Talk:Bhagawan Nityananda/Archive 1

Copyright Violation
This article is not a copyright violation of a website, but is possibly a copyright violation of the book:


 * Nitya Sutras: the revelations of Nityananda from the Chidakash Gita, by M.U. Hatengdi and Swami Chetananda. Rudra Press. Cambridge Massachusetts, 1985. ISBN 0915801027

For instance, the introduction is a direct copy of material from the back cover.

The rest of the article is directly copied from the first chapter, and from the reading I did, the author(s) made no attempt to rewrite the material.

Proposed external link
More stories from devotees are here:

http://www.bhagawannityananda.org/bn.html

I have not compared these stories with the ones on the Nityananda Institute web site. However, I think there is little if any duplication. Therefore I think it might be worthwhile to add this link. Alfalfahay 14:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Make sure that it conforms to WP:EL and then be bold and add it. You don't really need to propose changes on talk pages, simply go ahead and make them.  Happy editing!TheRingess 14:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason people discuss things first is that they hope to avoid the vandalism that routinely goes on in the name of editing, eg on the SY articles.

Sardaka 10:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hopefully you are not referring to another editor's good faith edits as vandalism. That's considered a personal attack. IPSOS (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal
I don't think it qualifies as personal attack because it was a general statement that did not name anyone in particular. I know I get a bit worked up sometimes, but it gets frustrating when people go around deleting other people's contributions.

Sardaka 10:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Apart from that, I've been working on a full-length article on Nityananda, which should be up in a few days.Sardaka 10:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Expanded article
Well, folks, I didn't start this article, but there wasn't much to it, so I decided to expand it. Hope you like it.

Sardaka 11:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a good start. Though the article seemed to be as much about SY and Muktananda as it was about Nityananda. The material about muktananda probably belongs on his page and the material about SY belongs on that page.

There is also no mention of other organizations that also revere Nit. Since we mention SY and not them, the article becomes dangerously close to being non neutral.

I suggest that we expand the article to mention those other organizations.

TheRingess (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference 6.
The long quote included in reference 6 should not be there. It belongs in the text. I'm not sure how to fix it, because I'm not familiar with this way of doing references. Afraid I might muck the whole thing up.

Sardaka 03:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't appear to be the case. It appears that the editor who created the note intended the quote to be in the note. And I agree with that decision. IPSOS (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Quickfailed
I quickfailed this article because the vast majority of the sources come from organisations which deify him and thus cannot be considiered to be reliable.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 05:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For example, consider the line of the article: "Nityananda had the power to transmit spiritual energy." This is nothing but dogmatic religious preaching; what's it doing in wikipedia? Isn't wiki supposed to be more of an academic reference, rather than a storybook? The idea that Nityananda transmitted "spiritual energy" of any sort is just mythology. The article gives no evidence to support this speculation, or indeed any hint what "spiritual energy" means. The fact is, no evidence exists that Nityananda transmitted anything, any moreso than a hypnotist or a rock star "transmits spiritual energy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.142.2 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 6
In regard to footnote no. 6, I edited the quote out of it because a quote like that doesn't belong in the refs. On WP:REF it says that references consist of title, author, date and page number. Nothing else.

The quote was reverted by another editor, but the fact remains that quotes belong in the article, not the refs.

Sardaka (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nityananda Video external link
Greetings - I have added the YouTube pointer in the External Link section. As it is completely neutral and of great historical value to the subject matter, I added it directly without submitting it first. Feel free to remove if you wish. --Cminard (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, it's a wonderful video. No need to discuss addition first unless they don't conform to Wikipedia's core content policies.TheRingess (talk) 01:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nityananda had no successor and he did not found the siddha yoga group
Nityananda did not found the siddha yoga group,therefore the siddha yoga template is unnecessary.muktananda was just one of the many disciples of nityananda.one cannot claim that he was his sole successor.Sarangsaras (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No claim is made that he is the sole successor. The template is fine here, as would a template for any other group that descends from nityananda.TheRingess (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Muktananda is a controversial figure and the siddha yoga group has tactfully tried to use the goodwill of bhagawan nityananda to the benefit of their group.Siddha yoga itself has nothing to do with Bhagawan Nityananda who was never assosiated with any religious group.He was wondering yogi not a person who founded any organisation.Many of nityananda's other disciple have criticised muktananda trying to hog the limelight by claiming that he was nityananda's most favoured disiple.Just to maintain the non controversial nature of Bhagawan i as a honest admirer beleive that the siddha yoga template does not do good to the nityananda article.Sarangsaras (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for discussing issues like this. Please see note at top of page.  The template does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies, so is allowable.  Please also read WP:AGF and WP:OWN.TheRingess (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

While the template may not violate policy, perhaps we should make a different template or one which shows other lineages that claim descent from Nityananda, such as Rudrananda, and not make it seem as though Nityananda was only associated with the Siddha Yoga lineage. &mdash;Whig (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great idea to me. The template was created by another editor, I believe their motive was to make it easier to navigate articles associated with SY, I don't believe their motive was to imply that SY is the only lineage Nityananda is associated with.  I might be wrong though, but am willing to assume good faith on the part of the editor.  Making a new template and including it also, or expanding the existing template to include subjects not related to SY (not preferable in my opinion) are both much preferred options (imho) than constantly reverting an acceptable template and having inappropriate discussions on the talk page.  I look forward to the new template.  Thanks for the suggestion.TheRingess (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not presume any lack of good faith on the part of the existing template author(s). Since the SY template is used on other SY pages having nothing to do with other lineages descending from Nityananda, I think a new "Nityananda's lineage" (or should we use "parampara"?) template would be suitable which could then also be included on appropriate SY pages. &mdash;Whig (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a very good idea to me. I would think the title of the template could even simply be "Bhagawan Nityananda", as it would imply all articles related to him.  However either lineages or parampara are fine, although lineage is perhaps a better word for an English speaking/reading audience.TheRingess (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)