of India from 1955–2010. Mrinalini Mata, a direct disciple of Yogananda, "is the current president and spiritual head of Self-Realization Fellowship/Yogoda Satsanga Society of India. She too was personally chosen and trained by Yogananda to help guide the work after his passing." She is assisted by a Board of Directors, which includes other direct disciples of Yogananda trained by him.[6]

Joesonyx (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Joesonyx, thanks for your comment and suggestions. I researched the meaning of WORK and here is what I found: (1) http://www.definitions.net/definition/work - No. 6. the result of exertion, labor or activity; a deed, performance or product. (2) http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_the_word_%27work%27 No.7. something produced or accomplished by effort, exertion, or exercise of skill <this book is the work of many hands> b: something produced by the exercise of creative talent or expenditure of creative effort : artistic production <an early work by a major writer> (3) http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of-the-word/work.html - No.12 all literary or musical pieces by a particular author, composer, or artist, regarded collectively. Looking at these definitions it seems the word "work" is the correct word to use here. When you read Yogananda's Articles of Incorporation on the Self-Realization Fellowship Wikipedia page http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/SRF_Articles_of_Incorporation_1935 - here is what is stated - "To teach a religion or preech religion known as "Self-Realization Fellowship" (Yogoda Sat-Sanga)" It appears that he created his teachings / his body of work and created an institution or organization to give them out. To make it more clear we could add the word transmit, spread or disseminate. An example for the 1st sentence - Paramahansa Yogananda's work is transmitted (or disseminated) through the two organizations he founded.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Red Rose. Note that the issue I'm bringing up is not about any actual incorrectness per se, only that it is not coming across as idiomatic, NPOV English to me. I'm proposing making the following changes, highlighted in bold: any comments?

Paramahansa Yogananda's teaching work is continued by the two organizations he founded - Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) and the Yogoda Satsanga Society of India (YSS).[1][2] Yogananda founded Self-Realization Fellowship in 1920 and incorporated it in 1935.[7] In the magazine Inner Culture for Self-Realization that Yogananda published with his organization SRF, he added this statement in the 1939, Vol. 12 issue:

Paramhansa Swami Yogananda renounced all his ownership rights in the Self-Realization Fellowship when it was incorporated as a nonprofit religious organization under the laws of California, March 29, 1935. At that time he turned over to the Fellowship all of his rights to and income from sale of his books, writings, magazine, lectures, classes, property, automobiles and all other possessions. The corporation, whose affairs are managed by a Board of Directors, does not pay Yogananda any salary.[8]

SRF is headquartered in Los Angeles and has grown to include more than 500 temples and centers around the world and has members in over 175 countries including the Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine.[9] In India and surrounding countries, Paramahansa Yogananda's teaching work is carried out by the Yogoda Satsanga Society of India, which has more than 100 centers, retreats, and ashrams."[2] Daya Mata, an important religious leader and a direct disciple of Yogananda who was personally chosen and trained by Yogananda, was head of Self-Realization Fellowship/Yogoda Satsanga Society of India from 1955–2010. Mrinalini Mata, a direct disciple of Yogananda, "is the current president and spiritual head of Self-Realization Fellowship/Yogoda Satsanga Society of India. She too was personally chosen and trained by Yogananda to help guide the dissemination of his teachings after his passing." She is assisted by a Board of Directors, which includes other direct disciples of Yogananda trained by him.[6]

Notice also the spurious(?) double-quotes near the end of the last paragraph which I think should also be removed. I also think I should take out the work 'important' before Daya Mata above, because it's one of those what-do-you-call them words? Joesonyx (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok Here is another go at it. The words teaching work wasn't clear enough to me. what do you think of this? I temporarily left out the middle paragraph for space reasons. Also, I don't see a need to keep the quotation marks.

The dissemination of Paramahansa Yogananda's teachings is continued by the two organizations he founded - Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) and the Yogoda Satsanga Society of India (YSS).[1][2] Yogananda founded Self-Realization Fellowship in 1920 and incorporated it in 1935.[7] In the magazine Inner Culture for Self-Realization that Yogananda published with his organization SRF, he added this statement in the 1939, Vol. 12 issue:

Middle Paragraph goes here.

SRF is headquartered in Los Angeles and has grown to include more than 500 temples and centers around the world and has members in over 175 countries including the Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine.[9] In India and surrounding countries, Paramahansa Yogananda's teachings are disseminated by the Yogoda Satsanga Society of India, which has more than 100 centers, retreats, and ashrams."[2] Daya Mata, an important religious leader and a direct disciple of Yogananda who was personally chosen and trained by Yogananda, was head of Self-Realization Fellowship/Yogoda Satsanga Society of India from 1955–2010. Mrinalini Mata, a direct disciple of Yogananda, "is the current president and spiritual head of Self-Realization Fellowship/Yogoda Satsanga Society of India. She too was personally chosen and trained by Yogananda to help guide the distribution of his teachings after his passing." She is assisted by a Board of Directors, which includes other direct disciples of Yogananda trained by him.[6]

Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

OK Red Rose, I would go for it, but I would replace the last 'distribution of his teachings' with 'dissemination of his teachings'. I don't think 'distribution' works well there.

Shall we go with that? Joesonyx (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok done and I deleted the unneeded quotations marks. It does make it more clear.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Goldberg 2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d "About Self-Realization Fellowship". Retrieved 2011-11-24.
  3. ^ Works related to SRF Articles of Incorporation 1935 at Wikisource
  4. ^ Self-Realization Fellowship (1939, Volume 12, page 30). Inner Culture for Self-Realization. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
  5. ^ "Locations of SRF/YSS centers & temples". Retrieved 2011-11-24.
  6. ^ a b "About SRF: Leadership of the Society". Retrieved 2008-02-09.
  7. ^ Works related to SRF Articles of Incorporation 1935 at Wikisource
  8. ^ Self-Realization Fellowship (1939, Volume 12, page 30). Inner Culture for Self-Realization. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
  9. ^ "Locations of SRF/YSS centers & temples". Retrieved 2011-11-24.

RfC at Swami Kriyananda page

Hi, I am requesting input on the recent removal of 'Swami' from Swami Kriyananda, disciple of Yogaanda. Red Rose 13 has proposed revising 'Swami' to 'Nayaswami' with some justification, but I believe 'Swami' is more representative and much better known. Thanks, Jack B108 (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Pending Removal of 'Paramahansa'

So since 'Swami' has been removed from 'Swami Kriyananda', supposedly because of a WP policy on honorifics, I am proposing to rename this article 'Yogananda' and generally remove 'Paramahansa' from this content, much more of a honorific than the religious title of 'Swami'. If 'Supreme Swan' in Sanskrit isn't an honorific, then I don't know what is. Jack B108 (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST and Mahatma vs. Mohandas. And please discuss Swami Kriyananda at the Swami Kriyananda talk page, rather than here. — goethean 21:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, perusing your user page, I see that we have already tangled and that you consider my suggestions to be laughable. In that case, please disregard. — goethean 21:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Did a search for Yogananda on Wikipedia and so far have found 4 pages that are all different from each other -

Because there are 4 pages different pages that use the name Yogananda - the Wikipedia guideline - Disambiguation - WP:DISAMBIG comes into play. It is important to differentiate the Yogananda pages from each other - right now they are. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Red Rose 13, thanks for your input, yes, we'll find a disambiguation solution, and your input could be useful. Note that neither WP:HONORIFICS nor WP:DISAMBIG allow for the retention of the honorific on the basis of a disambiguation need.
Joesonyx (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello user goethian, what is the relevence of WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST to this issue?

It looks like we need a disambiguation page for 'Yogananda'. What should we use as the text of the link to the Yogananda in question? I can see three possibilities:

(i) Yogananda (author of Autobiography of a Yogi)

(ii) Yogananda (founder of Self-Realization Fellowship)

(iii) Yoganand (disciple of Yukteswar Giri)

Thoughts? Joesonyx (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

To separate these four Yogananda pages, it seems in Wikipedia we need a disambiguation page and/or we leave the honorifics. If we don't keep the honorifics to provide separation then all three pages need to be changed. If we keep the honorifics to provide separation like in Mother Teresa then the pages remain the same. On Wikipedia one exception to keeping the honorifics is to not cause confusion. I think we need to pull in editors for a discussion. The discussion could be titled something like, What is the best way to show separation from the 3-4 pages that use the same name of Yogananda? Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The relevance of WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is that apparently both JackB108 and Joesonyx have come to this page with some complaint about unfairness relating to the Swami Kriyananda article. And, oh look, JackB108 is doing the same thing at Swami Vivekananda, bringing a complaint which also has no merit. Please be aware that bringing your complaint about Swami Kriyananda to talk pages which are unrelated to Swami Kriyananda can be construed as violating WP:TALK and WP:POINT. — goethean 15:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Goethean, in your first breath you disparaged Jack's and my comparison to the Kriyananda honorifics issue, in your second breath, you made your own comparison to the Mahatma Ghandi honorifics issue. In other words, our comparison to Kriyananda honorifics issue violates WP:TALK and WP:POINT, while your own comparison to to Mahatma Ghandi honorifics issue is I suppose fully in line with WP:TALK and WP:POINT for some reason. I expect the struggle for neutrality and absence of double standards in this issue to be a long struggle.
I've already brought up some suggestions for disambiguation of Yogananda, again, any thoughts on these suggestions?
Joesonyx (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The pair of you (Jack and Joe) need to heed what Goethean is saying. If nothing else, you seem to here with a pointy intent. I've had past dealings with this article and will review the sources but, off the top of my head, you're wrong. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I should elaborate, sorry. Having a disambig for Yogananda articles would be fine; renaming this one probably would not be. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove "Paramahansa" from the title of this page. Jack B108 (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I will leave the discussion and editing on all three pages in question to all of you for now. If I come back to the religious pages of the world's #1 English encyclopedia months from now and see ragged editing, as can be observed right now at Kriyananda, I won't take any responsibility for it, if you don't mind. If you have no care that partisans have somewhat hijacked the WP entry of a prominent religious man [and a top student of Yogananda], then I will have to accept that. The complaint was and is with WP editors at Kriyananda and with the larger WP structure itself. My sincere apologies for my certainly provactive attempt to defend the Kriyananda page by pointing out glaring inconsistencies and unfairness across these three related pages. I have failed. You win. Godspeed. Ciao, Jack B108 (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
At this time, Yogananda simply redirects to Paramahansa Yogananda. This reflects the fact that the simple word "Yogananda" is commonly used to refer to this person. Whether we keep the title here as Paramahansa Yogananda or change it to Yogananda, either way there is no need for a disambiguation page. I don't feel strongly that it should be changed, but I understand the argument that 'Paramahansa' is an honorific and thus should be dropped from the page title. I don't understand what the reason is for those who think it should be kept. Bertport (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Paramahansa is an honorific/title given to him in 1935. WP:HONORIFIC Yes, Paramahansa Yogananda according to Wikipedia is the Common name for this subject. WP:COMMONNAME To help with this I have done some research.

  • Stopped using his birth name when he became a monk in 1915 (born in 1895)and took the name Yogananda [1]
  • Received title Paramahansa in 1935 [2]
  • The name Paramahansa Yogananda has been used for 78 years.
  • Consistency – never returned to his birth name nor dropped his title
  • Name searches shows Paramahansa Yogananda:
1. Los Angeles Times – typed full name http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/paramahansa-yogananda
2. Los Angeles Times –typed last name and every single one had Paramahansa Yogananda and two were a street name in CT. http://www.latimes.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=yogananda&target=adv_article&sortby=display_time+descending
3. New York Times – typed full name http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/paramahansa+yogananda
4. New York Times – typed last name – came up with either Paramahansa Yogananda, a Yogananda Street, or another Yogananda called Swami Yogananda. http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/yogananda/
5. Britannica – typed in Yogananda – came up with Paramahansa Yogananda http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/653436/Paramahansa-Yogananda
6. About.com - was Paramahansa Yogananda http://hinduism.about.com/od/gurussaints/p/yogananda.htm
7. The Encyclopedia of American Religious History – Paramahansa Yogananda in the book http://books.google.com/books?id=u-_6P2rMy2wC&pg=PA474&lpg=PA474&dq=hindus+in+america+Yogananda&source=bl&ots=rEEemzwq2i&sig=cSNqs4rvVggkrQtWIUb1D5JZlpA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ut2pUbmnBYHoiwKuy4AI&ved=0CDMQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=hindus%20in%20america%20Yogananda&f=false
8. grams viewer; Did a google search for Yogananda but it wasn’t a clean search because all items that had the name Yogananda, including Paramahansa, were listed.

Hope this helps in our discussion.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The standard at WP:HONORIFIC for using the honorific is not that it is commonly used, or even the most commonly used. The standard is, "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included." 'Paramahansa Yogananda' does not meet this standard. Bertport (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Quite the opposite - The honorific is commonly attached and is rarely found without it - as you can see from my research - be sure to read the English reliable sources above - what other reliable sources should we check? Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep subject's name always includes Paramahansa in all his publications. This is the same exception as applies to Swami Vivekananda. "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included." 'Paramahansa Yogananda' does meet this standard. Yworo (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Yworo, what is the significance of the fact that subject's name always includes Paramahansa in ALL HIS publications?
Can I ask you Yworo, what would be a failure rate (of having the 'Paramahansa' title, that you would consider fatal for Paramahansa Ygoananda in this issue -- what rate of referral in reliable sources without the title would fail the test of being 'rare' -- would that be 1%, 2% or maybe even would it have to be as high as 10%?
I'd be interested in your ideas too, Red Rose 13.
Joesonyx (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I copied this over from something I wrote on the Kriyananda talk page. It's just as relevant here:
One other thing YWORO -- I think you misunderstand the subtleties of how WP:COMMONNAME and interplays with WP:HONORIFICS. WP:COMMONNAME determines what the common name is for wikipedia purposes, and does not include an honorific. Notice that NONE of the examples at WP:COMMONNAME include honorifics. Paramahansa Yogananda's WP:COMMONNAME is Yogananda -- the issue is whether he satisfies the exceptions granted under WP:HONORIFICS allowing the honorific to be used in his case. I believe there is no case at all that 'Paramahansa Yogananda' is Yogananda's WP:COMMONNAME. Authors frequently refer to him as Paramahansa Yogananda, and then in the next breath refer to him as simply Yogananda. This is very common and is often done even by devotees. (Note that in a similar vein, even though Obama is probably called President Obama 95% of the time in reliable English sources, 'President Obama' is not his WP:COMMONNAME. Many writers will call him President Obama on his first mention in an article, then just use 'Obama'. ) The issue for both Kriyananda and Yogananda is whether the exception granted at WP:HONORIFICS apply to them. When exceptions are granted to WP:HONORIFICS, they are granted for certain reasons but those reasons are not the same as saying the that WP:COMMONNAME includes the honorific.
The standards of prevalence required for WP:COMMONNAME, and for the EXCEPTIONS to WP:HONORIFICS are very different. WP:COMMONNAME is for the name most commonly used (without the honorific). The exceptions for WP:HONORIFICS are granted on the basis of the name rarely occurring without the honorific. This is a much stricter test.
Note that we can't just ask 'is the honorific more often than not used with the name' and if yes, then that is that person's WP:COMMONNAME. If this were so, a huge number honorifics would be part of the WP:COMMONNAME, making the stricter standards for the exceptions to WP:HONORIFIC make no sense. Fpr example, 'President' would be part of Obama's WP:COMMONNAME. Many, many people with honorifics excluded on Wikipedia are in fact most often referred to with the honorific. The standard for ALLOWING an honorific is that they are rarely seen without it.
Joesonyx (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that JackB 108 has reversed his request - see above.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:EXT "See Links normally to be avoided." Correcting some of the external links to references.Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

took out ext link for ref #9
Am half way through. Removed external links to his organization but left ones to independent, third party references. Also, updated a couple of references that did not have complete information.
Does anyone know who Miller is? There are two references for a Miller. Will have to remove unless we can figure out who it is.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
It might be the same Miller cited in Ramakrishna. Bertport (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Bertport - do you know what number it is? There are over 100 references! Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the Miller reference is still there in the References section. Miller, Timothy (1995). America's Alternative Religions. Borrego Publications; 1st edition (1991). ISBN 0-7914-2397-2. Bertport (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Bertport! I just updated both. Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
There was no need to change the citations. They were written in the standard style for citations from items in the References list. Bertport (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted my citation edits re: Miller - did you notice that most all the other Notes - have complete citations listed. Perhaps we should change them all to be just notes? What are you thoughts? [[3]] Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok I read more about the Notes section and External Links. I corrected #2 & #33 in the Notes and added the SRF website to the reference section with an external link to the site. I plan to fix the others in the same manner. What do you think? Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Paramahansa Yogananda

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Paramahansa Yogananda's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "path":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

the top two are fine and are the same book and the the third one is an updated version of the first two and apparently significantly changed so they need to be separate references. Oh I see what you mean - the exact title should be as follows - Kriyananda, Swami (1977). The Path: Autobiography of a Western Yogi. Crystal Clarity Publishers. ISBN 978-0-916124-11-3. I'll fix the top two - the third one is ok the way it is.

Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Mildred Hamilton entry corrections

I want to correct some things with the entry on Noted Direct Disciples regarding Mother Hamilton: 1) Mother was made a center leader for SRF sometime in the 1940s. 2) She was ordained as a minister in 1950 -- I can include a jpeg copy of the minister certificate as a reference. Is this acceptable as a reference? There is an entry in "Self Realization Magazine" January/February 1951 edition acknowledging her November 20, 1950 ordination. 3) She received the title of Yogacharya from Yogananda in 1951 during the convocation that summer. The reference for this is in the September 1952 SRF magazine. 4) Mother and SRF did not "part ways" as it says now. Mother was dismissed from the organization in March of 1958. There is a letter from Durga Mata to a Seattle SRF student that states this explicitly. 5) The concatenation of the "parting ways" with her stay in India at Swami Ramdas's ashram is not necessary and adds nothing to her story. It would be better to remove this statement. Either the dismissal must be stated clearly or this sentence should be removed or both.

Regarding 5 above, I suggest the following: "She was dismissed from her role as center leader in 1958. After that, she continued on her own..." the rest is fine.

Her dismissal was the result of several years of disagreements over how to run SRF and it goes back to just after the passing of Rajasi in 1955.Lkoler (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your input and references. I was able to add some of your suggestions because of your references. Letters are not used as references in Wikipedia. This sentence will need a valid reference or will need to be removed - In 1958 she was dismissed from her role as a center leader in SRF. All the other information was found on her website.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, RR. I think we have it just about right now. And thanks for the help on the wiki rules. I am working on finding a reference for the dismissal and hope to have something later this month.Lkoler (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Info box correction

Yogananda's religion is not Hinduism. Does anyone know how to take that off the info box? Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you prove that with a reference that Yogananda is not a hindu. New York Times: The story of Hindu Swami Paramahansa Yogananda ... https://www.nytimes.com/video/movies/100000003803805/awake-the-life-of-yogananda.html --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes after work. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Did you mean this text from Yogananda: To me there is neither Jew, nor Christian, nor Hindu; all are my brothers. http://www.yogananda-srf.org/The_Universality_of_Yoga.aspx#.WN5cy46kK09 He came from India in age of 27. Have Hindu teachers. And the organsiation have the character of modern hindu religions.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts. What I mean is that Yogananda himself personally falls under this category mentioned on Wikipedia in Hindu page "The term Hindu, in contemporary parlance, includes people who accept themselves as culturally or ethnically Hindu rather than with a fixed set of religious beliefs within Hinduism.[1]" His teachings however are different from Hinduism which is best explained from his own Aims and Ideals. "To reveal the complete harmony and basic oneness of original Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ and original Yoga as taught by Bhagavan Krishna; and to show that these principles of truth are the common scientific foundation of all true religions." -taken from the Self-Realization Fellowship page. I am still researching.... will get back to you Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes this is right. But by the new and old hindu spiritual masters this tolerance is the same. How Anandamayi Ma, Ramana Maharshi, Sri Aurobindo, Swami Vivekananda and Sri Chinmoy. As example Sri Chinmoy: “I was born into the Hindu religion, but now my only religion is to love God and to be of service to God. Love of God embraces all religions: Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam and others. I was born a Hindu, but being a God-lover, I love all religions and claim all religions as my own.” All the above gurus were classified under Hinduism.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
When you say classified under Hinduism, do you mean on Wikipedia? If true, then Wikipedia apparently doesn't know how to create a category for these free souls when clearly their teachings are beyond Hinduism. I am planning on using a template that doesn't limit Yogananda to Hinduism or Christianity.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I created a new template which took care of this problem. Let me know what you think? Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
added the name inside a colored box and am trying to change the color of border of the infobox but can't figure it out.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes all above gurus are have categorys to hindu and in the infobox stay hinduism on Wikipedia. I personaly think better to say to eastern gurus hindu because true hindu gurus have the same tolerance to other religions. And i think the right religion science naming is als also hinduism.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Richard I contacted the organization SRF to find out what is true and you are right... it is Hinduism and they also call it Yoga so feel free to go back to the original template.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

some POV issues

A distinction has to be made between an article as a follower would like to read it and an encyclopedia article.

In the section called 'Youth' there is a segment from Yogananda's book beginning, 'We entered a oneness of silence....'

Does this section belong in an encyclopedia article? 

   Of course it does.  We're quoting a short item written by the subject of the article describing an important moment in his life, not making Yogananda's Point Of View the same as our article's.  Finding inspiration, religious, romantic, or other, is one of the commonest human experiences.  We're not necessarily feeling inspired; we're describing how the subject felt that way, and showing how this helped determine the future course of his life.  In my college course on Mohammed, the prof spent the first 15 minutes of the first class reading some fervent vision Mohammed had written down, not to convert us but to inform us.Moabalan (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Under the section called 'Death', we have the following: According to an eyewitness - Daya Mata, a direct disciple of Yogananda, who was head of Self-Realization Fellowship from 1955–2010,[12][13] as Yogananda ended his speech, he read from his poem My India, concluding with the words "Where Ganges, woods, Himalayan caves, and men dream God—I am hallowed; my body touched that sod".[14] "As he uttered these words, he lifted his eyes to the Kutasha center, and his body slumped to the floor"[9][15] Followers say that he entered mahasamadhi.[15] The official cause of death was heart failure.[16] According to his devotees, Yogananda had stated on previous occasion that he preferred to leave the body by heart attack because it would be "the easiest way to die".[17]

It seems to me that the whole section is written for followers. It's part of the kind of shtick that tends to surround saints in India--an attempt is being made here to attribute miraculous happenings to Yogananda's death. Not encyclopedic, IMO.

Finally, I believe the entire section 'Claims of bodily incorruptibility' should be removed. This is another of the miracle-like claims made by the SRF about Yogananda. It's not adequately sourced and verified. A good debunking of the claim is in 'Stripping the gurus' by Geoffrey Falk. Joesonyx (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I see Yogananda's whole life revolved around spirituality, creating a church and giving out meditation teachings. To truly show the man one needs to include all aspects of his life. In reading over your objections, the only sentence I see that could be removed would be this one: "According to his devotees, Yogananda had stated on previous occasion that he preferred to leave the body by heart attack because it would be "the easiest way to die".[17] To me this sentence it is not relevant. In the same section - We could add a definition of Kutasha to help clarify for the reader. After some research I found that the Kutasha center is the Ajna Chakra or the Third Eye.
The section on incorruptibility is properly sourced with the article in Times and an actual statement from the mortuary itself. Stripping the Gurus I notice is self-published website by Mr. Falk. This is a questionable source for Wikipedia. WP:NOTRELIABLE Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Red Rose, regarding the claims of incorruptability, Rowe (the mortician engaged by the SRF) wrote an opinion on the state of the body. We can expect that SRF chose a very sympathetic person to handle the body, if he was not even an SRF member himself. Time magazine reported that this man reported something. I'm not sure that this makes a wikipedia-standard claim, does it? What about bias of sources? Notice that Time Magazine itself (its reporters) did not state that the body was unusually uncorrupted, but just that this man states that it was. It seems to me that the authority lies in this man Rowe alone, and we don't know how biased he is.
The reporting is apparently incomplete. It seems that Rowe's report stated that there actually was discoloration on Yogananda's nose. Also note that Yogananda was embalmed, explaining preservation. The following reference refers to a publication in the Rational Enquirer, skeptics newsletter for Western Canada:
http://srfglassonion.blogspot.ie/2011/12/yoganandas-incorruptibility-after-death.html
Back to the stuff about his death. I think you're being too kind to the followers and not kind enough to Encyclopedia-readers. Who cares if his followers say he entered Mahasamadhi? Was it you whom I saw remove a statement that Kriyananda entered mahasamadhi, changing it to he 'passed away'? Some of Kriyananda's followers believe he entered Mahasamadhi for sure. In fact, I would venture to say that almost every hindu spiritual teacher is believed by many of his or her followers to have entered 'mahasamadhi'. This is like saying of a Catholic saint that his supporters believe he died and went to heaven.

Joesonyx (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's discuss one issue at a time - (1) I did more research and found an actual copy of the letter from Mr. Rowe. Here is the link [4] I suggest that you read the whole letter through...the brown spot was not a significant part of the letter (2) It is also stated that Harry T. Rowe was the Los Angeles Mortuary Director of the Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery. Are you familiar with this mortuary? Is is quite large and highly respected. [5] I think Mr. Rowe, who was the director of mortuary at the time, is a very credible source of this information. It is interesting that he was the one who wrote the letter and not one of his staff.
The statements regarding his death are equally placed in the paragraph, giving the reader both views on the subject. Wikipedia brings all aspects of the subject onto its pages. The words didn't say he entered into mahasamadhi but that the followers believe he did. - "Followers say that he entered mahasamadhi.[15] The official cause of death was heart failure." This seems well balanced to me however there could be a better source for the "official cause of death was heart failure"...perhaps a news article? In regards to your comments regarding the Kriyananda page, if I remember correctly, there were no sources and basically just someone's opinion.
Like I said before the only sentence that seems out of place to me is this one - "According to his devotees, Yogananda had stated on previous occasion that he preferred to leave the body by heart attack because it would be "the easiest way to die".[17] What do you think about removing this sentence? To bring clarity I am going to add the definition of Kutasha that I found yesterday with a link to the page Chakra. Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Why do you say that the brown spot was not an important part of the letter? The gist of the section is that Yogananda

s body was in an extraordinary state of preservation. There is cherry-picking going on here. The brown spot is contrary evidence, and the fact that his body was embalmed is an extraordinary piece of information to leave out. It's VERY misleading to omit that, not what an encyclopedia should be doing.

What is the status on Wikipedia of a claim made by a questionable source (Rowe), but itself quoted by a source considered reliable (Time Magazine)? I haven't found anything in Wikipedia about this. You haven't addressed this aspect of my question. I don't see good grounds for considering Rowe reliable. That Time Magazine quotes Rowe doesn't seem to make him reliable -- their fact-checking probably went so far as to make sure that Rowe is being quoted correctly, not that he is a reliable authority. I would give a 95% probability that he is affiliated with SRF.
Is it fair to ask you if you are affiliated in some way with SRF, officially or unofficially (by personal commitment)? Nothing wrong with that, it should just be known.
What would the status of the skeptic's dictionary be on Wikipedia? Note that the skeptic's dictionary was published in 2004 by John Wiley and Sons, a VERY reputable publisher. More reliable IMO than Time Magazine. An alternative to removing the claims of incorruptibility is balancing it with Robert Carroll's criticism of the claims. However, I don't consider the claim notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. Be aware that Wikipedia states that extraordinary claims requires extraordinary support. It is not clear to me that this extraordinary claim has even adequate ordinary support. Also violates Wikipedia anti-cherry-picking policy, IMO.
I do agree with you about the removal of the part you say should be removed but I'm recommending more than that. I think the entire piece about claims of incorruptability should be removed. I don't think this one man's word is enough here. Joesonyx (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the whole report? You actually don't think a professional Director of Forest Lawn, an upscale, large, respected mortuary is a reliable source? If you think the actual director of Forest Lawn is affiliated with the subjects church, then show the proof. I don't understand your thinking. He is a third party reference, a very reliable and extraordinary source. [6] Also, wikipedia considers professional newspapers as a reliable source.

It might help you if you explored the Wikipedia guidelines that editors post on our personal pages.

I will remove the agreed upon sentence.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I edit spiritually oriented pages on Wikipedia when I have time. I have a very long watchlist and this page & a couple of others are fairly active. Most of the pages I am watching are not active and quiet most of time.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think he is a sufficiently reliable source actually, in a Wikipedia sense, for us to rely on his uncorroborated opinion as enough for substantiating an extraordinary claim. Can I refer you again to the issue you have not addressed, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary support on Wikipedia? Nothing personal against him. I don't care how big his mortuary is. To what kind of peer review or even editorial review was he subjected? You haven't answered my questions: (i) what is the status of an unreliable source being quoted by a reliable one (surely if the reliable source is merely quoting the unreliable source they are hardly corroborating it or making it reliable), and (ii) what is the status of the Skeptic's Dictionary, written by Professor Robert Carroll, published by John Wiley and Sons in 2004?

Joesonyx (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Realized I didn't respond to everything you said, so I'll make an effort to be more complete. Yes, I did read the whole report. I don't have a proof that Rowe was affiliated with SRF, but I suspect it, but even without proof of this, I still don't think he's a reliable source on this question. When you say, 'It might help you if you explored the Wikipedia guidelines that editors post on our personal pages', what do you mean? Please be explicit. I have read those guidelines in their entirety and I have no idea of what you are trying to say to me here. If you are implying I'm not following guidelines, I need to know what guidelines you are talking about. Joesonyx (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we have to be careful here to reflect believer's thought and claims; yes, state that they are 'claims', with a respectable academic voice of skepticism, but not try to edit out events very important to many thousands of believers, such as Yogananda's apparent bodily incorruption. I havent looked at Jesus Christ lately, but I'll bet it's got all the 'good stuff' in it about the Resurrection, walking on water, turning water into wine, etc. Only a poor or biased editor would try to remove those central claims from a descriptive article, and we need to continue to apply that same standard here. Actually, here are some of the 'outrageous' [and entirely appropriate!] claims from Jesus Christ today: "Most Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died sacrificially by crucifixion to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return.[16] The majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, who is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity." The WP article on Christ correctly includes these claims and properly distances itself from them. Jack B108 (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Jack B108, it is important to present the full picture of the subject and his life including beliefs and claims. Director Rowe was the director of Forest Lawn who oversaw the employees and the running of the whole mortuary, not just some person with an opinion. He would have to know what he is doing in order to run a mortuary. See this page for details of what is required now - [7] -"Mortuary science programs include courses in anatomy, physiology, pathology, embalming techniques, restorative art, business management, accounting and use of computers in funeral home management, and client services. They also include courses in the social sciences and in legal, ethical, and regulatory subjects such as psychology, grief counseling, oral and written communication, funeral service law, business law, and ethics." To use a skeptic in this article it would have to be scientifically based. So if you find someone with scientific qualifications and has published his/her analysis, let us know. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK Jack and Red Rose, I take the point about something which is a widespread belief of believers having a place in the article. The problem now is down to how the section is written. Have another look at how the claims of Yogananda's bodily incorruptability section is written. I do not think that it gives the correct encyclopedic distance. It's deceptive, because it is structured as an encyclopedically reliable argument for his bodily incorruptability. This is not like 'According to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus rose from the dead'. It's more like 'here is the reliable evidence that Jesus rose from the dead', very different and not encyclopedic IMO. (The only thing that adds some distance is the word 'claim' in the title and I don't think that is nearly enough.) I do not see such a thing as this, in this form, appearing in an encyclopedia such as Britannica.

Red Rose 13, there are other morticians, such as Jesus Preciado, who dispute Rowe's interpretations. See: http://www.skepdic.com/incorrupt.html

So as I see it, it's a matter of creating the appropriate encyclopedic distance from these miraculous claims. I'm still wondering what is the Wikipedia status of a reliable source merely quoting an unreliable source. As I was saying, this hardly makes the subject matter quoted reliable, but it may seem deceptively reliable and is therefore misleading. Something like 'Time Magazine said that Joe Blogs said that there is incontrovertible proof that Jesus rose from the dead', hardly seems to pass muster for Wikipedia. They wouldn't allow that in the Jesus article for sure.

One possibility is to add a precis of Robert Carroll's challenges to the claims of Yogananda's bodily incorruptability. Another is to leave out the uncorroborated interpretations of Rowe the mortician, and merely state something along the lines that the SRF believe and promote the idea that Yogananda's body was miraculously preserved.

Joesonyx (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

When I read the quote from Jesus Preciado, that was all it was...a quote probably from a book. It was not an official analyze of the data regarding Paramahansa Yogananda. According to Wikipedia guidelines, the letter from Director of Forest Lawn, Harry T. Rowe, is a reliable source. Even if you don't believe it. It is totally clear to me that the word Claim in the title is saying that it appears that the body is incorruptible and in time we will know for sure. Like I said before because Harry Rowe, gave a scientific analysis of the condition of the body, a counter claim would need to match it, a scientific analysis, not a skeptic's opinion who adds quotes from different books to try to support his view.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Red Rose 13, no, Rowe is not a reliable source by virtue of being a mortician of even a large mortuary, not in a Wikipedia sense. This isn't a comment on him personally. Even a lone medical doctor making unusual statements won't pass reliability on Wikipedia. I don't believe such a doctor, even if quoted by Time Magazine, would be by virtue of being merely quoted, considered reliable either.
I see a startling inconsistency between the standards you impose for arguments against the SRF interests (that the body is not incorruptible) and those standards you impose for arguments in its favor (that it is miraculously incorruptible). Robert Carroll's work is published by Wiley and Sons, and of course he adds quotes from other books, that is what authors do. Those authors don't have to have themselves analyzed the case of Yogananda's incorruptibility.
The argument that Yogananda's body is incorruptible is extraordinary, and needs peer-review if we are to support it on Wikipedia. Rowe's testimony, notarized or not, is not enough. There is clear evidence of cherry-picking in the published statement. We can't support a cherry-picked argument like that. There are contrary arguments in a reliable source that you are trying to disallow.
Here's a good standard for other editors to consider: do you think the section as it stands would go into Britannica? And if not, why not?
Joesonyx (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to have a peer review. I am confident that the section is meets wikipedia standards. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No at some point I'll just put in balancing remarks from Robert Carroll's writings on this subject. Joesonyx (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Carroll's writings are on a website and it is self-published which is not a reliable source. WP:NOTRELIABLE Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I will quote from his book, published by Wiley and Sons. OK? Joesonyx (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Read this section really well - WP:NOTRELIABLE -Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[7] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read what you showed me and I don't think this is a questionable source. Why do you think it is questionable? Bear in mind that it is published by Wiley and Sons. Joesonyx (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's get others opinions on this. He seems questionable to me but I think we need others opinions here.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A book published by a mainstream publisher, written by a man with a Ph.D. who taught philosophy at the college level. That easily qualifies as a reliable source. Carroll should be included as a response to the claim of bodily incorruptibility. Bertport (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer a reliable source that had a scientific background rather than philosophy which alludes to opinions which to be is POV.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

But he's still a reliable source. I mean, I would prefer if the Rowe on the PRO side of Yognanda's bodily incorruptability were a scientist too, and that he has a Phd. But he hasn't. Come to think of it, I'd prefer if one of these guys were Einstein and the other Richard Feynmann. :) But, sigh, neither of them are. Joesonyx (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Look over this page Mortuary Science which explains the science of "the study of dead bodies through mortuary work." Like I said, we need a reference from a scientist who has looked at Yogananda's mortuary record or at the very least read the letter from Mr. Rowe, the Mortuary Director of Forest Lawn. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No We don't Red Rose 13. We don't get to choose all the details of our sources. As I was saying, I'd prefer if Rowe were a scientist, I'd also prefer if he gave me assurances that he was not involved in the SRF and is therefore more neutral. But I can't have these things. Seems like you'll do all you can to disallow published reliable sources contrary to the case for the bodily incorruptability of Yogananda. And if we find out that Robert Carroll is a scientist and has read the letter from Mr. Rowe, you'll find another objection won't you? Joesonyx (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDYOU guidelines to help in our communication. Perhaps if we research we can find a scientist with the opposite point of view. Mr. Rowe, who was the Mortuary Director for the large well known and respected Forest Lawn, isn't going to make something up. Perhaps it is hard to believe but he stated the facts. We could use the skeptic philosopher if you wish which to me is really just his opinion which would give more weight to Mr. Rowe.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, that use of 'you' was unhelpful and I withdraw it, sorry. :) For your own part, check also the end of WP:AVOIDYOU which states: 'The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.'

I'm not sure what you mean by 'which would give more weight to Mr. Rowe'. You can explain it if you want to or just let it go.

There is more than one way to proceed. One proposal I have is to re-write the 'claims of bodily incorruptibility' section in a very simple form:

The Self-Realization Fellowship promotes the belief that Yogananda's body manifested miraculous physical incorruptibility (citations to TIME and SRF). This has been challenged by an independent skeptical researcher. (citation)

I like this form. It's short and sweet. Those who want the SRF case for his incorruptibility can look it up in the links -- those who want the contrary case can look that up too. There is a balance. Both 'cases' are out-of-line, but are easily accessed.

An other possibility is that I leave the current article as it is but add a precis of Robert Carroll's objections, with a citation also. The difference in this case is that a precis of both cases is 'in-line'.

Thoughts? Joesonyx (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I just added a sentence from the Skeptics book - apparently it is the only reference we have at this point. Perhaps in the future we can actually have a scientific reference that matches the mortuary science of Mr. Rowe's notarized letter. I see no need to change this section.Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel you didn't do justice to Robert Carroll's position, so I added what I believe is a better precis of his remarks.

Joesonyx (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The "Legacy" section is biased and incomplete, as it is written as if no other legacy of Yogananda besides that of SRF exists. This is a serious factual misstatement. This article has been hijacked by an SRF partisan, and this is the result. Jack B108 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Have you noticed the 26 direct disciples that are listed below the Legacy section with information about books, CD's, DVD's, communities, etc... It seems to me that part of Yogananda's legacy is reflected in the legacy of these direct disciples, don't you think? Some have started their very own churches and created their very own teachings which of course then is the direct disciples very own legacy that they have left.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

J. Donald Walters aka Kriyananda

My basic point is that the description of J. Donald Walters/Swami Kriyananda is biased. Since this is a Wikipedia article available to the general public, there is a need for a more balanced description of his life. The existing article mirrors the perspective put forth by Daya Mata and the SRF Board of Directors, and ignores the many positive contributions made by Kriyananda. It is like reading a summation of Barak Obama's life written by the Republican Party. Can we create a description that is a fairer portrayal of a man who was a source of inspiration and deepened spiritual realization to many, many Yoganadanda devotees?

Suggestions: 1) Since this is an article on Yogananda, it seems appropriate to point out that Kriyananada's founding of the Ananda communiites is directly linked to and inspired by Yogananda's ideal of World Brotherhood Colonies. 2a) It is simply untrue to state that the court ordered Kriyananda to add the name Ananda to the title of the church he founded. He offered to add the name in discussions with Daya Mata as an attempt to find a common ground. 2b) While I'm not sure it is essential to bring up the SRF/Ananda court case in an article on Yogananda, if it is brought up then we should be clear that the court actually decided in favor of the Ananda position that it was unconstitutional for SRF to try for a monopoly on spiritual teachings of any kind, specifically Yogananda's.

  • this again is your opinion and not based on facts. The 2002 jury verdict clearly states that is was Yogananda's intent to have ALL of teachings with SRF. Wikipedia is not about opinions but facts. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
      --Red Rose,  You misstate the case here.  Once you put a teaching out, it belongs to all.  You can't copyright ideas or concepts.  Ananda won most of the case--the right to use term Self-Realization, right to publish Yogananda-related materials SRF tried to block.  Whether Yogananda wanted SRF to "have" his teachings doesn't block the free speech of us all, including Don Walters'.  That's what the court found.Moabalan (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Moabalan, the key point here is that the books and lessons that Yogananda wrote are copyrighted and proven in a court of law that Yogananda's intent was to have all of his teachings with his organization, SRF. Yes of course, anyone can write books ABOUT the teachings of Yogananda.Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

3) It seems appropriate to point out that Kriyananda was the most prolific of Yogananda's disciples, as measured by the volume of books and music created. It also seems appropriate to note Kriyananda's frequently stated perspective that his works were inspired by his discipleship to Yogananda, and that Yogananda personally encouraged him in this direction.

  • On the Paramahansa Yogananda page under direct disciples there is only room for a short overview of someone's life. Also it doesn't really matter if he wrote more books or more music than others, what is important is to state that he wrote books and music.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
       --Who decided the number of books doesn't matter?  That's an opinion.  I've written two books and it's very different than writing just one.  Walters appears to have written more books than all other devotees put together.  That's noteworthy.  And much of it he did because SRF took so long to get things out that PY had directed it to do.Moabalan (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Again Moabalan, some of what you write in your comment is not based in fact. You have no proof what Yogananda wanted done and when... it is just your opinion. In regards to books written, SRF is more concerned with getting out Yogananda's major works than how many books his disciples wrote.Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

4) It is misleading to end the article with an inflammatory summation of highly controversial and complex court case. There is significant evidence linking this case to the concurrent SRF suit against Kriyananda. (See A Fight for Religious Freedom by John Parsons). My first thought is to avoid mentioning either court case in the article. The material is simply too complicated to cover adequately in a short article that should stay focused on Yogananda's life.

Proposed Text Swami Kriyananda. Donald Walters, 1948, Los Angeles. J. Donald Walters was given his final vows of sannyas and the name Kriyananda in 1955 from Daya Mata, the then President of SRF/YSS. In 1960 the SRF Board of Directors elected Kriyananda to the Board of Directors and to the position of Vice President, upon the passing of Dr. M.W. Lewis. In 1962, the SRF Board of Directors voted unanimously to request his resignation.[52][75] In 1968 Walters established Ananda Cooperative Village, near Nevada City California, as the first community dedicated to manifesting Yogananda's ideal of World Brotherhood Colonies,[82][83][84][85] a work that has grown to eight communities as of 2014. In 1990 SRF filed suit against Kriyananda on issues regarding the use of Yogananda's writings, photographs and recordings. The litigation was resolved in 2002.[86] Before his death in 2013, Kriyananda authored over 100 books and 400 pieces of music, all based on the inspiration he received from Yogananda.

82. Yogananda, Paramahansa, Autobiography of a Yogi. First edition, 1946, reprinted by Crystal Clarity publishers, 2005. ISBN 978-1-56589-212-5. p. 469. 83. Kriyananda, Swami, The Path—One Man's Quest on the Only Path There Is. Crystal Clarity Publishers ISBN 1-56589-733-1. 84. Silva, Kamala, The Flawless Mirror. Crystal Clarity Publishers, 2003. ISBN 978-1-56589-054-1. 85. Wright, Richard, Yogoda World City Planned. Inner Culture magazine, March 1937. 86. US District Court Jury Verdict SRF v Ananda 2002.pdf at en.wikisource.orgYogananda Chela (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

    • I have taken into consideration some of what you suggest - this might be too long and might need to be condensed:
    • J. Donald Walters, 1948, Los Angeles. J. Donald Walters was given his final vows of sannyas and the name Kriyananda in 1955 from Daya Mata, the then President of SRF/YSS. In 1960 the SRF Board of Directors elected Walters (Kriyananda) to the Board of Directors and to the position of Vice President, upon the passing of Dr. M.W. Lewis. In 1962, the SRF Board of Directors voted unanimously to request his resignation.[1][2]
    • In 1968 Walters established his Ananda Cooperative Village and his church, Fellowship of Inner Communion, near Nevada City California.[3] The cooperative community idea was based on Yogananda’s idea of World Brotherhood Colonies. Walters communities expanded to eight communities in 2014. In 1990 SRF, Yogananda’s organization, filed suit against Kriyananda because he changed the name of his church to Church of Self-Realization along with the use of specific writings, photographs and recordings of Yogananda's. The litigation was resolved in 2002 by a jury verdict.[4] In 1985 he renounced his swami name & monastic vows in order to marry and later divorced. In 1998 Walters was judged by a court of law to have misrepresented himself as a monk and found guilty of "constructive fraud", with a finding of "malice" and "fraudulent conduct" in regards to his sexual activity with young women.[5] Kriyananda authored over 100 books,[6] 400 pieces of music and created his own teachings based on Yogananda's teachings.[7]Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with your revision, except for the sentence "In 1998 Walters was judged by a court of law to have misrepresented himself as a monk and found guilty of "constructive fraud", with a finding of "malice" and "fraudulent conduct" in regards to his sexual activity with young women.[14] " Yes, this sentence can be classified as a fact, but I also know that Yogananda made a point of differentiating between "facts" and "truth", especially with regard to situations where "facts" were harmful to another person. I think we would agree that the "fact" that Yogananda lost a lawsuit to Dhirananda in 1935 is not an appropriate item to include in this article. Anne Marie Bertolucci was of much less importance in Kriyananda's life than Dhirananda was in Yogananda's. Why should this item then be included in this article, especially with all the extenuating circumstances for this case that are described in the book A Fight for Religious Freedom. Why don't we just delete this sentence and move on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogananda Chela (talk • contribs) 02:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 

     Why would a lawsuit be "inappropriate" to include in a biographical article?  Of course the Dhirananda case is relevant.  That said, it seems clear there's plenty of anti-Donald Walters energy in this debate.  It's common knowledge both he and Yogananda had high sexual energy in at least some phrase of their lives, and expressed it.  Wasn't it Dhirananda who found PY living with Laurie Pratt in NYC in 1924?Moabalan (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • It is clear Moabalan that you are new to editing on wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on facts with third party references to back it up. No Dhirananda did not find Yogananda living with Laurie Pratt in NYC - that is called rumor or gossip which doesn't belong on wikipedia. Red Rose 13 (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Working today and will be able to respond by tomorrow.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is what I have discovered after my extensive research on the subject and I think it is important to keep this sentence in the paragraph:(1) Anne Marie Bertolucci was one of eight women who gave testimony about their experiences with Walters. Outside of Anne Marie NOT one woman was compensated financially.(2) there is not an equal comparison between the two lawsuits you mentioned. Walters was the perpetrator against young women and exchanging in sexual acts while still calling himself a swami.(3) it doesn't really matter if Anne Marie or the other 7 women were important to Walters or not - in fact that is the whole point. (4) In regards to your reference regarding a book by Ananda's lawyer (not third party reference), it is clear that this lawsuit with the testimony of eight women is completely separate from SRF. Anne Marie started this whole process by herself and enlisted her own lawyer. The lawyers then discovered other women that were harmed.

[8] [9] So I am going to replace what is there now with this updated paragraph.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see your response. Now that both Swami and Daya Mata have passed away, isn't it time to end the hostilities? Keeping this sentence in the article can only exacerbate the tensions between SRF and Ananda. As you know the lawsuits consumed 10 years and many millions of dollars. Do you really want to continue to fan the flames?Yogananda Chela (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Again Wikipedia is encyclopedic, neutral and is not about personal opinions or imagined hostilities. I don't know what you are talking about regarding the sentence and its relationship to tensions between two organizations. According to my research the sentence in question has to do with a lawsuit between one person and his organization vs another person not an organization. Also, the organization SRF and the person Daya Mata were not involved in this lawsuit. The purpose of these short statements on this page is to give an important overview of each person. It is unfortunate that it happened but the fact is that it did.Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My basic point again is not about the fact that a court ruled in favor of Anne Marie Bertolucci, but whether the selection of this fact is appropriate in such a short summary of Kriyananda's life. If court cases are going to be included, I propose that we concentrate on the much more impactful finding of the initial SRF vs Ananda case by changing the current sentence "In 1990 Yogananda's SRF filed suit in federal court against Walters - he'd changed his church name to Church of Self-Realization, used specific writings, photographs and recordings of Yogananda's. The litigation was resolved in 2002 by a jury verdict.[76]" to the following:

In 1990 SRF sued Ananda and Kriyananda to enforce it's claim that SRF had exclusive (trademarked) use of the name, voice, teaching, and pictures of Yogananda as well as use of the term "self-realization". The court ruled against SRF in each of these matters. Citation: SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP CHURCH v. ANANDA CHURCH OF SELF REALIZATION, Nos. 93–16345, 93–16570., July 06, 1995 - US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, as recorded at caselaw.findlaw.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogananda Chela (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • From an encyclopedic perspective the whole truth is imperative. (1) We don't pick and choose what we personally view as important. (2) Also, in this short overview, it would be misleading to only give a partial truth as you have done above of the long court case from 1990 - 2002. In what I have studied there are many details of wins, losses & reversals for both sides. If anything were to be stated in this short summary, it should be the final verdict. And this is what would be said, "Jurors ultimately agreed with Self-Realization Fellowship's argument that Yogananda had repeatedly made his intentions clear before dying - he wanted the Fellowship to maintain copyrights to his works." Reference: Doug Mattson (October 30, 2002). "Jury: Copyrights violated by church". The Union. Grass Valley, California. Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least we agree that these court cases were complex. I invite you to read what the judge said in my last post and then see if you think the newspaper reporter's account was an appropriate summary.Yogananda Chela (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Actually the one court case SRF vs Ananda was complex and lasted around 12 years. But the completely separate court case against Kriyananda by Anne Marie was straight forward and not complex.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In regards to the SRF vs Ananda case I already read it a long time ago. Like was mentioned I have done extensive research and it was not "court cases" but one case - a long process and there were many wins, losses & reversals for both sides throughout the whole case. The final jury verdict sums up the intent of Yogananda's which is the core issue of the whole suit. Yes the reporters account, a valid Wikipedia third party reference, sums it up the verdict perfectly. Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been away on a business trip. With regard to SRF lawsuit, the Mattson article is concerned with the final copyright issues, but does not address the earlier (in my opinion much more important) trademark issues. In the interest of "the whole truth" this article should refer readers to the judges comments in the earlier decision.[84]http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1224987.html (trademarks) With regard to the Bertolucci case the reference to the Palo Alto Weekly should be replaced by the article in the more widely circulated Sacramento Bee: [85] Sacramento Bee 11/4/97, page B1; Ananda, It's Leader Punished by Judge; Unrefuted Claims Allowed in Lawsuit

My proposed text follows: J. Donald Walters, 1948, Los Angeles. Walters was given final vows of sannyas/name Kriyananda in 1955 by Daya Mata. In 1960 the SRF Board of Directors elected Kriyananda as Vice-President, and in 1962 unanimously requested his resignation.[52][75] In 1968 Kriyananda started Ananda Cooperative Community near Nevada City, CA.[16](8 communities by 2013) - based on Yogananda’s ideal of World Brotherhood Colonies. From 1990 to 2002 Kriyananda was engaged in extensive trademark and copyright litigation with SRF[84][76] as well as a case conderning sexual harrassment[85]. Kriyananda authored over 100 books[78] and 400 pieces of music based on his interactions with Yogananda.[79]

In the interest of moving this discussion to a conclusion, I would also agree to the following, more lengthy description, if you conclude the article needs more details. J. Donald Walters, 1948, Los Angeles. Walters was given final vows of sannyas/name Kriyananda in 1955 by Daya Mata. In 1960 the SRF Board of Directors elected Kriyananda as Vice-President, and in 1962 unanimously requested his resignation.[52][75] In 1968 Kriyananda started Ananda Cooperative Community near Nevada City, CA.[16](8 communities by 2013) - based on Yogananda’s ideal of World Brotherhood Colonies. From 1990 to 2002 SRF and Kriyananda engaged in extensive litigation where SRF lost trademarks on the terms "Paramahansa Yogananda" and "self-realization", but retained title to "Self-Realization Fellowship Church".[84] In 1998 a state court judged found Kriyananda guilty of "constructive fraud", with a finding of "malice" & "fraudulent conduct" regarding his sexual activity with young women, though the defense was precluded from cross-examining the witnesses.[85] Kriyananda authored over 100 books,[78] and 400 pieces of music based on his interactions with Yogananda.[79]

Finally, it will be helpful to readers wanting more information, if we link the name "J.Donald Walters" to the "Kriyananda" article in Wikipedia Yogananda Chela (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  • This short paragraph is meant to be an overview so I condensed it down to generalities as are all of the other sentences on the other direct disciples. Also I have taken into account some of what you said and incorporated some of your suggestions. Remember that Kriyananda is not the focus on this page and is only one of many direct disciples listed here. Also if we got into adding the many details, reversals and outcomes of either lawsuit it would become way too long. For instance the reason why Ananda was not allowed to question the women in Anne-Marie's case because Ananda defense team was caught illegally rummaging through the garbage can of Anne-Marie's lawyer. So you see there is not enough space in the section to cover it all just a brief mention of why each lawsuit was necessary is enough. Also on Wikipedia we never add a legal document as a reference. Here is the beginning of the litigation SRV vs Ananda- http://www.leagle.com/decision/20001528206F3d1322_11402. There is no space for more information in this short summary.

• J. Donald Walters, 1948, Los Angeles. Walters was given final vows of sannyas/name Kriyananda in 1955 by Daya Mata. In 1960 the SRF Board of Directors elected Walters as Vice-President. In 1962, the SRF Board unanimously requested his resignation.[52][75] In 1968 Walters started his Ananda Cooperative Community (8 communities by 2013) - based on Yogananda’s idea of World Brotherhood Colonies - and then his church, Fellowship of Inner Communion, west of Nevada City, CA.[16] From 1990 – 2002 SRF engaged in litigation in federal court with Kriyananda regarding copyrights to the writings, photographs, and sound recordings of Yogananda's.[76] In 1997 Anne-Marie Bertolucci engaged in litigation with Kriyananda regarding sexual harassment and fraudulently using his title of swami, implying he was celibate while engaging in sexual activity with young women.[77] Kriyananda authored over 100 books,[78] 400 pieces of music and created his own teaching based on Yogananda's teachings.[79]

  • This is 155 words and the others vary from 22 words to 144 words. I am going to change it now - feel free to add the Sacramento Bee Newspaper as as a second reference if you wish. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I added the Sacramento Bee reference. Thanks for linking the article to the Kriyananda site. Glad we could come to a resolution.Yogananda Chela (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Self-Realization Fellowship November 1995 Open Letter. Self-Realization Fellowship.
  2. ^ "Self-Realization Magazine". Los Angeles, California: Self-Realization Fellowship. 1949–1960. ISSN 0037-1564. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)
  3. ^ Kriyananda (1977)
  4. ^ Doug Mattson (October 30, 2002). "Jury: Copyrights violated by church". The Union. Grass Valley, California.
  5. ^ Vicky Anning (February 11, 1998). "COURT: Jury stings Ananda Church and its leaders". Palo Alto Weekly. Palo Alto, California.
  6. ^ "Library of Congress". Retrieved April 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  7. ^ Jones, Constance; Ryan, James D. (2007). Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Infobase Publishing. pp. 33–24. ISBN 9780816075645.
  8. ^ Goa, Helen (March 10, 1999). "Sex and the Singular Swami". San Francisco Weekly.
  9. ^ Diaz, Sam (December 14, 1997). "Trial Pits Woman, Guru Suit: Ex-Church Member Says Swami Abused Her, Then Had Her Fired, Shunned". San Jose Mercury.

PY's long Samadhi poem

PY wrote a two-page piece of verse that, from a technical standpoint, says a lot while using a minimal number of words, one of the valuable aspects of good verse or poetry. Would it be appropriate to include a few verses, a sampling, of this in either Teachings or Legacy section? It begins

Vanished the veils of light and shade, Lifted every vapor of sorrow, Sailed away all dawns of fleeting joy Gone the dim sensory mirage. . . . The storm of [sensory delusion] stilled

I don't have a source for this, other than a flyer/handout, but it's referred to in various places. I'm a lit major and find this to be decent religious verse that might help explain the presumably Hindu ideal PY held, and repeatedly claimed to experience, of overwhelming inner bliss or Samadhi. It resembles the declarations of 'divine bliss' claimed and described by Santa Teresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, many others, including PY's own line of gurus.Moabalan (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I believe somewhere in the Wiki world is a place to put this poem but not this page. For the reference - this poem can be found in Whispers from Eternity, Self-Realization, 1949. Yogananda moved his long version of this poem from his Autobiography of a Yogi to this book.Red Rose 13 (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography

At first I wondered "how can a person who died in 1952 have a bibliography that begins in the 1980s?" until I read the bit at the very top of the section that says "sorted by date of current printing." Isn't that a bit weird? Shouldn't the publications be listed in order of first printing to give a better chronology of his writing (rather than a chronology of his publishers activities)? I was really hoping to learn when God Talks With Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita was written, but because of the way this bibliography is laid out, I have no idea. I acknowledge there might be a simple answer that is alluding me. Youtryandyoutry (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paramahansa_Yogananda/Archive_1&oldid=1140197583"