Talk:Guru/Archive 3

Talk:Guru/archive1

Talk:Guru/archive2

Talk:Guru/archive3

I just reorganized the "Western context" section, grouping the different paragraphs under the more appropriate sub-headings. Is this section is becoming extensive enough to spawn it's own article? I am planing to expand the Sikhims and Buddhism sections. --Zappaz 05:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with the generalization that the role of the spiritual teachers is not understood. I have attributed this to Feuerstein but don't know whether this is correct. I cannot imagine that the many interpretations of gurus by Westerners are all incorrect. Andries

oh, I find the statement the role of the guru is not widely understood very uninformative unless Feuerstein explains how he thinks that the role of the spiritual teacher is (which he hardly does in the current version of the article). Andries 14:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is absolutely informative. Just because it does not fit your POV, it does not make it uninformative. You can read his article and his books. See the referece section --Zappaz 18:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have read his article [1] and find it extremely flimsy and unscholarly and I think it hence cannot serve as a basis for this article. I have read another article by Feuerstein that is a lot better (don't remember where). Andries 18:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, please provide reference for your statement that all gurus in a lineage in Hinduism affirm that they are servants of God. This seems unlikely in the case of gurus who belong to very outspoken forms of advaita vedanta and tantra. Andries

What sentence are you referring to? --Zappaz 18:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the sentence that I was referring to and request references for

"It is worth noting that in all sects with a disciplic succession or parampara, both guru and disciple affirm to be servants of the divine." :::Andries

No problems, plenty of references for that. --Zappaz 01:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kranenborg

I do not agree with moving Kranenborg's analysis about neo-Hindu movements out of the Hindu section. There are Hindus in the Netherlands too. And I think the separation between Western context and Hindu context is artificial. I have met so many Suriname Hindus who were into the SSB Hindu movement. The first three of the four items that Kranenborg mentioned refer to Hinduism. Besides Kranenborg's reference to caste can only refer to Hindus abroad because Dutch/Suriname Hindus do not observe caste due to their indention work in Suriname in the 19th century (complicated history). Andries

Kranemborg's' work is good, but it was related to studying neo-hinduist sects in Holland. It does not belong in that section, Andries. How can you say that separation between Eastern and Western context is artificial? Reverted once again. --Zappaz 00:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not following why it matters which type of sect the author was studying. This is an article on Gurus, who are broadly defined as spiritual leaders. The author apparently specifically addresses gurus. Where is the conflict? Thanks -Willmcw 00:31, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Will, it seems that you are making the same mistake that Andries is making. This is indeed an article about Gurus. The person of a guru is highly respected in Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism (a rather large portion of the earth population, BTW). This article describes gurus in the context of these religions from these religions perspectives. After all, this is an world encyclopedia, not a Western encyclopedia. For that we have Britannica... So, in this article we also have a section on Guru in a western context (now growing in size and one day will surely be split into its own article), in which we have attempted to (a) address scholars that have studied the guru phenomena from a western viewpoint, the criticism against gurus in the West and a few other uses of the word in the West. That is why Kranenborg's stuff needs to go in that section. Putting Krannenborg study (that was related to neo-hinduist sects in the Netherlands) in a subsection dealing with Gurus in Hinduis is (not a big deal) but innapropriate. I have worked hard on this article, and want to make sure it stays in a good shape. --Zappaz 01:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that - I had been under the misapprehension that you wanted the material removed from the article, as opposed to moved within it. Never mind... -Willmcw 05:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I disagree with you for several reasons

1. The fact that Kranenborg writes about caste indicates that his classification is more than just based on a study of sects in the Netherlands. The Hindus here, who came from India via Suriname do not follow caste regulations due to somewhat complicated historical reasons. In other words his remark is completely irrelevant for the situation in the Netherlands. And his remark about the Sikh meaning of the word guru i.e. a book cannot be based on his study of sects here. Summarizing, his classification is not just applicable for Dutch sects. Andries 06:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just re-read the book and Kranenborg gave this classification with regards to gurus in India. The next chapter deals with Hinduism in the West. Andries 12:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I have never heard of a rule that secular and religious views cannot be mixed. In contrast, I think they should be mixed when writing on a certain subject in order to give the reader a variety of view points. It is wrong and I think against NPOV guidelines to treat a certain sub subject only from one perspective. Andries 06:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. I continue to think that the distincinction between Hindu gurus in a Western context and in an Eastern context is artificial. We do not want an article on e.g. Reverend in the East and from an Eastern perspective. I admit that though that the new meanings of the word in the West should be mentioned. Hereunder I mention five reasons why I think that the distinction between Eastern and Western is artificial and inaccurate and should be avoided as much as possible:

1. Many religious seekers, including Andrew Cohen visit India and became there followers of Hindu gurus. The Austrian Agehananda Bharati beccame a Hindu monk (his books would make good content for this article by the way)
2. Or Hindu gurus come to the West and acquire followers here apart from the followers that they have already in India, like centers and Swamis of the Ramakrishna_Mission in Western Europe and the USA, founder of Hare Krisna, Prem Rawat and Maharishi. I have to admit that Kranenborg writes that these gurus do not bring undiluted popular Hinduism to the Western followers which I have to check this before I write it in the article.
3. The criticism of gurus by e.g.Basava Premanand influences both Westerners and East Indians. Same for the criticism by David C. Lane who has written extensively about Radhasoami gurus. I do not understand why and how his criticism should go into "Western" or "Eastern" section.
4. The terms "Eastern" and "Western" are vague and should either be defined or should be avoided as much as possible. Please use more specific terms, like Hindu, Buddhist, Sant Mat, Sikh, Tantra, bhakti, USA, India, Western Europe etc. instead.
5. I do not believe that Westerners have different brains or have a very different mentality or join for different reasons than Easterners though I admit that this may have been somewhat different in the 1960s and 1970s. Then young people in Europe and the USA were disilusioned in political means to change society and hence turned to religion and wanted to get high without drugs. I do not believe that these motivation now still play a big role for starting to follow gurus. I also admit that it is more unusual in Europe to follow a guru than in India.

Andries 06:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I kindly disagree with you Andries. A Western perspective and a Eastern perspective is a very needed distinction. We assess our world around based on the cultural context from which we observe. Would you say that the perception of the world of a Australian aborigine and the perception of a New Yorker are the same? Is it possible to say that one is more valid than the other? Attempting to "mix" both perspectives in one article would be very, very strange and unusual. More useful to readers will be to show both perceptions from their perspectives. That will be very interesting material, rather than a confusing mishmash of POVs. Same here. For a pious Sikh, there is no higher being than his Guru. He will compare Guru with God, sing the glory of the Guru, pray to his Guru, etc. For a secular person living in Paris, these statements could be seen as ridiculously backward. So, how do you present an article on this subject in NPOV? By clearly making a distinction. This issue is one that most Westerners have a problem with. We somehow think (with no little amount of arrogance, IMO) that our Western perspective is the only one. Now, Wikipedia is not an Western encyclopedia, thank god. This is what is so wonderful about this project. --Zappaz 16:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "Western perspective" or "Eastern perspective". There is a perspective of the followers of bhakti movements, Christians, Skeptics, humanists, traditional Hindus, Radhasoami adepts etc. regardless where they were born and grew up. Some Indians are skeptics. Is that an Eastern persective? Some Westerners follow bhakti movements. Is that a Western perspective? Very artificial and very inaccurate to use the terms Western and Eastern perspective and context. Andries 17:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I did include Hindu views in my edits for example by citing Vivekanda and referring to a Upanishad. Please stop talking to me as if I do not know the Hindu viewpoint. Andries 20:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not challenging you on your knowledge of hinduism, but your sometimes innacurate assertions of fact. --Zappaz 22:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not fundamentally oppose separating coherent perspectives into sections, like sociological perspectives, Sant Mat perspective, Saiva perspective, Vaishnava perspective, but I strongly oppose to using such vague and inaccurate classifications as "Eastern" and "Western" as a basis for making sections in this article. The "Western view" is certainly not a coherent perspective. Even the "Hindu view" cannot be treated as a coherent perspective because there is too much variation between the different schools, sects etc. Andries 14:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kranenborg citation

Andries, what from the text below is from Kranenborg's book and what are your additions. The sentences I am referring to are in bold. Also, explain what is the meaning of last point. It does not make sense. Thanks --Zappaz 22:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Dutch theologian Dr. Reender Kranenborg distinguished four types of gurus while studying Neo-Hindu sects in the Netherlands:

1. the spiritual advisor for higher caste Hindus who also performs traditional rituals and who is not connected to a temple (thus not a priest);
2. the enlightened master who derives his authority from his experience, such as achieving moksha. This type appears in bhakti movements and in tantra and asks for unquestioning obedience and can have Western followers. Westerners even have become one, for example Andrew Cohen;
3. the avatar, a guru who claims to be, or who is claimed by his followers to be an incarnation of God, or to be God-like, or an instrument of God, for example Sathya Sai Baba and gurus from the Sant Mat lineage;
4. A "guru" in the form of a book in the Sikh religion.

All is from Kranenborg's book. I only made a very short selection of what Kranenborg had written. The Sikh refer to a book as a guru as explained in the section about Sikhism Andries 04:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that Kranengborg cites Sathya Sai Baba, Sant Mat, Andrew Cohen, etc. as examples of hois taxonomy? How "selective" are you on choosing a citation? --Zappaz 15:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yes, Kranenborg mentions Andrew Cohen, SSB and Sant Mat and a few more that I forgot in his taxonomy. Andries 18:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course I have to be very selective when I cite his book because there is little space in this article and I do not want to break copyright. Andries 22:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Feuerstein's article uses a peculiar definition of a guru

I have a problem with using that article article by Dr. Georg Feuerstein as a basis for this article because I think it is flimsy in contrast to some of his other writings and above all because he uses some unusual tautological definitions of a guru/spiritual teachers. For example he writes.

"Spiritual teachers, by their very nature, swim against the stream of conventional values and pursuits. They are not interested in acquiring and accumulating material wealth or in competing in the marketplace, or in pleasing egos. They are not even about morality. "

This is in sharp contradiction with the understanding of mainstream Hinduism that puts greats emphasis on morality and that its warnings that there are false and incompetent gurus who exploit their followers. Elsewhere Feuerstein writes that there are gurus exploit their followers. Andries 13:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feuerstein is an acclaimed Indologist. I would be cautious in dismissing his descriptions of the meaning of Hindu folkways. --goethean 16:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He has written many books and is a known yoga scholar. --Zappaz 16:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Georg%20Feuerstein/102-0529223-8522535

I believe it but what he writes in that article contradicts both the regular definition and what he wrote elsewhere. Andries 16:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feuerstein is cautioning against using our normal standards and methods in evaluating the actions of gurus. He is saying that when gurus appear to be immoral, they may actually be extra-moral or trans-moral. Feuerstein desribes Indian culture from the perspecive of a scholarly insider, a very valuable perspective. That his statement doesn't make sense to you almost argues for its validity. --goethean 17:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, I know the Hindu mentality quite well and I read Feustein's enty in his encyclopedia about a crazy adept. But in the encyclopedia he writes things that totally contradict what he writes in the article. If you insist on using that article as a source then I will also include Feuerstein's writing that contradicts his article. Andries 17:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goethan, I know from personal experience that Feuerstein's way of reasoning as expressed in that article can lead to disasters. Andries 17:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you insist on using that article as a source then I will also include Feuerstein's writing that contradicts his article.

Just be sure to put it in context and include the date of composition, rather than quoting misleading fragments out of context. --goethean 18:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goethan, I know from personal experience that Feuerstein's way of reasoning as expressed in that article can lead to disasters. Andries

Could you elaborate on exactly what you mean by this? --goethean 18:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have sent you an email. Btw, Feuerstein made a complete fool of himself by writing such contradictory statements. See the article. Andries 18:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Picking and choosing quotations out of context is not an acceptable manner to cite authors. Later in the day, I will come back and review your edits. I warn you again, Andries, that WP is not a place for advocacy. As I said, if you want to express your opinions in this matter and/or advocate against gurus without being challenged, go ahead and publish your thoughts in a blog, a wiki or a website. If it is good material, we may even link it from here ... :) --Zappaz 19:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I quoted from Feurestein's entry in gurus in his encyclopedia and so I do not think that that is out of context. I told you that it was not very wise to use that article by Feuerstein as a soruce but you insisted. Andries 19:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Goethean for cleaning up this section. It reads much better now. --Zappaz 22:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Extensive edits by Andries

Although I am always for being bold in editing, I find Andries unilateral masive editing and deletion of text inapproriate and lacking in consensus. I am reverting all these edits. Go slow Andries, and excplain your reasons for each edit.. --Zappaz 16:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had explained every move and deletion. Andries 16:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where? --Zappaz 17:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not good enough Andries. We have been working on this article collaborativelly for months. Please go aghead and add value if you wish, but bing changes likes the one you made, is better that you discuss them first. Go ahead, go slow, one at a time. There is no rush. Some of the stuff you added is good. --Zappaz 16:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have been saying that I do not agree with the distinction between Eastern and Western for months. Andries 17:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That does not mean anything. Seek consensus before making extensive changes. --Zappaz 17:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pot kettle black. You are the one who first moved without consensus van der Lans and Kraneborg's citation to a separate Western section. See my question to you on 6 Feb. Andries 06:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP is not a place for advocacy

Andries, please note that WP is not a place of advocacy of any kind. If you want to advocate against Gurus and warn the public about the dangers you see, or to tell your personal story, you have all right to do that but not in WP. Get a website or even your own wiki for that. Thank you. --Zappaz 17:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problems with regarding the assessment of a guru and the widespread criticism of gurus is a notable documented discussion and hence deserve to be mentioned here. Andries 17:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course! That why it is in the article already! Note that the "widespread criticism" makes the usual mistake to exclude billions of people that think different. That is what I meant by "western perspective". Tell you what Andries: I need to leave now. Give me a chance to include some of the text you added in the previous format of the article. I will have time later in the day. As I said, some of it is very good. --Zappaz 17:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many of these billions of people India are also critical of gurus and also have problems in assessing the guru. Andries 17:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How do you know this, Andries? --Zappaz 19:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both Traditional Hindu scriptures warn against false gurus and modern gurus, like Vivekanda, Yogananda, Prabhupada, Sai Baba, and Sathya Sai Baba. Kranenborg also wrote that there are tradional methods to distinguish charlatans from true gurus. Andries 19:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is the problem, Andries ... your need to advocate blinds you. In an article about Paper money, how much of that article needs to be dedicated to Counterfeit money? --Zappaz 22:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the problems are so big that even the word guru received a slightly negative connotation then the problems regarding the assessment of their authenticity deserves an extensive treatment. The somewhat negative connotation that the word has acquired is based on real experiences by real people and not just on anti-cult propaganda. If people continue to trust the wrong gurus based on ignorance then the reputation of the word will only suffer more. Andries 07:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I repeat: WP is not a place for advocay and not a place for you, or anybody else for that natter to save people from suffering. Regarding your extensive edits, I do not have much time today, but rest assure that I will come back and clean up after you. I find your attitude of unilaterally editing to be disingenous and lacking in manners. --Zappaz 15:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Andries, your advocacy is creating havoc in this and other articles. This is unacceptable. I have no other way than to revert again all your edits, and I will continue to do the allowed times: 3 times in 24hrs, until you consider editing collaborativelly and seeking consensus before making substantial changes to an article that was stable for months.--Zappaz 16:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are the one who should first seek concensus and give a detailed reply and rebuttal to all the extensive comments and explanations that I have been making for the last few months. Not me. Andries 18:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, you have no right to revert my edits unless you explain in detail what is wrong with my version. And if you have no time do so then you have to accept that my version should prevail for the time being. Andries 19:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not about "who's version" prevails. Note that the previous version was not my version. And theres is not point to discuss issues related to your version. This article does not belong to you... The issue at hand is one of consensus NPOV writing vs. advocacy against or for "gurus". Regarding your extensive comments, if you want to play by the rules, please state each one concisely and let's discuss them. --Zappaz 20:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have already stated my comments many times. I do not have to repeat them over and over again. Andries 21:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A summary of Andries' POV and proposals regarding this article

1. My version contains a lot more information than your version. All information that is in your version is also in my version. Andries 21:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. I cannot see where my version breaks NPOV guidelines so I do not understand why you accuse me of advocacy. Please tell me where my version advocates something. Andries 21:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. I consider making sections based on "Eastern context"/"Eastern perspective", "western context""/"Western perspective" vague, artificial, and inaccurate and instead I propose making sections on Hindu perspectives (preferrably breaking down in yoga, tantra, sant mat, bhakti) , skeptical perspectives, Buddhism perspectives, sociological perspective etcetera as long as the main subjects stay together. Andries 21:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - (my highlights) -- Zappaz 21:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

Please explain where I make advocay. I don't see any advocacy in my version. This is the second time that I am asking you for detailed criticism of my version. Andries 21:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to ask me about your advocacy. Read your own words in this discussion. My last revert for this 24 hr period. There is always tomorrow. --Zappaz 22:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You won't make a good impression on the other editors if you revert without explaining why the other version is better though it contains less information. Andries 22:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not here to impress anyone. Your combative attitude is not helping here. The version you took apart is NOT my version. Is a version arrived by a multitude edits over a period of months by many editors. Please don't play the naive with me. Your anti-guru advocacy is known to anyone that has followed your edits, and can read your own words above. Your deletion of text, your shifting around the text to portray your anti-guru POV is totally unencyclopedic and unfair. Your "pick-and-chose" citations and anything but POV, and your attempt to stuff the text as a later thought to claim "I have added information", is just a game that I will not accept. Period. And I am absolutely serious in challenging you on this. --Zappaz 23:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, pot kettle black about "pick and choose" citations. Yes, I am critical about gurus but I am critical in this article following the NPOV guidelines so that is no advocacy. And I have added a lot of information that you simply remove without trying to integrate it. So your accusation of text removals by me that were minimal and that I later re-added are ridiculous.Andries 23:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, here is an example where you do not follow the NPOV guidelines in this article. The lead section should always contain a summary of the article but you removed the following sentence.

"Critics assert that some gurus do this with the effect or even purpose of exerting domination or receiving inappropriate benefits."

So please stop accusing me over and over again of advocacy without being concrete and detailed. Thanks

Andries 23:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just read your own words. You fail to address my concerns:

1. Unilateral massive changes to the structure of the article
2. Unilateral shifting text to suit your POV
3. Adding text only relevant to criticism of Gurus
4. Unilateral mixing of Western and Eastern perspectives
5. and all the above concerns about advocacy.

Listen, Andries, playing unilaterally will take you nowhere... You see, I can come tomorrow and excise the whole text about Eastern perspecive and spawn it into its own article. What will you do then? Revert my edits, wouldn't you? Put an RfC? If you want to work together, then revert back to the last version by Goethean and come here to discuss the changes. Thank you and good night. --Zappaz 23:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ad 1. I have been saying this for months and you started unilarally moving text, see my comment to you on 6. Feb. A pot kettle black reproach. Andries 07:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ad 2. same for 1 Andries 07:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ad 3. untrue I added a lot of factual information Andries 07:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ad 4. I explained extensively and in detail why I think your structure of the text is wrong and I am still waiting for your reply and detailed rebuttal. Basically, I think that the article should be organized on subject, not organized on the something very vague, inaccurate and artificial as "Eastern perspective" or "Western perspective". Westerners can also have a Hindu perspective and Indians can have a sociological or skeptical perspective. And yes, when organizing the article more on subject there will be more mixing of POVs. Andries

ad 5. You alway accuse me of advocacy but never take to effort to be more specific and explain which text by me are advocacy. Probably because you can't as my edits followed NPOV guidelines. In contrast, I do not accuse you of advocay but try to be specific about the text that I do not agree with.Andries 07:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Zappaz

Thank God for a new day...

1. Restored original article layout;
2. Incorporated new text by Andries into article, in the appropriate sections;
3. Removed text that was not attributed;
4. Removed original research;
5. NPOV'ed several paragraphs;
6. Overall cleanup, rm dups;
7. Added section fron Kranenborg, although it does not warrant a section IMO. We need to look for a more substantial taxonomy on Gurus than this one, but for the time being will do.

--Zappaz 07:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I restored the new structure but tried to address some of your concerns and rewrote some sentences into NPOV style that you had removed or provided references for unreferenced statements.
2. I also removed the following unreferenced statement for which I had requested references you some time ago:

It is worth noting that in all sects with a disciplic succession or parampara, both guru and disciple affirm to be servants of the divine.

Besides, I think that starting a sentence with ``It is worth noting ´´ is a weasel statement (like ``Some believe´´) and should be avoided. Who considers this worth noting?

Andries 10:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptable editing behavior. I tried to incorporate your additional texts, but you are unilaterally making too many edits that substatially change an article that was worked on by many editors before you. This is totally unacceptable behavior. This is about collabrative editing. I ask of you again: Discuss substantial changes to the article here, and seek consensus before proceeding. Until you accept to play by the rules, my activities on this article will be as follows:

1. Incorporating any worthy new text to the original structure
2. NPOVing your edits
3. Removing unattributed and original research
4. Reverting your edits the maximum alloted of 3 times in each 24 hrs, when you do masive editings and change the article structure. Have a good day. --Zappaz 16:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I will follow Wikipedia's rules but not your instant home made rules. For months I have been arguing and explaining that and why the old structure is not good and I have yet to see your detailed reply and rebuttal to what I have written. Andries 17:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I replied to your proposal about restructuring already and presented my reasons why it is a poor idea. I also suggested to bring this issue to RfC. You ignored this and acted unilaterally. The fact that you went ahead with the change without seeking consensus, shows your contemmpt for collaborative editing. As I said, until you relent, I will revert your changes throughout the maximum allowed eachy day, and at night I will attempt to incorporate new text that is worthy of inclusion into the article as it was before your restructuring. Note that I am not only oppossing your restructuring, I am opposing your attempt to make this article an anti-guru article as a mean to advocate your POV that gurus are "dangerous". This is an outrageous disregard for the reverence that millions of people profess for their Gurus, in Hinduism, Skihism, and Budhism and a blatant disregard for the no-advocacy of WP. Have a good day. --Zappaz 21:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I had presented this article to RfC already today. Andries 22:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. I was not at all impressed at all by your rebuttal and reply to my proposals and criticism of the old structure so I went ahead. Andries 22:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. There is very much criticism of false gurus both in and outside India, both in Hindu scripture and by Hindu gurus and also by skeptics who criticize the whole concept of the guru-disciple relationship. This extensive criticism should hence be treated here. Not to treat this criticism here would be advocacy and against NPOV rules. And believe me, I am not ant-guru, I only have problems to distinguish the good ones from the bad ones. Andries 22:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you presented to RfC, how come you don't announce this here? That is disingenous. If you were not impressed by my rebuttal, then you engage me in a conversation about it. That is what we do here at WP: we discuss, give and take, collaborate. I am with you that the aspects of false gurus is both fascinating and worthy of study (I mysefl added tet from Gita regarding this aspect), but it needs to be placed in the correct context, and a minority viewpoint it needs a worthy mention but no more. After all you don't define something by what is not. At ninght I will attempt to incorporate your text additions (some of which are very good, btw) to the original structure. --Zappaz 22:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not have time yet to make a good announcement of the RfC. I talked and talked to you but you did not seriously reply to me. Andries 22:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

False gurus a minority viewpoint? The vast majority of people have a healthy distrust against most gurus. Andries 22:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is a minority! Your attitude is exactly what I am dsiputing: The attitude that a Western viewpoint can override other viewpoints in which the West is clearly a minority. --Zappaz 22:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everything indicates that the assessment of gurus and their criticism is an issue in India too. Both authorative Hindu scriptures and influential gurus have commented on the problem. How do you think that people in India thought about Osho/Rajneesh/Bhagwan? He received trenchant criticism there too, probably even more than in Europe and the USA. If you think that assessment of gurus and their criticism isn't an issue in India then may be you should have a look at the front page of the Kannada/Karnataka version of Wikipedia where the critic of gurus Narasimhaiah (sp?) is prominently shown. Andries 08:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edits Apr 25 by Zappaz

1. NPOVed and expanded intro to include true/false guru in the context of religions and Western perspective
2. Restored original structure of article, now in RfC
3. Expanded Guru in Sikihism and Buddhism
4. Provided background on some of the Western critics
5. Restored text from Andries edit where appropriated
6. Did not include "List of gurus independent from traditional religions", because it is not a taxonomy supported by a reference (i.e. original research)

Hope I did not leave out any valuable new text added by Andries. --Zappaz 02:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Andries, read the article as it stands, disspasionately if you clould, please. It is a good article and presents all the points. It is alreay 33 K so we will not be able to add much more text. The dilemma is that I want to expand the section on Buddhism and Sikhism, and surely you want to heap on the critical aspects of guruism so we will be busting the 32K limit soon. Any proposals about a non-POV split in the article? --Zappaz 03:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with your edits you removed important information about assessment of the guru in Hinduism and India. I restored this information more or less within the old structure. And for example, Osho is universally described as a guru but cannot be listed under "Hinduism" or Buddhism etc. That warrants a separate list for these kind of gurus. I propose making an article Guru in Hinduism which is a big subject. Andries 05:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You think that the Kannada version of wikipedia is a good indicator of popular sentiment in India?! If that were true, then the Western World would be a bunch of Ayn Rand devotees. (OK...bad example) --goethean 11:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-:) --Zappaz 15:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Andries, for chosing to collaborate. It is appreciated. Regarding your latest edit, I am 90% OK with it, I will make some minor changes later on that I will fully substantiante here. --Zappaz 15:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here they are my edits of today:

• NPOV'ed the section about assessment of the guru. Finding a true guru is one of the tenants of Hinduism, so it fits nicely on the section about the importance of guru in Hinduism;
• Debunking of gurus, godmen and fakirs by Indian skeptics warrants, and now has, its own section that could be expanded if needed;
• moved text from Freunstein to western section as it is an excellent preamble for it, showing the East/West context dilemma (that by the way was also highlighted by van der Lans.)

Some other issues/concerns:

1. Article is perilously close to the maximum size
2. Too many citations from Kranenborg. Can we find another scholar to cite from?
3. I think that a section on the guru/disciple relationship could be a worthy addition.
4. We need to expand a bit more the Buddhism and Sihks sections
5. Western section is becoming too big

--Zappaz 15:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with using the extensive unsummarized POV of Dr Feuerstein as a preamble to the Western section. His POV that he himself more or less contradicts in his encylopedia is just one of many POVs and should be treated as such. The section should started with undisputed facts and not with one of many viewpoint to give the reader the "right" perspective. I consider doing so POV pushing and against the NPOV guidelines Andries 17:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can this be POV pushing? Feurstein's text is an excellent way to start this section as it addresses one of the fundamentals of that section: the difficulty to understand the concept of "guru" from a Judeo-Christian perspective. -- Zappaz 19:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feuerstein's POV is a minority POV in the West. Distrust of gurus is widespread in the West. It would be more NPOV to start with David Lane's POV and even more NPOV to start with the facts and leave all the different POVs till later. Andries 19:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Distrust of gurus is widespread in the West - exactly. That is why Feurstein's opening sentence of his "Understanding the Guru" is such an excellent opening for this section. --Zappaz 19:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A minority opinion has only minority space and prominence. Those are the Wikipedia rules. The only thing you can do if you want to convince the majority that they are wrong is to use that limited space at the maximum by providing concise convincing well referenced attributed arguments. Andries 20:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A minority opinion? Can you substantiate that? How can you assert what is a minority or a majority opinion in this case? Are you sure you are counting the billions of Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs in your equation? --Zappaz 20:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Hindus etc. are not relevant here because this is about gurus in a Western context. Feuerstein's opinion in the West is a small minority opinion. Andries

And how do you know that? Have you run a poll? Your assertion about Feurstein's being a minority opinion has no basis in reality, even when speaking in a Western context. --Zappaz 20:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You implicitly admitted yourself that Feuerstein hold a minority opinion when writing that gurus in the West are widely distrusted. Hence such a pro-guru quote by Feuerstein is a minority opinion. Andries 20:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The quote by Feuerstein sounds like an advertisement for his yoga school. Andries 20:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And how is this citation "pro-Guru" exactly, Andries? And please do not disparrage authors because you don't concurr with their opinions. That is not right.... --Zappaz 20:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not disparage the author Feuerstein as I said before but I disparage only that article by him on the website of his yoga school. I find his encyclopedia a lot better. An analogy, it would be unacceptable to use an article on the website of a travel agency to write an about Hawai here in Wikipedia. Andries 21:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Really, Andries, the only reason you disparrage this article is because somehow you perceive it as "pro" Guru and against POV (although I do not understand why you see it that way). We cannot be judges here, Andries. Neither we can advocate. --Zappaz 21:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After re-reading the article, I have to admit that the article as a whole is not very strongly pro guru. But the quotes that are now in the article are very much pro-guru. Andries 21:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The quotes by Feurstein describe a highly subjective perspective on the matter and the section cannot be NPOV if it starts with a highly subjective extensive quote instead of more or less undisputed facts. An analogy, it would also be against NPOV guidelines to start the section with Storr's subjective POV. Andries 22:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the title for the western section. The title should be "assessment and criticism". If you read David C. Lane's excerpts from his book Exposing cults then you will see that it is not just criticism but more an assessment of the guru's authenticity. Later Lane became more critical about gurus. Andries 17:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lane is one scholar. Just one scholar. The fact that he wrote one book about exposing cults, does not mean that we have to create a section just for his POV. In any case, I don't think it is a big deal to leave your title as is. --Zappaz 19:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the title for the western section. The title should be "assessment and criticism". --Andries

Why? This is an assertion that needs to be argued for, rather than baldly put forth. --goethean 19:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, Lane clearly tries to assess not just criticize, for example he writes in his essay

If after taking the "spiritual crucible" you find out that your guru charges money for membership, lives an unethical lifestyle, self-proclaims his mastership, encourages proselytizing, alleges to be God-incarnated, emphasizes pre-rational practices, and demands total obedience, it can be assumed that you're on the wrong path and that your guru is a charlatan. On the other hand, if your guru/path scores positively in all areas (such an accomplishment, by the way, is rare), then you are very fortunate to have been led to a beneficial and legitimate spiritual movement.

Andries 20:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what is your reasoning for wanting to call the Western perspectives section "assessment and criticism"?--goethean 23:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason is that Lane describes a method to distinguish false from true gurus, in other words, an assessment. Andries 23:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Andries but this is unacceptable. The section does not mention anything to do with "assessing" the guru. It is all criticisms of various kinds (religious, secular, anti-cultist, skeptic) and that's it, so it needs to be call just that "Criticism of the guru by Western scholars, theologians and skepctics". Renamed as such.-- Zappaz 00:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense, just read Lane's article carefully and dispassionately. And also the Christian viewpoint about judging a teacher by his fruits is an assessment, not criticism and even Storr tries to assess the guru apart from his criticism. Andries 04:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)