Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:43, 13 February 2007

• archive 1
• archive 2

Edits Aug 2006

• There is no need to put quotation marks around the word followers. Most style guides do not recommend this practice. The sentence beginning with "Eileen Baker..." is almost impossible to understand, and the section about Haan contains repetition and a lack of clarity. I intend changing these. Errol V 12:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• I can't make any sense of the "Eileen ..." section and was tempted to delete it as incoherent, but I suspect that would be too controversial, could someone delete or re-write in English. StopItTidyUp 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• I've tried to break up the text with sections as it's too long, and too incherent. I'm happy for the section headings to be changed, but some sectioning is necessary StopItTidyUp 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Deleted the word 'secret' as POV. They aren't secret, because anyone can find them in two clicks. StopItTidyUp 09:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the word secrest either, but you deleted the opinion of a scholar. In WIkipedia we report what reliable sources say about the subject, we do not connect the dots or engage om original research. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

The last few paragraphs have little or nothing to do with anything that precedes them.Momento 10:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I will remove the last two paragraphs in a few days.Momento 10:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't the techniques outlined here? They are not covered by copyright and so it seems POV to leave them out. I won't add them now as it's controversial, but it deserves debate. StopItTidyUp 09:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Because there are no reliable sources that describe them.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This leads as back to a discussion we had some years ago: If there are no reliable sources that describle the ToK, we should delete the article. --Pjacobi 14:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem in exploring the deletion the article and merging whatever material is not duplicated into the Prem Rawat article. But note, that as there are many reliable sources that speak about these techniques, it may be not a good idea to delete the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, an explorative AfD? Strictly speaking, this should be handled by article content RfC first, but you know that this process is rather broken and only gets enough eyeballs if it's on a topic like Israel-Palestine, Bush, Creationism, Nintendo or other hot spots of enwiki. Most RfC on NRMs I've seem failed to get significant response. --Pjacobi 15:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me do some research first to see if there is any scholar out there that wrote about the specifics of the techniques. WIll take me a couple fo days. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs to be one or the other - either it exists and should be described, or it doesn't and it should be deleted, however, it seems that this topic/individual/movement inspires some heated PoV so maybe an admin could kick off a formal debate? StopItTidyUp 14:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi StopItTidyUp (thx BTW for external link cleanup). Fine to see someone still with the mythical belief in the power of admins. If this question would in any way be solvable by unilateral admin intervention, it would have been solved by now. No shortage of admins here (Jossi and me, at least). --Pjacobi 15:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No reason why we should not be able to resolve this, Peter. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The section discussing the sound meditation by Kranenborg ends on the words "assumes the;". There are some missing words. Tgubler 22:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed it. I will correct it. Andries 22:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Peter, found several sources:

• Lewis, James R. The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions (1998) pp.227-7, Prometheus Books, ISBN 1-57392-226-6

"Initiation into the yoga occurs through a process referred as "giving knowledge" during which an instructor introduces new members to four yogic techniques which reveal the means of experiencing the divine light, sound, word and nectar."

• Lippy, Charles H., Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience : Studies of Traditions and Movements (1998) pp.1521 , Charles Scribner's Sons, ISBN 0-68418-062-6

emphasizes a powerful experience of inner light, sound, sweet tastes and vibrations.

As well as description of the techniques that someone already posted on your talk page from this source:

• Melton, Gordon J., Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (1992) pp. 143-4, Garland Publishing, ISBN 0-81531-140-0

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

At least a couple seem to be described in the Process section of Contemporary Sant Mat movements without citation. StopItTidyUp 12:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I has been done. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

I have a problem with such a long unwieldy text from Kranenborg. I think the bullets or numbers that I had originaly used make it much easier to read. Andries 16:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree.It is an opinion of Kranenborg and as presented it gives a different impression and undue weight to his viewpoint. Better off in a text block as we are citing all other scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree about undue weight. Kranenborg is well-respected. he is the only one who describes the techniques in such detail. Andries 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Facts first and only then opinions

I think that factual descriptions of the techniques should precede assesments and comments. In other words, I think it is wrong to place Hunt in front of Kranenborg or Melton. Andries 16:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

These are not "factual", Andries, as these people did not say that they were taught the techniques. These are opinions, same as all the others. Hunt gives context, which Kranenborg or Melton do not.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, Melton's and Kranenborg's descriptions are far more factual than Hunt. The "context" that you assert Hunt gives is a very subjective interpretation and should not precede factual descriptions in an encyclopedia. Andries 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I will give the article a neutrality warning for this. Facts should precede opinions in an encyclopedia. Andries 16:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A neutrality warning? You are not addressing my argument above. I find this disingenuous and not in good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is not called Teachings of Prem Rawat. Hunt's emphasis is on the teachings of Prem Rawat, not on the techniques. Andries 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The real "fact" is that neither Melton, nor Your favorite Dutch scholar know about these techniques as these were not taught to them. So, these are as good asn a opinion as any other scholar referenced in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not the way Misplaced Pages works. Andries 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hunt provides invaluable information that both Melton and Your Dutch scholar omit: that the techniques require "the guidance of a teacher". He also provides context about what these techniques are for. Te reader will be better informed if they read Hunt and then the competing viewpoints of Melton and Kranenborg. Ah... and before you attempt to preach others about how Misplaced Pages works, you better take a good and serious look in the mirror.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Haan wrote this more or less too. Shall we start with Haan then? Andries 16:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A student before scholars? Not an option. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This student did during two years participant observation and published his results in a university press magazine about relgious movement. This make the source highly reputable and relevant. Is there anybody else who did this? I do not think so. Andries amended 18:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

He was a student that reached certain mistaken conclusions based on is world-view. To call that "highly reputable" is not appropriate. Nevertheless, it is in the article so do no know what is the problem. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of Haan. He reached his conclusions based on his observations. It seems that several others agree with his observations as can be seen from the comments on this talk page and the talk page of the DLM. His article is one of the best available sources. I did not find a single mistake in his article. I am not saying that Haan is completely without bias, but then who is? Andries 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to disagree, of course. Just that I know that his conclusions are totally and utterly wrong. As I said, his reference is in the article, so there is nothing more to discuss. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But then why do other (ex-)premies write so adamantly that Haan was right? I am sincerely interested in solving this mystery. Andries 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You can contact me via email, if you want to discuss. These pages are not for discussing the subject, but the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And also, the premies were invited and allowed to give comments on the article before it was published and as far as I know nobody disagreed. Andries 18:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the full article, so my assessment is based on the specific comments that you chose to add to this article. For example that the "secrecy" had anything to do with a "life of devotion" and that another reason for such purported secrecy was to discourage people to pursue other paths, both assertions are totally off the mark. All what Maharaji asks is that people make a promise not to reveal the techniques to others, for the reasons that he stated as added to the article. That promise is made by the person in their own heart (no one asks you to sign a document or even declare verbally that you will not break that promise) and the techniques are taught in good faith and with the hope that the person will practice them and benefit from them. Maharaji also says that if you don't like it, to walk away, but not to give up looking for inner peace. You may be paying too much attention to what detractors say, Andries. The fact is that this is a very simple thing. It is often said that the techniques have a buit-in protection mechanism, and these do not work if the person has not discovered first his own thirst for inner peace, has a comittment to give it a fair chance, and approaches the practice of these techniques with simplicity and trust. I can only speak of my own experience. I have been practicing these techniques daily for more that 20 years, and my experience has been beautiful, sweet and simple. In good times and in bad times, I have felt inner peace through this practice. That is all I would say in this page. If you have further questions, you can email me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Off topic

I had already requested year ago reference for the assertion that the section Generic references to the kryias, Knowledge and the teacher talked about the techniques of knowledge as practised in the DLM/Elan Vital and taught by Maharaji and other. I am still waiting for it. Unless references are provided I consider the section off-topic. Andries 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved to a separate article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks are u sure that the spelling of the new article title is correct? Kryia or Kriya? Andries

Corrected. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of bullet points

Jossi, please explain your reversion of my edit adding bullet points to emphasize the four techniques. Now they are buried in the text and much less readable. Also, please say why you prefer not having the first section title, which obviates the explicit TOC entry. --Blainster 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The opinion of the Dutch religious scholar and Christian minister Reender Kranenborg does not need to be featured so prominently, as it is only one viewpoint amongst many. There are other viewpoints such as the one presented by J. Gordon Melton. Both these viewpoints should be presented as such, using bullet points gives undue weight to one viewpoint, and that is not acceptable. As for the article's organization, you placed many viewpoints under the section "Description", when there are only two descriptions (Melton's and Kranenborg's). I will attempt to better organize the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reorganized the article, and added a couple of new sources. I think that the new organization works better than what we had before. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The reorganization of sections looks improved. Regarding the bulleting of the four techniques, they are described, if somewhat differently, by all the authors as the basis of the system, so they should be emphasized. Why not list them separately, along with the different descriptions of each one? --Blainster 18:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Because you give undue weight to what is the opinion of these two scholars. Note that these two scholars, did not learn these techniques, they are just describing something based on what they have heard. As such, if we list these descriptions, we need to list them as opinions and not as facts, and attibute each viewpoint to each one of them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Haan opinions

RE: Your edit whose summary readeds "Haan never intended to voice his observations as criticism and they were voiced in a neutral tone".

1. You do not know what an author's motivations were or were not
2. He was a member of a critical group
3. The contents are obviously critical

I see no reason why not to include this source under a "Critical views" section. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no indication that they were meant as criticsm and I do not see why the contents is critical. He did not belong to a group critical of DLM or critical of cults. He even had his article reviewed by premies. His observations completely correspond with what has been voiced in other Dutch scholarly articles. Andries 22:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

(moved from article. Posted by new user User:Simon King LCPH)

It should not be assumed that the descriptions below are accurate. The techniques can be learned free of charge from Prem Rawat, and those that appreciate what he offers will not divulge the exact nature of these techniques, because they understand the value of the process that Prem Rawat has set up to ensure the techniques are given a proper chance to be appreciated. There is no reason why any interested party should not learn them for themsleves, free of charge. Prem Rawat asks that the specifics of these techniques not be divulged for the simple reason that he is genuinely concerned that people fully understand the process and value of the practice he advocates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon King LCPH (talk • contribs)

I can't tell - is the writer saying that the knowledge is free or should be free? Is there any information available on the tuition cost classes, etc? It sounds like the writer is conflating two issues, cost and secrecy. We've already got info on the confidentiallity of the knowledge in the article, so that aspect seems redundant. -Will Beback 03:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no charge for Knowledge. It is freely given. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I will try to find some verifiable information that addresses the points made by User:Simon King LCPH. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Techniques

I am disturbed that Melton's and Kranenborg's description of the techniques are quoted here, since they contradict each other, so who is right? I guess this is why Wiki has a policy of not being an instruction manual. When an editor starts saying how things are done, Wiki runs the risk of misinforming. The policy states While Misplaced Pages has descriptions of people, places, and things, Misplaced Pages articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials. Describing how to do the techniques are clearly instructions and made all the worse by being contradictory. I will remove them unless someone comes up with a really good argument I haven't though of.Momento 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Describing a procedure is not the same as telling how to do it. The descriptions now in the text do not appear intended as instructions, any more than saying that a description of a Catholic Mass is the same as instructions in conducting a Mass. Please don't remove neutral, sourced material. The article would be much poorer without some descriptions of the techniques. -Will Beback · † · 04:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the difference between "describing a procedure" and "telling someone how to do it". If the description of the procedure is accurate then someone should know how to do it (the procedure). And they are definitely instructions. A description of the techniques might be - there are a four of them and they are used to direct your senses inward. These are not descriptions but instructions on how to do them. And worse, they contradict each other, so they can't both be accurate descriptions of the techniques.Momento 05:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How can we change them to make them less instructive? The fact that they contradict one another isn't a problem, we can simply say that descriptions differ. It doesn't mean that both are wrong, or even that either is wrong. Again, I direct you to the example of "Mass (liturgy)". How should this article be different from that one? -Will Beback · † · 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can change these quotes to make them less instructive. They are instructions and therefore the shouldb't be here. I have removed them.Momento 10:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I will find more "descriptions" of the techniques and of people's experiences.Momento 11:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have deleted more than just the quotes. You even deleted material from Maharaji. Was tha inaccurate too? I'm disturbed that you deleted sourced, neutral material even when another editor disputed the removal, with no attempt to improve or fix it. -Will Beback · † · 18:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Momento, this article has been repeatedly criticized in the past because of missing description. I strongly object to remove the descriptions. Andries 21:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry WillBeback, I took out more than intended. Andries, these are clearly instructions to meditate and therefore have no place in Wiki. I don't care if this article is criticised for following Wiki policy.Momento 03:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you request mediation, because I continue to disagree. Request for comments on Prem Rawat related articles only rarely if ever yield results. Andries 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What's there to mediate? The sections I removed contain instructions on how to meditate and that is against Wiki policy. Wiki policy is clear "While Misplaced Pages has descriptions of people, places, and things, Misplaced Pages articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials.Momento 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no tutorial in this article. I will revert. Please request mediation or I will do it. Andries 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead Andries. Wiki policy says Wiki articles should not include instructions and Misplaced Pages articles should not contain "how-to"s. How you are unable to see Kranenborg and Melton instructions on how to meditate is beyond me, perhaps another editor can point it out to you?Momento 23:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Momento, as I pointed out earlier this artilce is far less detailed than Mass (liturgy). Do you have any response? And are you contending that the deleted material was so compreheisve and accurate that it would be sufficient for a reader to know exactly how to mediate following the Techniques of Knowledge? -Will Beback · † · 23:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Since these two sets of instructions on how to (supposedly) meditate the Rawat way contradict each other, you can't say they would be sufficient for a reader to know exactly how to mediate following the Techniques of Knowledge? BUt that is beside the point. The point is they are "instructions", "a how to do", a "tutorial" on meditation, as such they shouldn't be in the article according to Wiki policy.Momento 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am fed up by Momento's repeated Mass deletions of well-sourced neutral material. Andries 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Being "well sourced" and "neutral" isn't the point Andries. They are "instructions", "a how to do", a "tutorial" on meditation, as such they shouldn't be in the article according to Wiki policy.Momento 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it might look liek a tutoreal if u didnt no what a tutoreel was or maybe u if u were trying to be dense and pretend it was a good reason to delete something u didnt like so which is it are you ignorant or just pretending? 52-DSL 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A way can be found to use these sources without making this article into a "how-to" as in violation of WP:NOT#IINFO. Ay proposals on how we can achieve that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, keep the descriptions the way they were. This article never was an instruction manual or how-to guide. Andries 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how text that says "The third technique involves concentration upon the sound of one's own breathing" is an instruction. It simply indicates the focus of the technique. I assume there's much more to it than that. It's equivalent to saying "the priest then consecrates the wafer", which doesn't tell how to do it either. -Will Beback · † · 01:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got no idea how to consecrate the wafer and that description doesn't tell me how but I, and most other readers, will be able to concentrate upon the sound of one's own breathing. It is a clear instruction.Momento 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)wrong i dont no how 2 consecentraet on breathing according 2 teh style of Techniques of Knowledge and that description doesnt tell how me how 2 do it so i cant learn how so its not an instruction unless it tells me to close my eyes or maybe to use a stethescope or stair at a candel or sumthing so its just a description so stop complaining 52-DSL 02:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Will beback is ovbiously right and he says his point better than i can n i think its pretty funny how jossi and mentos are always on the same side and saying every1 else is wrong and teaming up to remove and delete anything any1 else says that they dont liek 01:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with Andries and Will here. WP:NOT#IINFO is very clear about this: Misplaced Pages articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise). People can hurt themselves by following these mistaken instructions. What can be done is to say in the article that two scholars wrote competing explanations of these techniques, give the names of the techniques as reported by these sources, and give the sources so people that want to read about them can do so outside of Misplaced Pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There was never a violation of WP:NOT#IINFO. Andries 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am arguing that there is such violation, Andries. These are specific instructions purportedly to access an inner experience. Readers may decide to try them, and these techniques as wrongly explained can be dangerous to people. They are mistaken, they are misleading and they don't belong here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We are not coming a millimeter closer. Further discussion does not make any sense. Andries 13:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, as usual I find your objections completely unconvincing. The description in this entry were written by the religious scholars Kranenborg and Melton. Kranenborg and Melton are not meditation teachers and they clearly never had the intention to write a how-to manual. Andries 13:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you always find my arguments completely unconvincing, Andries, maybe you need to take a hard look at yourself, and ask yourself where are you coming from, and why is that. Kranenborg and Melton's intentions is not what is questioned. What has been asked, and that your refuse to address is the fact that these erroneous instructions, if followed as described in the article can be harmful. This is exactly the reason why we do not have how-to's in WP, and that includes such things as legal or medical advise. Read the policy, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What's our source for the descriptions being erroneous? Certainly if some claim them to be erroneous we should include those viewpoints too. But we can't judge, as Misplaced Pages editors, which viewpoint is "right". -Will Beback · † · 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My argument, Will, is not that these are erroneous (although these descriptions are such). My argument is that one of the reasons behind WP:NOT#IINFO is that as we do not offer advice in WP such as legal, or medical, this include instructions about how to do these techniques, in particular when the instructions given can result in harm. I argue that these instructions, if followed as presented, can be harmful to a person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand we certainly don't want to cause harm, nor even to do good (give advice) ither. OTOH we do describe many topics that can cause harm if done incorrectly. Flight planning, rock climbing, and Coronary artery bypass surgery; to name a few. We describe the heart surgery in some detail but I don't the article contains instructions, nor should we expect that readers will use the article as their guide to performing the procedure.

I think the best solution for this material is to summarize it briefly rather than quote it at length, and leave the quotations for the references at the end. We can certainly leave the details that might cause bodily harm out of the summary. One reason I think a summary approach is more appropriate is that some of the writers use the second person, which does give it the appearance of instruction. For example, if the heart surgery surgery contained quotes saying, "Next you clamp the aorta" or "One should remember to keep the sutures tight" then that'd be inappropriate too. It wouldn't be inappropriate to say that, "The surgeon next clamps the aorta" or "Tight sutures are important in heart surgery to prevent the wound from re-opening". So let's just do the best job we can of verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view. -Will Beback · † · 08:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That would work, Will. Thanks for the sensible proposal. Would you be interested in attempting that summarization? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the instructions because they were instructions not because they were wrong. The source for them being wrong is that they contradict each other, therefore at least one is wrong, maybe both. Momento 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

At one stage Rawat had people called "instructors". What was their job? Their job was to pass on the instructions Rawat gave them about how to practice the techniques. These two "scholars" are making their own attempt at passing on the "instructions". Regretably they've heard the instructions second hand from conflicting sources. But, never the less, they are instructions. And they shouldn't be included in this article because of it.Momento 07:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)