Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vassyana (talk | contribs) at 17:45, 12 March 2007 (→Comment from outside editors: np). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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[REDACTED] 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)

In looking at Coronary_artery_bypass_surgery, I see that there are hardly any instructions, just a generic and short explanation of what the procedure is. If we can follow that example, we shall be fine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be caused by the translation. The original Dutch did not contain the word "you", but uses a Dutch person form "men" for which there is not an easy English translation. Andries 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Andries, these are not instructions about how to do the "techniques of Knowledge." These are basic descriptions of the techniques, and can be found in many books outside of Misplaced Pages, and as Will Bebeck said above, there is no source for this article to state that they are incorrect as described. If the premies/students here have a problem with the description because they are bound by vows to Prem Rawat (which are required for every student before "receiving Knowledge,") "not to reveal these techniques to anyone for any reason," or whatever the vow du jour is these days, then those students should recuse themselves from editing this particular Rawat-related article. This is an encyclopedia not a guide to following Prem Rawat. Also, the Transendental Meditation (TM) article has descriptions of those meditation techniques, as well as links to the same. Hope this helps. Once again, these are not instructions, they are discriptions and your source is valid. Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a crack later tonight at re-writing the material to avoid just quoting the sources. Between our description of heart surgery, and our descriptions of other meditation and religious ceremonies we have plenty of examples for how to proceed. -Will Beback · † · 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to re-write. This article does not even come close to an instruction or how-to manual. Andries 22:28, 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)

The descriptions are not detailed enough to be seriously considered a how-to guide. This article does not even come close to a violation of Misplaced Pages:NOT. Andries 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is your opinion, Andries. My argument is that it is. Hopefully Will, will take a stab t it and see what we get at. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I put it off until too late, but plan to get to it in the next day or so. Until then let's be cool. There's plenty of time to get this right. -Will Beback · † · 08:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to take plenty of time, I'm going to remove the instructions oin the meantime.Momento 22:00, 15 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)

Completely untrue. As if Reender Kranenborg and J. Gordon Melton try to earn some more money by giving meditation instructions outside offfice hours. Andries 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What's not true? Who said K and M were earning money?Momento 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly they never had the intention to give mediation instructions, because they are after all religious scholars, so your assessment that an article based on sources by them is an instruction is implausible. Andries 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You say "They never had the intention to give mediation instructions"? Well how did the "instructions" end up in their articles?Momento 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your discussion is unnecessary. Will Beback has agreed to summarize these descriptions. Let's be patient and wait ti see what his efforts will yield. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Momento, what instructions are you referring to? There are no instructions in this article worth the name. Andries 20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How can you summarise the instructions? If the were any shorter they wouldn't exist, so you may as well delete them.Momento 07:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Momento, you said above that you were going to find additional descriptions of the techniques and of people's experience with them. Were you able to find any? - Will Beback · † · 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't bother doing any more research once Andries started reverting to put the instructions back in.Momento 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you can find any? More sources are always better. -Will Beback · † · 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as this article contains instructions and other editors permit them, I don't feel inclined to contribute. The instructions are a major violation of Wiki policy.Momento 02:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The aim is to replace the instructions with descriptions. If you don't want to help improve the article then please don't complain about the outcome. If you know about sources and aren't mentioning them then that's doubly unhelpful. With only the existing sources we'll do what we can. -Will Beback · † · 03:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Spare me your sarcasm. I made a major improvement to this article when, in accordance with Wiki policy I removed the instructions and re-wrote the lead to compensate. This improved article was then reverted by Andries and others half a dozen times with no objection from you. You are yet to make a one comma improvement. Your further insinuation that I am withholding sources despite my clear comment that "I didn't bother doing any more research once Andries started reverting" is unwarranted and offensive.Momento 06:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Either way, the result is that we need to do the best we can with the sources we've got now. -Will Beback · † · 06:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Will, this is the text from Hunt's "Alternative religions":

The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his "Knowledge" consist of these techniques to obtain them. Konwledge, roughly translated, means the happiness of the true-self-understanding. Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self. In turn, this brings a sense of well-being, joy, and harmony as one comes into contact with one's "own nature". The Knowledge includes four secret meditation procedures: Light, Music, Nectar, and Word. The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the the guidance and help of a teacher. Hence, the movement , seems to embrace the aspects of world-rejection and world-affirmation. The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion but the adherents to a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full.

• Hunt, Stephen, Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction, pp.116, (2003), Ashgate Publishing, ISBN 0-754-63410-8

I find this text to be most accurate. Also:

Maharaj Ji meditation upon the life-force. This meditation focuses on four types of mystical energy, known as the experiences of Light, Harmony, Nectar, and the Word. These allow the practitioner to develop a deep and spiritual self-knowledge.

1. Drury, Michael, The Dictionary of the Esoteric: 3000 Entries on the Mystical and Occult Traditions, pp.75-6, (2002), Sterling Publishing Company, ISBN 1-842-93108-3

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well why don't you start by reverting back to my latest version which gets rids of the instructions that shouldn't be there. And then see what improvements you can make.Momento 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Time's up

I have waited a week for Will to make this article conform to Wiki policy but no news. I'll redo in the next day or so.Momento 05:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for taking so long. I know you're impatient, and it's not a task I'm relishing. Please feel free to go back to edit warring. -Will Beback · † · 10:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You could help by telling us whether you think that Kranenborg's and Melton's descriptions of how to do the techniques are instructions.Momento 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's give Will a chance, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My problem Jossi is that while we wait for Will, this article contains instructions. If they are removed then I'm happy to wait for Will forever.Momento 17:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Will, can you work on this on the next day or so? Otherwise, should we address this in a different way? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Andries your suggestion that the "descriptions that are not detailed enough to be seriously considered instructions" is irrelevant. Wiki policy isn't concerned with how detailed instructions are, only that they are instructions.Momento 10:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I filed an RFC because I continue to disagree. Andries 14:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC: alleged violation of WP:NOT (instructions)

RFC filed by Andries 25 Feb. 2007

Statement by involved editor Andries (talk · contribs)

1. An article about a certain meditation technique should contain basic descriptions of this technique otherwise the article gets very vague. Descriptions of the technique should be the main subject of this article. This article has in the past been criticized heavily because of missing descriptions.

2. The descritons are not detailed enough to be an instruction manual and do not even come close to violating WP:NOT.

3. A violation is unlikely, because they are sourced to religious scholars, not to a meditation manual or something like that. Clearly these sources never had the intention to provide an instruction manual.

Andries 15:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Jossi (talk · contribs)

• These competing (and IMO, erroneous) instructions if followed as described in the article can be harmful to a person. That is why WP:NOT advises not to have how-to's in WP, and that includes such things as legal, medical advise, etc. This version, provides sufficient information to our readers and sources are provided to further explore the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Momento

1. The current article contains descriptions.

2. What I object to is the "instructions" on "how to" practice the techniques included by Melton and Kranenbord. Wiki guidelines are clear - Misplaced Pages articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s.Momento 23:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by respondents to RFC

Came here via the RfC. I do not see any specific instructions in this article, and I agree with Andries point #1- an encyclopedia article about a "spiritual techniques" should have at least a basic description. It might be helpful if the person/persons who believe that parts of this article violate wp:not list the specific sentences. Sethie 15:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This version that contains a basic description, and this version contains the disputed how-to descriptions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You know I have read both versions now (lol I thought the current version of the page was the disputed one and could not make heads or tails of why it was disputed). I will look over WP:NOT and respond to the disputed version. Sethie 17:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Still sitting with this. Jossi, I think your case would be stronger if you dropped your opinion that the ideas are "erroneous," (unless you think the source has been misquoted) and that you think the ideas, if done are harmful. Really these are your opinions and don't refference directly any[REDACTED] policy that I am aware of. Sethie 17:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, is my opinion, Sethie. The issue is not about my opinions or other editor's opinions. The issue is that a detailed description of these techniques, which both scholars present different explanations, can be harmful, as any other advice be that medical, legal, or otherwise can be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There never was a detailed description of these techniques. Andries 17:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, there are here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not. One sentence with descritions per technique cannot be called a detailed description. Andries 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

But they are, Andries, they are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

One sentence per technique? How this can be considered an instruction manual is beyond me. I cannot taken your opinion seriously. Andries 18:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of precedent in Misplaced Pages for including descriptions of meditation techniques without concern about "harming" someone. See Yoga Hatha yoga and Meditation.Sylviecyn 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

True. this article Kapalabhati_Pranayama may be a violation of WP:NOT for being an instruction manual, but this article never came close to it. Andries 21:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make one right, Andries. That article is unsources, does not provide sources, and violates NOT. Tagged accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying this is "an instruction manual", they are "instructions" on how to do the techniques.Momento 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So I have sat with the whole thing, and here is my conclusions:

Per Jossi and Momento: -I am not aware of a[REDACTED] policy which says alledgedy "harmful" information should not be in wikipedia. -I am not aware of a[REDACTED] policy which says that information being "erroneous" is a reason to keep that information out, to the contrary, WP:V clearly says this is not the case -The section on WP:NOT says an article are not TO BE instruction manuel, not that articles can't contain instructions. -WP:NOT however does clearly say that Misplaced Pages is not censored.

Per the contented version (which I am assuming Andries is in favor of): -Two versions of the techniques seems a bit much to me. Why not just cite one of the scholars?

Good luck. My hunch is that this discussion is too tied up in agendas to be nuetrally settles by the involved parties, I hope I am wrong. Sethie 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong when you claim that WP:NOT says an "article are not TO BE instruction manuel", not that articles can't contain instructions". WP:NOT says that Misplaced Pages is "not TO BE an instruction manual and that articles can't contain instructions. I'm am going to remove the instructions.10:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong. I was blinded by their example of an article which was an entire set of instructions.

So why not summarize the techniques without giving so much detail- would that be suitable to both parties? Sethie 13:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another RFC responder I recently found a quote by an author I respect: "The human mind is generally far more eager to praise and dispraise than to describe and define." C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves, 1960. As an encyclopedia, it is an absolute requirement to have enough description that a reader with almost no prior knowledge of the topic will understand what the article is about. The short version is definitely too short, there isn't enough to understand them. The long version is probably the better starting point for improvement. It would seem better to integrate the two scholars descriptions of the technique, then follow with the definitely relevant analysis of the origins of these techniques. If this is done, you'll probably trim at least a third of the content of those descriptions because the two scholars don't seem to disagree about the how of the techniques. GRBerry 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As you say in your last sentence - " the two scholars don't seem to disagree about the how of the techniques". And that's the problem. Misplaced Pages articles should not contain "how-to"s.Momento 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can come up with a better way of describing to the reader who knows almost nothing of the subject what the article is about, then you should use it. If you think there is not other way of explaining the topic to such a reader, and feel strongly about this, you could try AFD. Frankly, I think that such an AFD would get a clear keep result. We already know that there are multiple reliable sources available. My use of "how of the techniques" could have been better worded as "the physical description of the techniques". This whole thing is part of a statement, that Misplaced Pages is not a place for instruction manuals. Neither version of this article is, as a whole, an instruction manual. Quibble all you want about my words, but my suggestion as to which version is better and my suggestion about how to make it even better stands. GRBerry 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You've made the same mistake as Sethie. Wiki policy doesn't say the article can't be an instruction manual, it says Wiki isn't an instruction manual. And then it goes on to say "Misplaced Pages articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s". Clearly Kranenborg and Melton have included instructions on how to do the techniques and that is not permityted.Momento 10:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The only person making a mistake here, Momento, would be you. Here's how an RfC works. If there is a deadlock between involved editors, both sides call in uninvolved parties to get additional, objective opinions. So far you've gotten two that disagree with your position. Period. That's the end of the story. You don't contentiously argue with these people and belittle their opinions until they throw their hands up in frustration and leave (as Sethie already appears to have done). Otherwise, what's the point of an RfC at all if you don't really care about the comments it will attract? Are RfCs valid only if they happen to endorse your position? Poor form. Mael-Num 06:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Both Sethie and GRBerry initially wrote that the article wasn't an "instruction manual" and was therefore OK. In fact, it is Wiki that shouldn't be an "instruction manual", and Wiki articles shouldn't include "instructions". When I pointed that out to Sethie, Sethie had the character and integrity to reply, "I was wrong. I was blinded by their example of an article which was an entire set of instructions". And I made no further comment about it, so it's hard to see how I belittled Sethie's revised opinion. GRBerry thinks " Neither version of this article is, as a whole, an instruction manual", which is not what is being discussed, and so I am entitled to point that out. To which GRBerry has not replied. Be certain M-N, no informed editor will say that Melton and Kranenborg's instructions are not instructions.Momento 07:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, if I am reading GRBerry correctly, a more apt description of the passages in question would be "descriptions" and not "instructions". I am inclined to agree with him.

Let me pose a few hypothetical questions and counter-examples. The article on prayer describes that, in the act of prayer, " variety of body postures may be assumed, often with specific meaning (mainly respect or adoration) associated with them: standing; sitting; kneeling; prostrate on the floor; eyes opened; eyes closed; hands folded or clasped; hands upraised; holding hands with others; a laying on of hands and others." Does this tell you how to pray, or as would be the case in an instruction manual, how one should pray? The article on meditation mentions the Lotus Position and has an illustration showing the Half-Lotus position. It notes that "Many meditative traditions teach that the spine should be kept 'straight'". Do these descriptions make that article an instruction manual? One must conclude by the state of these articles that they are not considered instruction manuals. This article describes Knowledge in an almost identical fashion, but due to the more specific nature of this article, the descriptions are necessarily less vague. Compare the specificity of description in the article on Asana or the exact wording listed in the article on the Act of Contrition and see that, as the subject is narrowed from general practices, so too must the descriptions become less vague. Specific descriptors, as one can see, do not make for instructions by Misplaced Pages standards.

So, again, this article is no more an instruction manual than those given as examples above. On a different note, my point about your abrasive and combative tone towards your fellow contributors still stands. You need to step back and try not to challenge everything you don't agree with. It defeats the whole purpose of being an editor here. If you can't listen to others, and respect their opinions (even if they aren't the same as yours), then perhaps Misplaced Pages isn't the place for you. Mael-Num 08:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this article isn't an "instruction manual" but it does contain "instructions" on how to practice the techniques. And that is not allowed.Momento 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then we agree. It isn't an "instruction manual". So you're admitting there's no problem. So there's no problem? Mael-Num 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that WP:NOT means that an article should not contain statements that can be interpreted as an instruction. I think that WP:NOT means to say that alleged instructions should never be so dominant that they give the reader the impression that the article is partially an instruction manual. Andries 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NOT - "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. Am I mistaken or does the previous sentence say - "Misplaced Pages articles should not include instructions". It doesn't talk about being "dominant" or giving "the reader the impression" or "partially an instruction manual". It says very clearly in English in black and white "Misplaced Pages articles should not include instructions". Momento 02:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I still think that you are interpreting this not according to the spirit of the WP:NOT. Andries 08:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Andries I'm not interpreting WP:NOT. It says "Misplaced Pages articles should not include instructions". You're the one who is adding your opinion that it really means is "dominant" or giving "the reader the impression" or "partially an instruction manual". If the Wiki rule writers wanted to put in "dominant" or giving "the reader the impression" or "partially an instruction manual", they would have.Momento 23:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give it another 24 hours and then I'm going to remove the instructions on how to practice the techniques from this article.Momento 11:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be a bad idea, given that consensus and overwhelming evidence show that these "instructions", as you call them, aren't against policy. One might even consider any such blanking vandalism. You should reconsider...maybe try to get another set of eyes to look at it, or come up with some counterexamples of your own? Mael-Num 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If Momento wants to engage in edit-warring that's his/her choice, but the concensus here by editors is that the article doesn't contain actual instructions, but mere descriptions of the techniques. What's given are descriptions and there's no logical reason to delete them. Once again, I believe that Momento and Jossi need to recuse themselves from this particular discussion because of their conflict of interest as Rawat students and the vow they have taken "not to reveal the techniques of Knowledge to anyone for any reason." That's not encyclopedic at all. Sylviecyn 12:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Applying your logic, as a former follower that agreed "not to reveal the techniques of Knowledge to anyone for any reason", and that later recanted on that promise, I would argue that you are not in a position to make that judgment call. Having said that, what is being discussed is the relevance of WP:NOT to the instructions as per the sources provided, and not what are the viewpoints of editors as it pertains to such promises. We are having a specific conversation about the application of policy, I would appreciate we keep it there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable person would agree with you that that any premie, former or current, should be bound by this knowledge vow which was required of every person to be recited prior to being "revealed" or taught the Knowledge Techniques in front of a Mahatma and/or Initiator/Instructor -- all who were agents of Divine Light Mission and personally assigned as such by Prem Rawat himself during the 1970s and early 1980s. Divine Light Mission Knowledge Sessions.

“Oh my Guru Maharaji, I dedicate myself to your lotus feet.

I am weak and ignorant and am filled with the impurities of this world.

Oh Guru Maharaji, please take my mind and purge me of the impurities I possess.

Reveal to me the knowledge of all knowledges.

Strengthen me, uplift me and reveal the kingdom of heaven within inside of me.

Bring me from hate to love, from darkness to light, death to immortality.

I will OBEY you implicitly and will never reveal this knowledge to anyone for any reason.

I will keep in contact with you through my DEVOTIONAL LOVE, satsang, meditation and service.

Thank you my LORD for everything."

I was addressing your personal conflicts of interest which keep you from understanding the difference between a description and an instruction, so it appears. Of course I don't feel bound by that vow! Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 18:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

30 years ago in the context of Divine Light Mission trappings, that may have been the vow that was used. Nowadays it is much simpler Three promises:

Before I give you Knowledge, I will ask you for three promises. The first one is to give Knowledge a fair chance. It’s important for me to know that you are going to give Knowledge a fair chance, not just say, “Now I have it.” Some people receive it, and they have certain expectations. Get rid of the expectations, and you'll have something better. If you are going to give Knowledge a fair chance, you have to approach it with determination to let the seed grow.

The second promise that I ask for is to keep in touch. Keep in touch with me through my message, through the practice of Knowledge. Come to my events. Come and hear what I am saying. Let me help you remove your doubts. Let me help to inspire you, clarify and remind you again and again what is important, so you can continue to grow.

The third promise I will ask for is not to reveal these techniques to anyone. Let other people go through their own journey, and when they are ready, like you, they can get it. There are no shortcuts to it. There are shortcuts to many things in life, but there is no shortcut when the heart is going to be the judge. The heart cannot be talked into anything. The mind can be convinced, but the heart has to feel the real thing. Let people prepare. Then they, too, can have the techniques when they are ready.

Beautiful evolution, don't you think? From a vow imbued in Indian culture trappings to a simpler, straightforward, culture "agnostic" promise from a student to a teacher. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, there is no evolution to be shown concerning this subject when the entire picture and process of Rawat's life isn't transparant to the public. That's the crux of the problem with all the Prem Rawat articles, and indeed, the fractured way that Prem Rawat attempts to present himself to the world today. When someone makes such a concerted effort to conceal their past life events (particularly when touting the word "biography") everything else that person does becomes suspect. Students of PR don't, won't or can't see that. Moreover, the original vow wasn't something that was "imbued in Indian culture," -- that's the NRM's current belief and is fully engrained in the Rawat religion, just as "ex-premies are a hate-group" has become it's current meme when responding to critics of Prem Rawat. Looking at it from the outside in, it's quite strange and also suspect.

That knowledge vow was the basis for the belief-system of the Rawat religion and continues to be the basis of the Rawat belief-system, especially for any remaining premies that took that vow. That said, since you brought up the Keys, it should also be transparant that in order to view the keys, people are first asked to accept these "Terms and Conditions," which, in my opinion, abridges anyone's right to free speech forever (perpetual) concerning Prem Rawat and what he says, not to mention that someone is also required to disclaim the state of their mental health. Some promise of peace. This is not something I would call "beautiful evolution" -- not by a long shot.

Terms and conditions

I understand that the material on this website is private and proprietary, through copyright and/or common law rights, belonging to The Prem Rawat Foundation ("TPRF") and its agents and assigns.

I understand and agree that by accessing this material I am entering an agreement that I will not copy, redistribute, or publicly display anything on this website or on any discs obtained through this website.

I also understand and agree that my purpose for accessing this website and any related material is limited solely to my personal interest in Maharaji’s Knowledge, and by agreeing, I expressly waive any rights I may believe I have in terms of creating commentary, research, or any other “fair use” purposes.

I also agree that, should my interest in learning the techniques of Knowledge change at any time, this agreement is perpetual in length, and that upon such change, I will return any such material to The Prem Rawat Foundation.

I understand that by agreeing to these Terms and Conditions, I will be given a password and user ID, which I agree not to disclose to any third person for any reason.

I understand that the practice of Knowledge does not prevent, cure, or treat any medical or mental illness and does not prevent the recurrence of any illness once it has been treated. I understand that some unresolved mental and emotional health problems may interfere with the ability to make choices related to asking for, practicing, and enjoying Knowledge.

As far as I am aware, I am free from any conditions that would impair my ability to ask for, practice, and enjoy Knowledge. I agree to the Terms and Conditions, and that I am being given permission to access the material contained (on this website), but that this permission can be revoked. TPRF reserves the right to issue/delete Personal Access Numbers and access to this website at its own discretion and without notice.

I also understand that if I breach this agreement, I may face legal penalties and agree that such legal disputes can be resolved in the Courts of the State of California. I also understand that if I breach the Terms and Conditions, I may be liable for damages and attorneys fees.

Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 13:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I should not have responded to you... We need to remember that these pages are not a discussion forum. See WP:NOT#FORUM . Let's stay on-topic: Discuss the article and not the subject, discuss the edit and not the editor. Your opinions and my opinions on the subject are simply of no use in this discussion. If you want to discuss these issues. please do so in other fora, not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I filed a notice for possible WP:COI of user Momento and Jossi on this article. .Andries 16:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not edit-warred in this article. You have. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment from outside editors

I believe a short description of the techniques is appropriate to the article. Without such a description, the reader is left missing information vital to understanding what is being discussed. The descriptions should be brief and provide a general idea of the practices. Detailed instructions and how-to instructions should be avoided, but at the same time we should not interpret this in an overly broad fashion that excludes even a basic description for the reader. Vassyana 11:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Vassyana. Would you be amicable to the idea of giving it a try and summarize a description? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. User:Vassyana/ToK (Descriptions). I think I provide descriptions and explanation, while avoiding the concerns about a how-to. Is that an acceptable compromise version? Vassyana 16:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am supportive of a compromise version that will stabilize this article once and for all. Hopefully editors that have been reverting back and forth will accept it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'll leave the user subpage up for people to check out. I hope it is acceptable to all parties. Vassyana 17:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statement

This statement: "Formerly he taught a version of the techniques that were claimed to lead to "a deep spiritual self-knowledge", but Elan Vital (organization) have since retracted such claims" is unsourced. Please provide a source, or delete it if no source is forthcoming. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not having responded sooner. The source is as follows

http://en.wikiquote.org/Prem_Rawat

"Knowledge is not spiritual, nor is it a religion. Knowledge belongs in neither of those two categories. Knowledge says there is a consciousness inside of you, that you are complete".

(Maharaji, Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles 1998)

I trust you will reinstate the edit?

The text was "Formerly he taught a version of the techniques that were claimed to lead to "a deep spiritual self-knowledge", but Elan Vital (organization) have since retracted such claims.". I am not sure that the source is supportive of the text you added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Instructions

I have no doubt that Kranenborg's and Melton's instructions on "how-to" practice the techniques are in violation of Wiki policy. It clearly states "Misplaced Pages articles should not include instructions or ....... contain "how-to"s". K & M have included their version of "how-to" practice the techniques. But since some editors have difficulty understanding the difference between a "description" and "instructions or how-tos" in this article, here's an example. The same Wiki policy says not to include "recipes". So we are allowed to describe a chocolate cake (it's brown with icing on the top, maybe some cream and is flavoured with chocolate) but we are not allowed to include "how-to" make one (take four cups of flour, two ounces of chocolate, one cup of milk and two eggs, mix together put in an oven for 45 minutes at 450 degrees). It's OK to describe the techniques but we are not allowed to describe "how-to" do them. I will uphold this policy for ever. Andries called for RfC, two people responded one person disagreed, one person agreed. I have removed the instructions.Momento 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The description of religious rites and similar procedures are withing the the scope of an encyclopedia. I don't see it worded as an instruction to the reader, but as a description. Compare e.g. Surya Namaskara and Endowment (Latter Day Saints). --Pjacobi 13:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Surya Namaskara article is how it should be done with one exception. We learn that there are twelve asanas or postures and they are listed. The exception is the seventh or Bhujangasana asana which is linked to its own article where instructions are given how to perform it. This is clearly against Wiki policy so I have removed the link and the Bhujangasana article should ber deleted.Momento 19:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. What is being argued is that a description should not contain instructions, in particular when these instructions as described (e.g. "presses with the thumbs on the eye balls with as a consequence that they move towards each other") can be dangerous and harmful to a person following them. So, the proposal we have been discussing is to use the material from these two scholars to describe these techniques as they have researched them, without providing instructions that may be harmful to a reader. Will wanted to assist with this but probably did not have the time. Would you be interested in lending a hand in crafting a version that balances the needs to have an encyclopedic article with descriptions of the subject while avoiding instructions that can be harmful to a reader? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite unintuitive to some, there are two potential reasons to not include stuff, which aren't considered valid by most editors and precedent (in enwiki):

• Dangerous or "illegal" information: You find a lot of stuff in Misplaced Pages which may put you in trouble in some legislations and which may put you and others in dangers. Misplaced Pages contains rather explicit information about easy to DOY explosives and date rape drugs, with external links to even more detailled information and instructions.
• Information which may be considered offensive. Skipping the issue of our porn pages, there are many precedents on the religious sector. I must have given the list many times in past already, sorry to bore you.
  • Not respecting the taboos around the true name of god, the tetragrammaton יהוה‎
  • Not respecting the wish of the LDS church to not expose their "temple secrets"
  • Not respecting the wish of the Bahai to not show the photograph of Bahá'u'lláh

Heck, true believers in magick even would consider our article Sigil (magic) (or the somewhat better de:Sigillenmagie) to be dangerous.

I'm not entirely happy with Misplaced Pages is not censored, but if this is our policy, it should at least be applied consistently.

Jossi, I'm just (and not for sure) returning from a Wiki break, so I better don't promise anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pjacobi (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Peter. If you have the time, that would be wonderful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, have you considered merging this article with the main article? After some thought about the issue of descriptions or instructions, I really don't think it's necessary to have either. But, given that the title of the article is "Techniques of Knowledge" it implies there would be some kind of description of the techniques. I'm just not sure of the necessity of this whole article, given the reluctance to include the descriptions. I really do agree with you that it would be very unfortunate if someone tried the light technique and squeezed their eyeballs -- it just wouldn't be good for people to try that out. I can say from personal experience that that hasn't been how Maharaji teaches that particular techique since the late 70s -- it's something different, not described in the literature that I'm aware of. I think by considering a merge you could avoid this whole discussion. Or not. Either way, I won't argue for inclusion of the descriptions any further. Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 19:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your comments Sylviecyn. If we don't have the instructions it makes sense to merge with the Rawat article. But I wouldn't want a merge if the argument about instruction is resurrected in the Rawat article. Let's let this article settle for a week or so and then revisit.Momento 19:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have come up with a compromise version that can be acceptable. See above. Vassyana 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)