Talk:Guru/Archive 2

Talk:guru

• Talk:guru/archive1
• Talk:guru/archive2

Biblio additions by Andries

The biblio you added are all Western criticism of Gurus. I would expect that references and biblio are more balanced toward the whole article rather than the narrow Western view of Gurus. After all, the Western usage section of the article is only apprx 20% of the whole article. After all the number of people that believe in Gurus (such as Hindus and Sikhs) will be greately offended by this approach.

I have no problems with you adding these, but we will need to add bibliography for the remaining 80% of the article to maintain NPOV.

An alternative would be to create a separate article about "Guruism" in which you and others can expand the criticism of Gurus. --Zappaz 01:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree. The only really non-Eastern book is the one by Storr though he treats Bhagwan too. The psychiater Deutsch (literally) treats Jeff/Baba, who is in turn a follower of the Hindu guru SSB. Mary Garden was a follower of a string of Hindu gurus. Van der Lans points out the dangers of lack of personal contact when compared to traditional gurus. Kramer and Alstadt have a very long essay that could apply both to Hindu gurus as well as their Western equivalents. I have already written hereabove that I think that the distinction between Hindu and Western gurus is artificial and should go. There is too much overlap e.g. Andrew Cohen. Ram Dass, and Adi Da are not from India but learned from Hindu teachers, Bhagwan is from India but is not a Hindu guru. If there is a distinction to be made, then I find Kranenborg's three types more useful than Hindu versus non-Hindu. Andries 02:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You did not understand what I meant. All these books are written by Westerners. This article relates to "Guru" from a much wider perspective than the one offered by Westerm sociologists. I am sure that you can appreciate that for Hindus, Sikhs and Budhists, the guru is a respected person and a tradition that goes back for 1,000's of years. In fact, when Western civilization was still in the dark ages, gurus in the East were a source of light and wisdom. Your approach to this article show a common bias of Western culture, that considers anything "different" such as the concept of guru as something to be feared and criticized. This is Wikipedia, an encylclopedia that respects diversity and respects diverse viepoints. In regard to this article, you must respect the millions of people to which "guru" represents a source of inspiration and great respect. -- Zappaz 02:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should use the most authorative sources regardless from the question whether they where written by Westerners or Indians. And please, when answering me, you seem to forget my background of intense involvement with and respect for a Hindu guru during nine years. Andries 03:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hagiographic or non-scholarly books about individual gurus should not be listed in the bibliography. Andries 03:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, what is the difference between the critical books about gurus by the Indians Basava Premanand, Abraham Kovoor and western critics? I think the distinction is very artificial. Andries 02:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Both these authors focused on debunking false gurus in modern India. What I am talking about is the tradition of gurus as teachers. --Zappaz 02:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand and I agree. That is why I propose to drop the artificial distinction between Hindu and non-Hindu gurus but instead follow Kranenborg's three types, spiritual advisors (traditional), enlightened master, and avatar. Andries 02:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem I am referring. The taxonomy proposed by Kranenborg is, when viewed from a Eastern perspective, a very strange one. --Zappaz 03:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then what is your alternative? I think the current version is worse than Kranenborg's taxonomy. Andries 03:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reasons of slightly negative connotation

I think the reason of the slightly negative connotation is due to several factors and not to one as in the current version. I do not have references so quickly but nor does the current version.

1. Generals suspsicion of foreign philosophies
2. Proselytizing by followers
3. Public came into contact with followers who disseminated simplistic, idiosyncratic philosophies, including surrender to the guru and who sometimes gave up their careers and studies to follow the guru conflicting with the public's common sense.
4. Scandals e.g. Osho but also due to scandals with more traditional gurus.
5. Sometimes bitter complaints of ex-followers who were disillusioned
6. Activities of the anti-cult movement
7. Unpredictability of some of these gurus (similar with charismatic authority) and their strong influence of their followers

Andries 13:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You keep missing the point. For Sikhs, Hundus and Budhists, "guru" is to be respected and part of a tradition that spawns thousands of years. ll what you say is related to a very narrow interpretation of "guru", that of the Judeo-Christian tradition. --Zappaz 20:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I admit that the more traditional part spiritual advisor of the guru needs expansion but that is one part of Hinduism that I do not know much about. Andries 21:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. At this rate I can see already two different articles emerging. One that deals with the traditional aspects of Guru as in the great religions of the East (Budhism, Hinduism and Sikhism) and another article that deals with the critique/analysis of Gurus by Western sociologists and thinkers. Intertesting is the fact that Western civilization always had a problem in trying to understand the complexity of the Eastern traditions, such as this one. --Zappaz 23:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, could you explain what you want with this article and explain why you moved van der Lans' and Kranenborg's citations to "Western context" though Kranenborg and van der Lans make statements that apply both to Hindu and westernized gurus? Andries 08:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is very obvious why. Both Kraneborg and der Lans are Westerners. For a Sikh, a Hindu or a Budhist, these assertions are tainted by a western world-view. The more I think about it, the more I feel that we need to create two separate articles. One that discusses Guru from a Western perspective, and one that discusses guru from a Budhist, Hinduist and Sikh perspective. --Zappaz 18:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See this example: Imagine I am a Budhist that passionately studying Jesus and Christianity. I then come to Wikipedia and start editing the article. I am, of course, writing about Jesus from my world-view, that is Budhist. I compare Jesus with the Dalai-Lama, I start making comparisons between the Jesus' teachings and the Gautama's. Surely Christians will not be very happy about it. They will have no problem on a short section about "Budhism's views on Jesus", what they will be rightly upset if that section becomes the predominant section in the article. Do you see the problem...? --Zappaz 18:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can imagine a distinction between religious views (Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Sant Mat) on gurus and secular views (psychological, sociological) but to make separate section and even articles on Western views is wrong, I believe. Some originally Indians hold Western ideas and some Westerners hold Hindu ideas. I do not think that there is much difference between an Indian enlightened master and a western enlightened master. I met a Western guru from the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, who followed an Indian guru and who held Hindu ideas about gurus. Lane has followed and written about an gurus for decades. Kranenborg started to study gurus in the early seventies. Andries 21:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I intend to merge the Hindu view and western view. I see no good reason why they should be separated. Andries 21:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please don't. Please respond first to the position that I have explained above. If you stil intend to do so, I would suggest to bring this to RfC to see what other editors think. --Zappaz 03:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attraction by gurus

Andries, I imagine that this is your writing. You will need to either provide attributions for the text in that sub-section (Guru#Attraction_by_gurus statements or I will move to delete it. They way it currenty reads and without attributing it is not within NPOV.

There are several reasons why people in Western cultures are attracted by gurus.

• How do you know of these reasons? (yo do not know what people think)

The most common is that people look for the meaning of life and are disillusioned in traditional religions.

• Says who?

Gurus provide answers to the meaning of life, often free from the intellectualism of philosophy.

• Which Gurus?

Other people who have traditional beliefs seek to intensify their religious life and see a guru who can help her or him with this.

• Says who? Which "Other people".

Gurus offer a belief system that offers fulfillment and purpose and sometimes promises of a peaceful happy life. Many gurus claim that they can bring people closer to God, facilitate enlightenment, moksha, or nirvana, or can help people to achieve good karma and a correspondingly better next incarnation.

• this is a awful generalization. Some Gurus do not address Karma or re-incarnation. Others dont's speak of Moksha or Nirvana.

This text as is needs to go or be re-written with less generalizations and providing some attributions or citacions. See if Kraneborg or der Lans say someting on the subject and attribute the text if you want. IMO, this is an example of the lack of understanding about cultures other that their own by Westerners and the assumptions and generalizations made. This is pretty bad... --Zappaz 03:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please Zappaz, stop the harassment, you are less picky about what you vrite than about others write. Now, I confirm what andries said, and many people would confirm it. Is that OK for attribution? Please, don't dare to delete a text, a really stupid menace, just because you want to make the article unbalanced. If so, the whole article should be deleted, and all articles in wikipedia that don't give an attribution to every sentence should be deleted. All this propaganda of yours, either in this article or in the cult article, to the point of spitting at democratic laws in some paragraphs, is really becoming silly. Wikipedia is not here to recruit adepts for cults and gurus. You know, cigarettes pack include warnings, even aspirin notices include warnings, so certainly guru and cult articles should include warnings. --Pgreenfinch 08:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would encourage you to lower your tone and become more knowledgeable on how Wikipedia works, before making unwarranted assessments of my requests for attribution:

• Please read NPOV, the foundation of Wikipedia. Your coment above shows a lack of basic understanding on how WP works.
• Note that Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Read Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia is not here to recruit adepts for cults and gurus, neither it is here to "warn" people about what some think to be nefarious. The basis of Wikipedia is that if information is presented in a neutral voice, with attributions of POV where needed, readers are intellingent enought to reach their own conclusions. Why do you see yourself to be authorative to spoon-feed readers your own biases? This the exact opposite of what WP is all about!

Andries, knows all the above, and I am sure he will find a way to keep the essence of that text, after he has found good sources that support it.

Regarding what I write, I expect that you hold me accountable to the same standards. If you see any text that I add without attribution or sources, let me know. --Zappaz 17:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lower your tone also and don't try to impress me with lessons on how Wikipedia work. I didn't see you being the perfect example on those matters. You know perfectly well for example that attributions can be used to cover some biased presentations. The OSCE bit in the cult article was a good example of that. --Pgreenfinch 22:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My tone is loew already. And yes, I still think that you will benefit from reading NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research. I do that myself from time to time to refresh my memory. --Zappaz 04:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I wrote it. Feel free to remove statements that you feel are doubtful or overly generalizing in that section but please do not remove statements that you cannot seriously doubt because it will cost me a lot of time to find references for them even if they are obvious. Andries 18:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I could try Andries, although I think that given you are the author, it should be you the one to make the edit and remove generalizations and POV. I can offer this edit:

As an alternative to established religions, some people in the West have looked up at spiritual guides and Gurus from the East to provide answers to the meaning of life and to achive a more direct experience free from intellectualism and philosophy. Gurus from many denominations have traveled to the West and established a following, in particular during the 1960s and 1970s.

I would collapse that text within the section "Criticism and assessment of the guru's authenticity". --Zappaz 04:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removals of non-Hindu gurus by Jossifresco

Jossi removed Marshall Applewhite and Benjamin Creme which may be correct but he is incorrect in removing Shoko Asahara (whom I re-added) who has often been referred to as a guru, for example here. [1] [2] Andries 11:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Japanese newspapers call Asahara a guru. See [3] Searching on google for Ashara & guru yields 5,900 results. In other words, enough evidence to list Asahara as a guru. Andries 16:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought that this a list of of people that either call themelves "guru" or that his followers call him "guru". Not people that others call him guru, particularly if used as a pejorative. Maybe we need disclaimers for each one on the list establishing these distinctions (i.e. Shoko Asahara - called a guru by Japanese newspapers and critics). In this vein, What about Blavatsky, Crowley and Gurdjieff? Have these been called gurus? By whom? Note that we do not have this problem on the "list of famous gurus", because in Hindu context, Guru is a highly regarded role...≈ jossi ≈ 17:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am certiain that Gurdjief has been called a guru by e.g. Anthony Storr. And it is not true that a guru is always so highly regarded in Hinduism. The existence of false gurus is well known. For example the influential Vivekananda and the Panchatantra warn against them. Andries 17:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Storr called a lot of people "guru". That is insufficent for listing these as gurus. I am remoning a few, leaving the obvious ones. --Zappaz 03:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unattributed text

This must be from you Andries. Care to find an atribution or citation for this?

The history of various gurus, religions, sects, new religious movements and cults has shown that the question how to assess the authenticity of a guru is difficult, especially when the guru is still young.

This text seems to me just an idea and not encyclopedic:

According to the Bible, Jesus said that one should judge a prophet by his fruits, though it is not not clear whether this rule of the thumb also includes gurus. [4] .

Please also refrain of using ""some believe".

Some believe that this rule has the drawbacks that one should know what is good and bad in the first place and that one cannot possibly know all acts and their corresponding fruits of a guru.

Thanks. --Zappaz 23:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I have restored the sentence about Jesus that you removed. This is a notable attributed opinion. Andries 06:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jesus said what he said. The applicability to Gurus need to be attributed. Removed. --Zappaz 20:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

many Christians believe that what Jesus said about prophet in this respect also applies to teachers, not just to prophets. Teacher is similar to the meaning given to the wors guru by Hindus. Andries 00:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now it reads better, has context and is relevant. Thanks Andries .--Zappaz 05:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why did was this text deleted?

He further refers to Eileen Barker's list to recognize dangerous situation in religious movements.

There seem to be an effort to separate cults and false gurus. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:50, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

It was deleted because it is not relevant to that sentence (my highligt):

The British psychiatry professor Anthony Storr argues in his book Feet of clay - A Study of gurus that gurus (in the non-Hindu usage of the word) share common character traits (e.g. being loners without friends) and that some suffer from a mild form of schizophrenia. He argues that the belief system that some gurus hold developed during a period of psychosis to make sense of their own minds and perceptions. These belief system persists after the psychosis has gone away. He further refers to Eileen Barker's list to recognize dangerous situation in religious movements.

A I missing something? The text refers to Storr's book, and explains his views about Gurus (the subject of this article). The subject of this article is not purported "dangerous situations in religious movements". What is the relevance? Deleted. --Zappaz 02:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So are you saying that this discussion of false gurus is more relevant to cult checklists? Wow, maybe we should link the articles. No? OK, I'll copy the sentence over there, where it is relevant. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:10, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. --Zappaz 20:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, I have never read a guideline in Wikipedia that says that it is wrong to make links to related subjects. Not writing that sentence would give a one-sided view of Storr's opinion. Besides the sentence is relevant in an article about gurus. For example Barker's checklist contains the sentence.

"Leader who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to their followers;"

Andries 06:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Zappaz, please read Storr's book first before commenting on his book. Thanks. Andries 21:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, what you write about the book is nonsense. Storr never wrote that Freud had special revelations. Andries

Correct. I just made a list of all the people that Storr considered Gurus, and that, believe it or not, includes Freud and Jung. --Zappaz 05:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)