Talk:Siddha Yoga/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Opening[edit]

I have read entries on the discussion page regarding the opening line of this article. I would assess the discussion as more of an unresolved argument. Personally, I disagree strongly with the line, "Siddha Yoga is a branch of the Hindu philosophical school of Kaśmir Śaivism". Please read the autobiography of Swami Muktananda. You will find that Siddha Yoga, is based on the primary concept of yoga or union with a Siddha. In this way, the concept is analagous to the concept of Guru Yoga through worship. Siddha Yoga gives rise to Raja Yoga. In this way we have the specific process of Yoga leading to the royal goal. The concepts of Kashmir Shaivism were introduced in Muktananda's Siddha Yoga as a philosophical and scholarly appendage. It is but a reflection of what Siddha Yoga is. Saying Siddha Yoga is a "branch" of Kashmir Shaivism is like saying any liberal minded enclave, no matter how tiny or obscure, is a "branch" of the USA Democratic Party. This is poor scholarship. Siddha Yoga was based on Bhagawan Nityananda whom Muktananda considered a Siddha. His devotion and worship (Guru Yoga) of Nityananda gave rise to Muktananda's Raja Yoga and attainment. Bhagawan Nityananda had no connection to Kashmir Shaivism and there is no evidence he ever spoke of it. Muktananda introduced the concepts as an ancillary study in his later work. This disqualifies it as being a "branch". In my opinion, the first line needs to be changed. I am willing to discuss here or edit it myself if no one delivers a qualified argument. If the current Guru of the sect has forwarded the currently stated conception of Siddha Yoga, kindly make me more aware of it by citation and why this need be taken seriously since the founder of this sect saw it otherwise per his writings. -Vritti 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply from TheRingess[edit]

Thanks Vritti for the input. I don't think any of the involved editors feel that this issue is resolved. Personally, I was frustrated that we didn't reach consensus. All interested editors presented well thought out arguments, but we did not reach any agreements nor did anyone suggest any possible resolutions. I can only speak personally, but I have not yet thought of a proposal that will satisfy everyone and I have simply assumed that other editors were either taking a short break and/or as I am, trying to think of a proposal that will move us forward.

The following quote is taken directly from the essential teachings page and refers to the aphorism "Honor Your Self..."

It also encapsulates a main teaching from the ancient philosophies of Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism

The url for this statement is Siddha Yoga Esential Teachings This url also serves as a reference for the tenets section of the article.

The following quote is from the Scriptural Tradition page of the SY website

The Siddha Yoga tradition draws many of its teachings from the Indian yogic texts of Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism, the Bhagavad Gita and the poet-saints

The url for that page is The Scriptural Tradition. This url also serves as a reference for the Scriptures section of the article.

I would be willing to see if Meditation Revolution supports the above quotes and the intro, but I don't have a copy.

Unfortunately, I don't know of any third party scholars that might either refute or support the intro. You seem to be more familiar with them. If you give me some names and references, I will read them in order to understand that viewpoint.

The Kashmir Shaivism article also lists both Muktananda and Nityananda as modern teachers in Kashmir Shaivism. If we dispute the statement here, we need to dispute it there also.

Please avoid labelling other people's scholarship as poor, this type of labelling does not help to build consensus.

I also disagree with your analogy. Think of the example of a new religion that claims its roots are in Christianity (i.e. the bible is their primary scripture, the teachings of the Christ figure prominently in their canon, etc.). If they are notable enough to warrant an article about them on Wikipedia, shouldn't we include their own view of themselves. If there are any religious scholars, who doubt their connection to Christianity, and they've published their arguments, wouldn't we include that as an alternative viewpoint?

I think the same thing applies here. The Siddha Yoga literature makes references to KS and AV. Shouldn't we include that here? The neutrality guidelines specify that we should include every significant, attributable viewpoint. I think that Siddha Yoga's view of itself counts as a major viewpoint. I also think that it should be included as close to the introduction as possible.

I have always been at least a little reticent about the classification of SY as "a spiritual organization teaching traditional Indian practices". For several reasons.

  1. The phrase spiritual organization, to me, is too vague and non-descriptive. Just about every religion in the world falls into the category of "spiritual organization".
  2. The practices of SY, are not just Indian practices. Meditation, chanting, and selfless service are found in a number of other traditions that did not originate in India. Since just about every religion as a significant number of adherents in India, it's hard for a casual reader to understand what is Indian and what isn't. Most are going to associate the word Indian with Hinduism. The use of the word Hindu started this argument in the first place.

The short answer to your question about why it should be taken seriously, is that the SY literature supports it and their own view of themselves counts as a significant enough viewpoint to meet Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines.

Personally, I don't care whether or not we call it a branch, but I think we need to mention it's relation to KS in the intro somehow. Unfortunately, I have no suggestion short of simply borrowing the language used on the SY website, which I'm reluctant to do.

If we can find religious scholars, who have studied SY and compared it to other religions then their viewpoints should be included also to satisfy Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines.

We could also expand the history section, to include more about BN and what his major aphorism/sayings/philosophies were. We should be able to use the Nitya Sutras, BN of Ganespuri, and Nityananda: The Divine Presence (which I just purchased and am awaiting). I have copies of the first two and a copy of POC. I would be willing to help find references in those books.

My viewpoint, is that we really need to expand the whole article so that by the time a reader, unfamiliar with SY, is finished with the article, they will have a decent understanding of not only elements SY shares in common with Hinduism and KS, but what it shares in common with all other religions as well as how it differs from them.

I'm going to stick a disputed template on the article to make it clear that there is a discussion regarding the intro going on.

Sorry about the length. Once again, my statements only reflect my own take on the current discussion.

TheRingess (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about lineage issues[edit]

Forgive me if my questions are simplistic, but I know very little about Siddha Yoga specifically. I have read the questions raised on the talk page regarding referring to it as a "branch" of the particular type of Shaivism practice in Kashmir region. Simply to help clarify my own ignorance, is it correct that within the Siddha Yoga organization itself, the movement characterizes itself as type of new religious movement, that is, a religious organization which has been founded relatively recently? Or does the organization see itself as having a specific teaching lineage related to a specific personage who is considered the founder? I ask the question this way because the English word "branch" is sometimes used to refer to the concept of shakha (Sanskrit: śākhā) which is sometimes used as a technical term in Hinduism. Buddhipriya 06:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the organization refers to itself as a new religious movement, but i might be wrong. I have certainly found no reference to the term on either the website or the literature I have. The organization considers Bhagawan Nityananda to be the first guru in the lineage in this century. As far as I know, BN started no formal organization, it was Muktananda that officially founded SYDA (as far as I know). We have included an observation from a 3rd party that it is a new religious movement. Personally, I think the article needs to be expanded so that a casual reader can understand how it might be a new religious movement and how it might/might not be related to Hinduism and KS. I think one good proposal might be to list it as a new religious movement in the first sentence, then expand briefly on its relation to Hinduism, KS and AV in the intro. It's only a proposal though.TheRingess (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the background. Since I am not previously familiar with this group perhaps my questions are too basic. When you mention Nityananda as the "first guru in the lineage in this century", is there a specific personage whom Nityananda cites as his teacher? That is, what exactly is the succession of teachers (parampara) which the school cites? Is Nityananda the farthest back which the school mentions (with dating)? This may be helpful in determine if "branch" is the best term for it, or perhaps something else. It is quite possible that Nityananda does not explicitly claim that he was transmitting a particular teaching lineage, for example. Such was the case with Ramakrishna, who certainly was influenced by various regional teachings, yet was sufficiently distinct as a historical figure so that he represents a new development that can be distinguished from prior lineages. So there is no cause for concern if Nityananda is similarly distinct, but it is helpful to try to understand how to talk about him. Buddhipriya 06:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, Nityananda is considered to have been born a siddha. The Nitya Sutras, talk about the man who raised him, and he is sometimes discussed as Nityananda's guru (I'd have to look up some references), but the general SY literature does not reference the man who raised him. Hope that helps (hope I'm accurate).TheRingess (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What you say is consistent with what the article says now in describing Nityananda as "The first guru of this Hindu lineage". Based on this I would agree with a previous comment made by someone else that the word "branch" is not the best choice of words for the lead, because it may imply some formal connection that the group itself does not claim. If the group itself refers to itself as a "branch" that would be noteworthy as a claim, but I can see where others might feel it was overstating the strength of the lineage. There is no shame in developing a new point of view, so if that is what has happened here there would be no need to claim a mantle of prior authority. Buddhipriya 06:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I don't think they use the word branch. I'm still trying to think of a rewrite that 1) accurately describes SY 2) inludes more about it's core philosophies and tenets. I'm tempted to call it a "new religious movement". I've always had trouble with basically including the history of the movement before any discussion about it's basic principles.TheRingess (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Kashmir shaivism etc[edit]

I can't understand how this controversy keeps going. I think some people are being too stubborn about it. I can cite a source (Kindle My Heart) that says that KS and Vedanta are the philosophical basis of SY. This is NOT the same as saying that SY is just a branch of KS. You could say that Christianity is based on the Old and New Testaments, one of which is Jewish, but that doesn't mean that Christianity is just a branch of Judaism.

If these people can produce a source that states unequivocally that SY is just a branch of KS, they should do so. Otherwise, stop being so stubborn about it. The same goes for saying that SY is Hinduism.

Sardaka 10:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it should be possible to have a compromise solution that says there is some disagreement on these questions: SY claims not to be Hinduism but there is some disagreement among the editors. Same goes for KS. If we can't come to any agreement, it might be more honest to say in the article that there is disagreement on these questions.

Sardaka 10:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is based on Hindu philosophy but prefers not to call itself Hindu? It is important not to mislead the reader. The traditions are rooted in Hinduism and must be reported as such. Perhaps SY's desire to publicly distance itself from Hinduism, if this is true and can be cited, should be recorded. Lumos3 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Name and overall naming convention[edit]

I wish to also open a discussion relative to the naming convention of this article and Wikipedia. We currently have articles here on karma yoga, jnana yoga, raja yoga, etc. These are ancient forms of yoga established and recognised looong ago in India. Siddha Yoga is no different. It is a form of yoga and an integral practice in many Siddha Guru Sampradayas. This is all quite verifiable. In this article, we have a "spiritual organisation", which has adopted, and Trademarked an Indian term as its title. What we are describing in this article is the development of the SYDA, using the term Siddha Yoga as a title for its movement. We do not seem to be describing one form of the many ancient forms of yoga. For encyclopedic reasons, I think that the term Siddha Yoga requires further disambiguation. We need a neutral article for Siddha Yoga as an Indian term and form of yoga and a seperate page for this spiritual organisation. As a name of this article, I believe and propose that Siddha Yoga(R) would be correct as it reflects the naming convention as presented on the organisations website. -Vritti 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

TheRingess[edit]

Seems somewhat unnecessary to me or at best a bridge that interested editors can cross when they get to it. There is already a disambiguation page for the term see Siddha Yoga (disambiguation). Currently it lists only 2 articles. I'm assuming there are currently no other articles that discuss SY in other contexts. So either we move this page to "Siddha Yoga(R)" (I'm not sure if there is a policy regarding the trademark symbol in the title, but someone could look it up to make sure we aren't violating any naming guidelines) or we move it to "SYDA" or any other alternative title someone might suggest. Alternatively, we wait for fellow editors to create the types of articles you mention and then they can disambiguate in a manner they find appropriate. Personally, I'm leaning toward the latter, but that's just my personal preference. Thanks for bringing up the point.TheRingess (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments. My initial proposal may have been less than clear. That is, I am interested in a Siddha Yoga article relating to the Indian term and usage. This would cause a name change for this current article here. I would hope a few editors might give an opinion on what the name might be. I don't think there is a problem with Siddha Yoga(R), but will ask an administrator before making any changes. -Vritti 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
good point. I would say simply be bold, create your article and see how it works itself out. Either this article will need to be renamed (a fairly easy process) or your article will have a qualifying adjective to distinguish it. Both articles will end up on the disambiguation page anyway. My only other thought is not to worry too much about it until the other article is written. Thanks for the effort.TheRingess (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if my questions are too basic, but I have not previously encounted the term "siddha yoga" in Hindu sources. Is there a particular reference that I can examine for the prior use of that term before it was popularized by this particular organization? I have been unable to find any references to it in Hindu sources based on a quick search of a few standard reference works, except in reference to the new religious movement founded by the individuals mentioned in the article. For example, there is no mention of siddha yoga in the index to Maurice Winternitz' History of Indian Literature, a standard reference work that documents a wide range of sources. It does not seem to be mentioned among the list of Kasmir Shaiva sects enumerated by Tattwananda in his detailed compilation of such sects in Vaisnava Sects, Saiva Sects, Mother Worship. It does not appear in the glossary provided by the Western academic Stella Kramrisch in her survey of Saiva materials, The Presence of Śiva, which otherwise covers Kasmir Shaivism to some degree, including technical terms in that philosophical system. The only mentions of "siddha yoga" that I can find in Gavin Flood's survey of "The Śaiva Traditions" in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism are on p. 201, where he is speaking about the Siddha (Tamil: Cittar) tradition in Tamilnadu (unrelated to Kashmir philosophy) and on p. 451 where the book Meditation Revolution is mentioned as a book produced by a group of Western individuals and that the book "is indeed the first work in what must be a longer and richer tradition of religious reasoning about Siddha Yoga", clearly indicating that there are no prior studies of the subject. Siddha yoga is not mentioned in the index to Axel Michaels Hinduism: Past and Present. It is not in the index of Heinrich Zimmer's Philosophies of India; nor in the index to An Introduction to Indian Philosophy by Chatterjee and Datta; nor in the index to Radhakrishnan and Moore's A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, all three being standard reference works on philosophical systems. The term does not appear in the glossary to Bhattacharyya's History of the Tantric Religion, which is a comprehensive work including a section on Kasmir Shaiva philosophical movements, which were considered heterodox movements. I conclude from these examples that the term "siddha yoga" is not widely used in Hindu materials, and may be a neologism. However I have little knowledge of this organization and make no claim to having done a thorough search. Buddhipriya 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
A small comment here on sources. I too have never seen reference to Siddha Yoga in any writings related to Kashmir Shaivism, but if it were there it would most likely be found in the Kula school of KS. I believe that early writings of Muktananda contain references to works citing Siddha Yoga, though I do not have proper references handy to relate. The Kakachandishvara Kalpa Tantra references a 13th century work Siddhayoga attributed to Vrnda. I don't have any of these sources in front of me. This is why I didn't rush to create a stub and rename this article. I have raised the issue in hopes that someone may have the sources at hand. I may or not find time in the near future to spend the required day or two at the reference library. Nice to see this discussion here. -Vritti 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless a very hard reference can be found, I would avoid claims of any scriptural authority for some practice called "siddha yoga". The word "siddha" is used often in Hindu texts, but it does not mean that there was some specific system of yoga organized and called "siddha yoga". Even when the term siddhayoga can be found in grammatical variants it may not be proof of any connection to anything which is now taught by the new religious movement called Siddha Yoga. For example, in Bengal there is a regional goddess by the name of Siddhayogeśvarī who is a form of Cāmuṇḍā, but that has nothing at all to do with the organization under discussion. (see: Bhattacharyya, History of the Tantric Religion, pp. 354-355) If a generic term comes up somewhere, it must be evaluated in context. As far as I can tell, "siddha yoga" is a neologism, but that is based on only a cursory reference check. Buddhipriya 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't find your questions to be too basic. I am enjoying the perspective of someone familiar with Hinduism and KS yet unfamiliar with SY. It now seems to me, that the word "branch" is not the best word to use. I have edited the intro to classify SY as a new religious movement. I have included some of the material previously found in the tenets section (to give the reader more specific information about this movements beliefs). I have also included my own phrasing "primary philosophical bases" rather than simply mimicking what the SY literature which describes KS as "One of the cornerstones of the Siddha Yoga tradition".SY web site -- The texts of Kashmir Shaivism I'm not sure my own phrasing is accurate, but am confident someone will come up with a better phrasing. In my opinion, your comments and questions have moved the discussion along in fruitful productive directions.TheRingess (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the link (SY web site -- The texts of Kashmir Shaivism) which establishes that the new religious movement Siddha Yoga cites a number of standard Hindu texts generally associated with Kashmir Shaivism as important and respected works. The web page says that "One of the cornerstones of the Siddha Yoga tradition, Kashmir Shaivism is a branch of the Shaivite philosophical tradition that explains how ..." -- that is, it refers to Kashmir Shaivism as a branch of the Shaivite philosophical tradtion (which is undisputed). It does not seem to refer to Siddha Yoga as a "branch" of Kashmir Shaivism. On that basis I would avoid use of the word branch regarding the connection between Siddha Yoga and Kashmir Shaivism. Valuing a religious text is a different matter from claiming to have special received authority regarding a particular teaching lineage. To document lineage one would normally look first to sampradaya parampara claims, and none such claims appear to be made here, nor need there be any such claims, as the history of Hinduism has seen constant ferment in the development of new ideas and the almost continuous birth of new religious movements for the past three thousand or so years. Buddhipriya 22:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Siddha Yoga as a name[edit]

Meditation Revolution on page 67 says that Muktananda first used the term Siddha Yoga in 1966 in a book called "Light on the Path", to describe the path of the guru's grace.

While I'm here, might as well point out that I have expanded the article about Nityananda. Feedback is invited.

Sardaka 11:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hindu lineage[edit]

Of the Hindu lineage, I removed the word Hindu, leaving lineage. While past and present Guru figures of Siddha Yoga® are perhaps qualified Hindus, the organization grants initiation to anyone registering, exchanging the money and showing up at the appointed time and place. While these people are being initiated into Siddha Yoga, I don't think the intention is to imply that these people are also becoming Hindus by doing so. Thus, it is in my opinion, rather controversial to suggest that it is a Hindu lineage, though certainly a lineage. I don't think the word is necessary or even the way the SYDA Foundation looks at it. -Vritti 06:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, but some people insisted on using the word Hindu, even though SY say that it is not Hinduism.

If there is anymore controversy on this issue, I suggest putting the following formula in the article:

"There is some disagreement among editors about whether SY is Hindu, but the organisation itself states that it is not Hindu."

As for Kashmir Shaivism, Meditation Revolution states clearly on page 96 that Muktananda was interested in KS because it expressed the kind of experience that he had. This is a long way from saying that SY is a branch of KS.

Sardaka 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The spiritual tradition is Hindu, we should not try to hide this . Lumos3 00:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to hide anything. If you say I'm French because I was born in France and I say I'm American because I've migrated to America and am now a citizen, I'm not trying to hide anything, but you're trying to put a label on me that I don't accept. Spiritual experience does not belong to any one religion. If someone born a Hindu has experiences of a universally divine nature and forms an organization dedicated to helping others to have the same experience, no matter who they are or where they live or what religion they belong to, then that organization can hardly be said to be Hindu. I practice Siddha Yoga and I am most definitely not Hindu. I agree that the best that can be done is to use Sardaka's suggestion above. MahaDave 19:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The opening sentence as it reads now is: Siddha Yoga is a new religious movement that claims to be based on Hindu spiritual traditions. We are not clasifying SY as a hindu tradition, we are classifying the traditions of KS and AV as hindu in origin. It seems to me, technically accurate to classify KS and AV as Hindu and is supported by the articles about them. We are not classifying SY as Hindu anymore.20:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

New findings, problems and proposal[edit]

I've been picking over this article in the last week or so. I think it is in a better general condition, but there are a couple points which I have uncovered that I would like to make public here. I am grateful to other editors who have recently allowed me to have "my way" with the article without reverting or even tangential argument on this talk page. I have been editing in good faith and I appreciate the slack given and have tried to show correct form and proper citations in my edits. As I mentioned in an earlier comment here, I continue to have an issue with this article in that the overwhelming weight of the article is being given to the use of Siddha Yoga as a proper noun and service mark of the SYDA Foundation. Certainly, on grounds of notability, Siddha Yoga® should have the greatest weight in our treatment of the subject. I have however began to include a brief paragraph that Siddha Yoga® is not the only Siddha Yoga lineage and is in fact pre-dated by others. It was interesting to me to uncover the specific references in Meditation Revolution. Two works which Swami Muktananda found valuable during his sadhana were the Mahayoga Vijnana and Yoga Vani. These two works were helpful to Muktananda to explain the processes that were unfolding in him after shaktipat transmission from Nityananda. It appears that Nityananda himself offered no guidance on these processes. The two books in question were written by Gurus of the Tirth lineage, a pre-existing and ongoing Siddha lineage. I have given treatment and written an article on one Guru of this line, but more is needed.

Secondly, there is no reliable secondary source that Nityananda passed on the Siddha lineage to Muktananda, as he Nityananda himself was without sampradaya and certainly without parampara in any known lineage. He never spoke of Siddha Yoga and never claimed to be a Guru or Swami of any tradition. Muktananda assertions are claims made in his autobiography and repeated elsewhere. These claims have been opposed by many close to Nityananda, etc. There are references if needed. I think the solution in this article is to merely relate the story that shaktipat was given to Muktananda by Nityananda. This is not an improbable assertion and something a Yogi can do independent of sampradaya and parampara. In all reality, Muktananda is the first Guru of Siddha Yoga®, though this needn't be brought into the article either. A lineage now exists, though it is not as exclusive as previously asserted. It bears the honor of being most notable.

Kindly bear with me as I take Siddha Yoga from an ancient and rather obscure compound Sanskrit term to the proper noun and service mark which now dominates its usage. Thanks for your patience. -Vritti 07:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have continued to try to find examples of the use of the term "siddha yoga" other than by this new religious movement and so far have found nothing that shows any prior tradition. I provided a list of negative results in a prior post. In addition to those sources previously mentioned, I since have checked the indexes for Mark Dyczkowski's The Doctrine of Vibration (a review of Kashmir Shaivism), Wendy Doniger's Purana Perennis (a collection of Puranic studies), Thomas McEvilley's The Shape of Ancient Thought (A study of exchange of ideas between India and Greece, with emphasis on ancient thought), and Max Muller's Six Systems of Indian Philosophy (a classic on philosophical systems) and did not find any mention of "Siddha Yoga". I continue to feel that the phrase is a neologism invented by the originators of this new religious movement, and that any attempt to prove prior existence for it as a religious practice is unlikely to be broadly sourced, although I would "never say never" with regard to just about any claim related to Hinduism. So in reading the article any general statements about "siddha yoga" having prior use in Hinduism need to be sourced.
To keep the results together, here is a restatement of prior negative findings. There is no mention of siddha yoga in the index to Maurice Winternitz' History of Indian Literature, a standard reference work that documents a wide range of sources. It does not seem to be mentioned among the list of Kasmir Shaiva sects enumerated by Tattwananda in his detailed compilation of such sects in Vaisnava Sects, Saiva Sects, Mother Worship. It does not appear in the glossary provided by the Western academic Stella Kramrisch in her survey of Saiva materials, The Presence of Śiva, which otherwise covers Kasmir Shaivism to some degree, including technical terms in that philosophical system. The only mentions of "siddha yoga" that I can find in Gavin Flood's survey of "The Śaiva Traditions" in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism are on p. 201, where he is speaking about the Siddha (Tamil: Cittar) tradition in Tamilnadu (unrelated to Kashmir philosophy) and on p. 451 where the book Meditation Revolution is mentioned as a book produced by a group of Western individuals and that the book "is indeed the first work in what must be a longer and richer tradition of religious reasoning about Siddha Yoga", clearly indicating that there are no prior studies of the subject. Siddha yoga is not mentioned in the index to Axel Michaels Hinduism: Past and Present. It is not in the index of Heinrich Zimmer's Philosophies of India; nor in the index to An Introduction to Indian Philosophy by Chatterjee and Datta; nor in the index to Radhakrishnan and Moore's A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, all three being standard reference works on philosophical systems. The term does not appear in the glossary to Bhattacharyya's History of the Tantric Religion, which is a comprehensive work including a section on Kasmir Shaiva philosophical movements, which were considered heterodox movements. I conclude from these examples that the term "siddha yoga" is not widely used in Hindu materials, and may be a neologism. Buddhipriya 07:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Buddhipriya, I have already sourced the term in the article. I appreciate that you didn't find them where you have looked and this is clear. What is the issue with the sources I have raised? -Vritti 08:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Tirumantiram[edit]

The article has the sentence: "One early reference to Siddha Yoga can be found in the Third Tantra of the Tirumantiram of Tirumular." but does not give the verse number. The only reference is to a web page with an English translation. What is the verse in Sanskrit in the original language? Also, is this the only reference so far found, or one among other references? Since the Sanskrit source is not provided, the statement cannot be verified at this point. The web page verse may be:

581: Breath Control for Maha Siddha Yoga

If below the nose-tip You look twelve-finger length, And then concentrate and meditate (on navel centre), The mighty Siddha yoga shall yours be

And imperishable shall your body be.

One problem with using that text to source this article is that Tirumūlār (see: Thirumoolar) was a Tamil poet, classified as 7th or 8th century AD by Maurice Winternitz, p. 588 (note 1). The issue is that the Tamil poet saints of South India, of which he was one, had nothing to do with the Kasmir Shaivism tradition of North India. The Tamils represented a different bhakti tradition entirely. As I understand the claims made by Siddha Yoga, they make no mention of Tamil traditions. So even if the source text is being translated correctly (it is likely a Tamil text, not Sanskrit), the text has no relevance to this group except in a tangential way. The larger problem is that if there were a meaningful tradition of siddha yoga, someone would have noticed it and written about it in a WP:RS.

The articles says regarding texts: "The Siddha Yoga literature states that it draws many of its teachings from the texts of Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism and the poets of India. From Vedanta it mentions the Upanishads, the Vedas, the Viveka Chudamani and the Yoga Vasishtha. From Kashmir Shaivism it mentions the Shiva sutras, the Prataybhijnahridayam, the Spanda Karikas, the Vijnana Bhairava and the Kularnava Tantra. In addition the literature states that many of the teachings of Siddha Yoga are contained in the Bhagavad Gita, the Jnaneshwari, the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, the Bhakti Sutras, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana and the Guru Gita." This long list, which includes a wide range of eclectic materials, does not include the Tamil bhakti poets specifically, though the phrase "poets of India" could include just about anything.

To give better dating for this Tamil poet I added the standard critical apparatus of Notes and References sections (see: Wikipedia:Guide to layout). In that standard format, books that are cited in footnotes (Notes) are listed in the list of works cited (References) so they can be cited in short form. If this change to standard referencing format is acceptable to other editors, the other books that are already used in footnotes can be added to References. Eventually, any book that is worth reading on the subject will be in References, and the Further Reading section becomes moot. This helps get the article into stronger position from the point of view of inline citations. Buddhipriya 08:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I myself argued that Siddha Yoga had little to do with Kashmir Shaivism in my first post to this page. I agree that there is no mention mention of the Tamil poet in Siddha Yoga as defined by the SYDA Foundation. We seem to be arguing over the term Siddha Yoga. I am not defining this term as per the SYDA Foundation. I am suggesting that it has a broader background and past than the neologism, Siddha Yoga as used by the SYDA Foundation. This article is named Siddha Yoga, not Siddha Yoga (SYDA Foundation). This is my point. Kindly take a look at the Tirth lineage (above) and their contributions and be so kind as to comment. -Vritti 08:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I have followed the only link you provided regarding the Tamil source, which is provided only in English so the actual text is not clear. Furthermore, the doctrines of the Tamil poet saints are well-known Shaiva bhakta beliefs, discussed in several of the texts which I have already cited as not mentioning anything about Siddha Yoga. Can you provide a reference to a book published by a reliable academic publishing house that discusses the use of the term siddha yoga in prior traditions? English translations of texts provided on web sites are not the type of WP:RS that I would prefer to examine. It is entirely possible that the term siddha yoga appears somewhere in some text. But that does not make it a tradition; if there were a tradition, some academic source would discuss it. This appears to be an interesting case of how one can refute a WP:FRINGE claim that is so novel no one has refuted it in a WP:RS. The approach for WP:FRINGE claims is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. And I appreciate your point that you are not arguing that Siddha Yoga the organization is following some ancient lineage, thank you for clarifying that point which does not seem to be in dispute. Buddhipriya 09:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
hmmm. I already have and cited it in the body of the article. Devatma Shakti (Kundalini) The Divine Power. Swami Vishnu Tirtha. Your position is becoming confusing to me. The lineage of this tradition is fairly extensive and as I previously noted, seems to be the source from which Swami Muktananda appropriated the sources for Siddha Yoga (SYDA Foundation). I continue to think that this information is relevant to the topic Siddha Yoga. You may not agree, but I would be deeply interested in knowing why or why not. The Tirth lineage predates the SYDA Foundation and their books are cited as influencial to the founder of Siddha Yoga (SYDA Foundation) Swami Muktananda. -Vritti 09:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)

Forgive me if my questions are too basic. I emphasize that I am largely ignorant of new religious movements and their leaders. I stumbled into this article not due to any background in Siddha Yoga, but because of its mention of Kashmir Shaivism, which is a subject I wish to learn more about. What little contribution I may be able to make to this article is simply check if certain terms such as "siddha yoga" have broad currency in Hinduism based on their presence or absence as topics in a sampling of academic books that seem likely candidates where it would be discussed. Unfortunately, this method is a form of Argument from ignorance which is not an authoritative answer.

I have never heard of Swami Vishnu Tirtha and have not found any reference to him in any of the reference books I have checked so far. The only references for him and for the "tirth lineage" that are cited on the Wikipedia artcile are web pages such as [1] that do not cite any reliables sources. I regret that I have not heard of this tradition before, but so far attempts to find any reference to it in some of the books at hand have failed. Looking for references to "tirth" ("tirtha") produces various false positives because it is a general term for a place of pilgrimage and a category of Jain spiritual leader, neither of which seem to pertain to this issue. I also have not yet located any published reference to a "siddha lineage" of which any of these individuals is said to be a member. The general term "siddha" does of course come up in various works, but that is not the same as mentions of the phrase "siddha yoga" which is what I am trying to nail down.

Doing a search for the phrase "Mahayoga Vijnana" at Amazon.com turned up a citation to the book on page 83 of the book Building a Noble World by Shiv R. Jhawar (ISBN 0974919705) that you can view using the Amazon "look within this book" feature. The citation appears in a quotation from Muktananda in which Muktananda in commenting on the concept of shaktipat:

Shaktipat is a wonderful and mysterious spiritual process in which the Guru showers the energy of his own soul on the disciple. Without the grace of the Siddhas, shaktipat cannot take place. Shaktipat is a vast science. It is described in minute detail in the shivagama and shaivatantra. Books in Hindi include Mahayoga Vijnana by Yogananda Brahmachari and Yogavani by Shankar Purushottam Tirth." (Jhawar, p. 83.)

The other reference that turns up via Amazon is a book titled Mahayoga Vijnana by Yogendra Vigyani (1938) and that may be the item which is referred to in the quote. In this quotation from Muktananda he mentions the two books in connection with the concept of shaktipat, not "siddha yoga" and the phrase "siddha yoga" is not used in the quotation as provided at Amazon.com. Even if the phrase "siddha yoga" can be shown to appear in those two books, since both are by recent authors they do not themselves establish any ancient lineage for the phrase.

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." On that basis I suggest that other editors look very carefully at the claims for pre-existence of the specific phrase "siddha yoga" prior to its use by this new religious movement. Buddhipriya 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism Today as a source[edit]

The article currently uses the following source: "Palani, Sivasiva (November 1990). "The Trademark Wars". Hinduism Today." Hinduism Today is not a WP:RS for facts regarding the history of religion. The article is copyright by the Himalayan Academy, which is not known for scholarship. This group has recently been discussed on other articles as an unreliable source. Can no better source be found? Buddhipriya 08:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The source was handy, so I used it. I have given other sources. The Tirth material you have yet to comment on. The Hinduism Today source doesn't give references, this I grant you. I can ask the editors of Hinduism Today to provide more information, as could any editor. As a sidebar to this discussion, could you clue me into what or why they are so unreliable? Thanks -Vritti 09:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you please cite here the "Tirth material" so I can be sure I am looking at the right reference. I am unsure which one you mean. Do you mean: "It was interesting to me to uncover the specific references in Meditation Revolution. Two works which Swami Muktananda found valuable during his sadhana were the Mahayoga Vijnana and Yoga Vani. These two works were helpful to Muktananda to explain the processes that were unfolding in him after shaktipat transmission from Nityananda. It appears that Nityananda himself offered no guidance on these processes. The two books in question were written by Gurus of the Tirth lineage, a pre-existing and ongoing Siddha lineage. I have given treatment and written an article on one Guru of this line, but more is needed." ? Buddhipriya 09:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. It is now 2:30am in my time zone, so I will write more tomorrow. In the mean time, the two works I referenced in the comments on this page, Mahayoga Vijnana and Yoga Vani were written by the the two Gurus of Swami Vishnu Tirtha. While I'm sleeping, a Google on Swami Vishnu Tirtha could turn up the same info that I found, cross referenced by Meditation Revolution, Agama Press, aka SYDA Foundation. Good night. -Vritti 09:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Siddha Yoga prior to the SYDA Foundation[edit]

Continuing this discussion under a new section... Some days ago I added to this article a qoute by Swami Vishnu Tirtha defining the term Siddha Yoga. Therefore the yoga of Kundalini, is known as Mahayoga. It is also sometimes called Siddhayoga because it can be acquired only through the favor of a perfect master (Siddha Guru) without any effort on the part of the initiated.[8] It has been said that through Shaktipat, Kundalini is soon awakened and Mahayoga or Siddhayoga is the direct outcome.[9]. What is significant about this qoute is that it was published in the book Devatma Shakti, in English in December 1948. Neither the author or publisher were in any way connected to Bhagawan Nityananda or Swami Muktananda who had only a few months prior to this books publication, received Shaktipat transmission. This establishes a prior definition of Siddha Yoga as synonymous with Kundalini Yoga and Mahayoga. Siddha Yoga is directly connected with Shaktipat. These terms are used and practiced in Tantra and the Nath Sampradaya to name but two examples. The appropriation of Siddha Yoga as a proper noun, only occurred in 1977.

Further research reveals, that the work Mahayoga Vijnana was important to Muktananda during his sadhana as it explained the process of Shaktipat and Kundalini Yoga as he was experiencing it. The author of this book was the Shaktipat Guru of Swami Vishnu Tirtha, [Yogananda Maharaj aka Yogendrajnani]. Please see Play of Consciouness and Meditation Revolution for reference to Mahayoga Vijnana. Another work important to Muktananda was Guruvani, written by [Swami Shankar Purushottam Tirtha], this person was Swami Vishnu Tirtha's Sannyas Guru. A tree of this earlier Siddha Yoga lineage can be found [here]. Evidence that this lineage still propounds the synonymous usage of Siddha Yoga and Kundalini Yoga, et al can be found [here]. While I agree that Siddha Yoga(SYDA Foundation) is a proper noun and neologism of their specific movement, the term Siddha Yoga has prior use and a broader definition than promulgated by the SYDA Foundation. Siddha Yoga is a compound Sanskrit term, its use as a proper noun is a very recent development. This article is entitled, Siddha Yoga, so there is every reason that cited references related to this word should be in this article. -Vritti 20:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Table of contents for Guruvani, [see Discourse 1]. I will be ordering the english version soon. -Vritti 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Excerpts from Yogavani featuring [Siddhayoga]. -Vritti 22:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all rather fascinating, but what's it doing on the talk page? What you've said here deserves an article in its own right. In fact, it is an article in its own right. Why don't you start a new article where these things can be covered as fully as they deserve? You wouldn't have to add much; it's already an article, and it deserves more attention.

Sardaka 12:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The point that "Siddha Yoga is a compound Sanskrit term, its use as a proper noun is a very recent development" is the aspect of this which seems of most importance in clarifying the historical claims. Buddhipriya 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sardaka, I think the real use of a talk page is to present ideas with the hope and expectation of developing consensus among the editors of any given page. Sometimes this is needed. If the ideas we intend to include in an article, fail in some aspect to meet the most important guidelines, we may have to reassess our position on why it should be included. This can be healthy debate. It becomes unhealthy only when one or more editors, go off the rails and insists on content/noncontest or POV over Wikipedia protocol. A number of articles on Wikipedia in the same general class of this article, crudely defined as.. hindu/new age/spiritual/occult are in rather dreadful condition. This situation can only be improved with high levels of verifiability and editors willing to enforce the standard. I'm gratified you find the info I brought up fascinating. What is most fascinating to me, is that the actual points are so little known. I also suspect, that if we look closely at the many sources and primary sources for a number compound sanskrit terms, we may be in for a something of a surprise, but then again, we'll see. -Vritti 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Poet saints[edit]

I think the jury is still out on who the "poet saints" are that are mentioned in the lead. I assumed they were the Nayanars, who were a Shaivite group, but another contender could be the Alvars. I do not know what Siddha Yoga says about this issue. Can anyone cite a specific example of a poet or poetical work that they consider authoritative? If so, that work can be classified. Buddhipriya 22:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. This is what the web site has to say:

One of the ways that the great understandings of the Indian philosophy spread among people was through the songs and words of the poet-saints. In all parts of India, particularly in the west and south, these saints composed songs that revealed the secrets of the mystical path.

I don't know if we are going to find a source that is any more specific than that.

I think I will remove the wikilink until we can find a source.

What group would Lalleshwari fall into? I know that Muktananda translated the Lalleshwari. Although that statement hardly counts as a definitive source that shows that her group is the one referred to in the quote.

TheRingess (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont believe any particular group is meant here but whichever sacred poetry is deemed worthy. I think the Sant Mat link best describes what is meant. I have certainly heard Kabir and Tukaram quoted at Siddha Yoga events. See http://www.siddhayoga.org/teachings/scriptures/sacred_texts/sacred_texts.html Lumos3 11:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Lalla is described as "the most famous Kashmiri Śaiva poet saint" in Flood (2003), p. 191. That connection makes sense as it is Kashmir material. I do not think that the link in the article is reliable, as it seems to be overspecifying some particular group which so far I cannot find a reference to.
A rather detailed table showing major poet saints, with associated sects and dating, appears on pp. 63-65 of John Keay's Hinduism: Past and Present. It shows an extremely wide variation in the sects, which date from 7th century to the 19th century. Lalla is not mentioned in that table by that name. Buddhipriya 04:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Poet Saints of Maharastra[edit]

With regard to the question about which poet saints are refered to in the Siddha Yoga lineage, it is usually qualified as being the Poet Saints of Maharashtra. Some of the specific names are Lalleshwari, Jnanseshwar Maharaj, Kabir, Akka Mahadevi and Tukaram Maharaj. I didn't know there were different groups of poet saints, but these would be the western ones. MahaDave 17:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you give a citation that would establish which of the many different poet saint lineages it is that is cited by Siddha Yoga? Your use of the term "usually qualified" suggests that you may have access to a specific WP:RS regarding this. Because of the claims of connections to Kashmir Shaivism my own guess was that the Shaiva poet saints were intended, without any basis for making the assumption. Buddhipriya 18:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll look to see where I read that. However, I just checked the Siddha Yoga web site under the description of the scriptures that Siddha Yoga philosophy is based on. It says, 'One of the ways that the great understandings of the Indian philosophy spread among people was through the songs and words of the poet-saints. In all parts of India, particularly in the west and south, these saints composed songs that revealed the secrets of the mystical path.' MahaDave 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See Also[edit]

I was looking at one of the articles the other night and it struck me that it would be a huge advantage to have a See Also on every SY article. Then the reader would be able to go from one article to another with ease, which would make the articles much easier to use for anyone researching SY, and make WP more user-friendly, which is what we should be aiming at.

I put a See Also on the Gurudev Siddha Peeth article, but someone deleted it for no particular reason. I would like to go ahead and put these things on the SY articles over the next few days. In good faith, I'm asking other editors not to delete them. They will really make the articles much easier to use, so please, people, don't delete them.

Sardaka 13:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Actually, the reasons were stated in the edit summary. The style of Wikipedia is to link to a term in the body of the article the first time the term is used and only the first time. The style is also to have a See Also section and only include terms that were not already linked in the body.

Please see Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also for the relevant policy. I see no reason why the SY articles should not follow this guideline.

TheRingess (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My Mistake[edit]

So I'll do See Alsos that link to things not linked in the article.

Sardaka 09:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

History section[edit]

This had been merged with the Contoversy and criticism section which strictly is a seperate subject. I have restored it. Other NRM articles treat this as a seperate section and I dont support attempts to bury criticism in other longer sections. Lumos3 06:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it's a separate subject, it is part of the history and does not really need to be a separate subject. If the history section were longer I could see making it a separate section. I remember reading somewhere that criticism sections do not have to be separate sections, if I can dig up the link I will. Nor is there an attempt here to "bury" the criticism (I can't help but see your comment as negative, so forgive me if it wasn't meant in a negative sense). There does not seem to be a specific project that deals with nrm's as such, so I'm not convinced that this article absolutely has to follow other articles, especially since as I mentioned above, I cannot find a specific policy that states that criticism must absolutely have its own section. Nor does the article violate WP:NPOV by having it as part of the history. Perhaps a neutral 3rd opinion might be appropriate here.TheRingess (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph in question is clearly separate to the rest of the history section since up to this point the account is chronological but then we have a paragraph which jumps back to 1983 and begins to describe the published critics of SYD. This is then a separate topic not a new paragraph within a history. The techniques for sophisticated editors to subtly hide negative material from readers are well set out here. I think a balanced NPOV article would clearly state opposing views in a way a casual new reader on the subject can easily see they exist ( i.e. they appear in the contents ) and access them without having to extract them from other text. Lumos3 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I lean in favor of Lumos3's view. The issue is one of weight. Having a Controversy and criticism section reflects that there is in fact, controversy and criticism associated with the subject. In my opinion, if the criticism is to become a part of the history it should be fleshed out so that the reader might be aware of what the critical issues are. The sex and lies aspect involving Muktananda are not clearly mentioned. These allegations alone were pivotal to many in their appraisal of whether or not Siddha Yoga was or is "on the level" as advertised and promoted by the SYDA. Further, the claims of Muktananda receiving Shaktipat from Nityananda, though plausible, are from a self-published primary source. In a truly WP:NPOV article, this assertion would be qualified as a claim. So, some problems persist with the article. Certainly, Siddha Yoga is a NRM (New Religious Movement) and is defined as such in the opening of the article. I hope other editors weigh in with their views. -Vritti 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this has been discussed extensively here Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism in a "Criticism" section. I would agree if the History section were longer, but I think having two separate sections somehow implies that the criticism is not part of SY's history. The link provides a compelling argument that not having a separate criticism section is more neutral than having one. I agree with Vritti's comments above regarding claims and neutrality.TheRingess (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is only my POV, but I'm willing to let go of the Criticism section. I believe that a criticism section developed, as in most articles which have one, as a way of coping with the contentious points. So, I'm fine without the Criticism section but this means to me that there is a need to include an unvarnished but balanced treatment of the unverifiable claims of the SYDA and what appears to some to have been instances of blatant dishonesty. It could lead to a better article if all editors can keep it balanced and WP:NPOV. -Vritti 06:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

I can't see why the Criticism section shouldn't be deleted. NPOV doesn't require a section on criticisms of the subject. If you look at articles on other subjects, you won't see a criticism section. Can't see why we need one here.

Sardaka 10:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

propose merge with Siddhayoga[edit]

There appears to be two articles discussing this topic. The titles are the same, except one splits the term into two words. I suggest the two articles be merged by someone familiar with the topic. --Evb-wiki 22:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a need. They are two distinct entities. However the newer article needs to be placed on the disambiguation page.TheRingess (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. These two organizations are separate. Merging them would do nothing to make things clearer.

Sardaka 10:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Suggestions[edit]

  • Lead not written as WP:LEAD
  • The block quote in lead, looks out of place.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Lead paragraph could not stand alone to introduce the rest of the article. Submitted with a tag of article needing clean up.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Facts in popular culture section are not referenced. Checked some but not all references cited, those checked were OK for citation sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Image is a fair use photo, which needs the rationale provided
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

The first paragraph or Overview needs to establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The first sentence should give the shortest possible relevant characterization of the subject. The Sanskrit spelling of Siddha Yoga could be given as well as pronunciation. Context - State the obvious, describing the category or field in which the idea belongs such as saivism, hinduism and spirituality. Characterization what the term refers to as used in the given context the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable in the category of yoga, saivism, hinduism and spirituality. Explanation - deeper meaning and background by a summary of the most important points / sections of the article. The current lead does not say anything at all about the excellent sections to introduce any of them...Name, History, Practices, Holy days, and Scriptures. For example....If I read only the lead, I would not know about these sections, nor would I be induced to read the rest of the article for that reason. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics for example: mythology, Hindu philosophy, Vedanta, Saivism, other spiritualities, such as Entheogens, Esotericism, Fourth Way, Meditation, Mysticism, New religious movements, Otherkin, Sufism, Transcendentalism, Transhumanism, Transpersonal psychology. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism.

The aphorisms should be its own section and then summarized in the lead, as it is giving new information not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Another section could be Etymology. Section popular culture should be written in prose and not list format as trivia is discouraged. The yoga template is used which is appropriate, but why is not Siddha Yoga article a part of the template?

Add an appropriate infobox such as the one to the right of this page.SriMesh | talk 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Siddha yoga
Derivative forms other names


"Intensives"[edit]

Article says: "The main practices of Siddha Yoga include meditation, chanting, seva, dakshina, satsang and intensives."
I believe that I understand the meaning of "intensives", but I assume that there will be readers for whom this is not obvious. Therefore, could a definition or link for this please be provided in the article. (Not just mentioned here.) Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, please feel free to add a definition (with a link as a source).TheRingess (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your welcome. I am unable to provide a definition or cite, or I would have done so. Nevertheless, I believe that both should be included in the article. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll add it to the to do list for this article.TheRingess (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Intensives are explained in the last paragraph of the section on practises.

Sardaka (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gurumayi0001.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Gurumayi0001.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Template[edit]

I suggest a template for the SY articles, which would go at the bottom of each article and enable people to go easily from article to article.

It would look like:

Feedback?

Sardaka (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway[edit]

There was no response after a few weeks, so I went ahead and did it.

Sardaka (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


Intensives[edit]

What happened to the section on Intensives in the Practices section? I did a paragraph on Intensives at the end of the Practices section because it is fundamental to SY, and someone goes and deletes it. Just reminds me why I gave up working on the SY articles.

Sardaka (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the official Siddha Yoga (SYDA) web site, as of today 11/30/09: "Siddha Yoga practice begins with spiritual initiation, shaktipat diksha. Through the Siddha Yoga master's grace and the student's own steady effort, students realize the divinity within themselves and in the world around them." http://www.siddhayoga.org/

The meaning of "shaktipat diksha" and "grace" is that the guru has got some magical invisible energy (called "shakti"). Not only does this shakti swirl around the guru's physical body, but he/she has the amazing power to transmit it to others, or awaken it in others. Quite an extreme claim! Yet there's not a single word in the "teaching" section of this wiki on "Siddha Yoga" to hint at this aspect of the teaching... a teaching right on the Siddha Yoga org's website!

There's massive controversy over the SYDA org. Anyone who googles will immediately see http://www.leavingsiddhayoga.net/ and other sites discussing this controversy. The controversial teachings of the org have NOTHING to do with what's listed in the wiki "Teachings" section. They DO have something to do with the unsupported claims that the SYDA guru has magical powers of "grace" or "shakti" etc. The claims are made right on their website, and yet ignored on the wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomstu (talkcontribs) 16:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

My edits will be restricted to talk pages, and I will not engage in editing directly any Siddha Yoga-related page. Instead, I would volunteer information on the talk pages, and ask for Wikipedians' help.

I note that the editors have requested more information on the following two points: 1.Rewrite lead per suggestions from peer review and GA review. 2.Create a section delineating the role of the guru in SY.

Below is a proposed edit adding three sentences to the lead paragraph. Because the Siddha Yoga path is a tradition that is both teacher and teaching oriented, it makes sense to include both the founder and the present teacher in the lead.

The current initial sentence of lead paragraph: Siddha Yoga is a spiritual path (or new religious movement)[1] based on the Hindu spiritual traditions of Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism.[2]

Proposed insertion AFTER that sentence: The Siddha Yoga path was founded by Swami Muktananda Paramahamsa (1908-1982). The present spiritual head of the Siddha Yoga path is Gurumayi Chidvilasananda. The two main ashrams are: Gurudev Siddha Peeth in Ganeshpuri, India, and Shree Muktananda Ashram in upstate New York. (We are not suggesting other changes at this time.)

The source for this information is: Brooks, Douglas; and Swami Durgananda, Paul E. Müller-Ortega, William K. Mahoney, Constantin Rhodes Bailly, and S.P. Sabharathnam (1997). Meditation Revolution: A History and Theology of the Siddha Yoga Lineage. Agama Press. p. xxiv-xxv, 26, 110, 122. Chandrabhaga B (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for the suggestions, I will try to implement them when time permits. Just an fyi, if your desire to not edit articles directly is due to a concern about potential conflict of interest, then please consider that the Wikipedia community does not view COI in the same way that the legal community might, if your edits conform to the pillars of Wikipedia (neutrality, verifiability, civility) then regardless of who you may or may not work for, you are more than welcome (and enthusiastically encouraged) to edit any article that peaks your interest. I have left a welcome message on your talk page that further clarifies what the community calls the "pillars" of Wikipedia. Welcome to our community.TheRingess (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


Moved controversial material to a "Controversy" section[edit]

I have removed non-neutral material from the "History" section and moved it to a "Controversy" section. Please see the BLP (Biography of LIving Persons) guidelines if you have any questions about this. The controversial and defamatory allegations that have been repeatedly inserted into the "History" section of this article properly belong in a separate section called "Controversy." Wikixosa (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The material is merely reprinting articles that have already been published, it is neither supporting nor denying the allegations, merely stating that the articles were published and summarizing as neutrally as possible the contents of the articles. Including that information anywhere in the article is probably not a violation of the BLP policies. It seems to me that to separate the fact that the articles were published, from the history section, is non-neutral. It seems to imply that the history is completely separate from any of the controversy.TheRingess (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe a controversy section is necessary as Siddha Yoga has been shrouded in controversy for a long time., I believe by leaving the controversy in history, the controversy had been brushed over in favour of the organisations 'official history'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedlam29 (talkcontribs) 04:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Commercially motivated page[edit]

while the original article is here Siddhayoga , a dummy commercially linking to website as been added in references . Shrikanthv (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

How is this not Siddhayoga?[edit]

What is the difference between Siddha Yoga and Siddhayoga? Why are there two articles and why isn't Siddhayoga linked in this article? Jojalozzo 18:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The simplest answer is that they are two different traditions that share similar terminology, but a quick read of both articles reveals that they are different enough that they both deserve their own articles. I don't think either article has to necessarily link to the other. There exists a disambiguation page for the term "Siddha Yoga". Maybe this article could have a link in the See Also section to the other Siddhayoga article and vice versa. I think it's not a big deal with a link or without one.TheRingess (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The Siddhayoga article links to Siddha Yoga and quotes Muktananda on shared traditions. Muktananda's teacher was a Siddha guru. How is Siddha Yoga different that what Muktananda acquired from his teacher? Jojalozzo 01:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
How it might differ is probably a good candidate for a new section in the article, properly referenced from academic journals discussing the subject of course. I read both articles, and it seems like they are both describing two traditions that share much in common, so an article for each one seems appropriate. I have no time to search through journals to see what scholars have to say, but the beauty of Wikipedia is that someone else might. Happy editing!TheRingess (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
this article is refering to self published source and is promoting a private business Ashrama (common in India) , it even goes on to say when is the holidays for the ashram etc , it is commercially motivated as it references are only its own websites and self published sources , i went through the journals they have mentioned , most of them are self published .

A combination of the original siddhayoga and other articles making it look different and selling the ashrama website. should we do the AFD for this article ? Shrikanthv (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Your notion seems to be that Siddha Yoga lacks independent sourcing and may therefore not be a notable group. You are entitled to that opinion, but removing valid internal links is the wrong approach. If you suspect a topic is non-notable, you can tag it for lack of independent sources or raise the issue at the article talk page. If you have done a thorough search on the internet and found no independent sources, you could nominate the article for AFD, however, I think you would be wasting the community's time with such a move as Siddha Yoga IIRC has had plenty of coverage in independent media. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I should also point out that Siddha Yoga and Siddhayoga appear to be different lineages that happen to share a similar name and, apparently, some similar teachings, but that is not a valid reason for merging the articles, as many different religious groups have teachings in common. Gatoclass (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Having taken a closer look at the article, it appears to have some indepedent sourcing so I see no valid reason to nominate the article for deletion. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)