Talk:Guru/Archive 7

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Gu-Ru - Etymologies
Should someone need the exact Sanskrit verses on the Gu-Ru interpretations/etymologies, I dug them up and translated them. —Raga 23:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing there.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. The link was updated. Here. —Raga 17:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Useful information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean up of External links
As this page was tagged with it came to the attention of WP:WPSPAM. I have reviewed the external links. I do not believe any of the links qualify directly as Spam, however a number of them were againts the guidlines of WP:EL. I have tried to cut down the number of links to those that are directly related to the article/subject (Guru). I have also removed a number of dead links.-- Rehnn83 Talk 13:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Gurus in Pop Culture?
This article doesn't have a section on Gurus in pop culture. You know, the stereotypical old berded man atop a mountain. Why's that?--159.90.80.226 15:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Gu-Ru
Hello. I just had an edit conflict where a reversion was made of a deletion I was in the process of making of some info that I believe has been shown to be incorrect, namely that the word Guru does not spring from the Sanskrit words darkness-light. I think the above reference to the Upanishads show clearly that this is indeed the case. NPOV does not include admitting information from sources that, however respectable they may be in other areas, have been shown to be incorrect in a specific. In the absence of further discussion, I will leave it for 24 hours then redelete this paragraph. Rumiton 13:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The information that you removed is well sourced. That is enough. Please do not remove well-sourced information even if you think it is incorrect. Your opinion of what reputable sources say is irrelevant, because Wikpedia reflects reputable sources and not your personal opinions. Andries 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My other changes I will look at again tomorrow and be more specific as to the reasons why they appear desirable. Rumiton 13:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rumiton, these authors that deny the darkness-light etymologies, can be reported as such. I see no problem in keeping their too obvious mistake recorded in this article. In particular Kraneborg, that despite his credentials, asserts an opinion that is denied by many historic sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the wording of Kranenborg's opinion does not fairly represent what he wrote. As if his opinion should not be taken seriously. Andries 17:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, his relevant expertise is not a theologian but a religious scholar. Andries 17:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't see the point, Jossi. If someone makes a claim that is shown objectively to be wrong, why perpetuate it? It must already have caused them embarrassment. I think it is getting close to a denial of a source's rights under WP:BLP to rub their nose in it like that, especially when their mistake happened a long time ago. Rumiton 05:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will not be opposed to a re-write. But it is a notable fact that this scholar choses to present a contrarian etymology. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Etymology: swection neutrality warning
I think that the opinion of the religious scholar Reender Kranenborg is not fairly presented. Hos opinion should be stated without comments from Wikipedia editor Jossi. Andries 17:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have done a re-write that hopefully will work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you provide the English translation, we can do a better job in summarizing his opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I already did. And you did not do a good job of msking an NPOV summar, probably because you did not like what he wrote. Please read the talk page. Andries 17:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dutch original plus Enlglish translation by the religious scholar Kranenborg is here hTalk:Guru/archive6. His relevant qualification is not a theologist but religious scholarhip. Andries 17:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it does not work. Simply present the contradicting opinions with the relevant qualifications of the persons making them without your POV editiorializing comments. Nothing should be easier than that. Andries 17:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The main issue is: Is this opinion of Kranenborg unique? Are there any other scholars that agree with him? If the answer is no, it should be stated in the text, as per the current version. If the answer is yes, and there are other scholars that agree with him, we should add these as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kranenbog's opinion is more strongly worded than the main stream about this logical contradiction, but he does  voice not a minority opionion and certainly not an insignificant minority opinion. Andries 17:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you give one example of another scholar that makes the same argument? I have not found one, and I have researched this quite extensively. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I mean to say is that he is within the mainstream when he reejcts the darkness light etymology. Andries 17:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he is not. This is your translation: (my highlights) In various popular literature, in India herself too, the word 'guru' is explained in the parts 'gu' and 'ru', as descriptions for light and darkness: the guru is then the person who bring the student from the material darkness into the spiritual light. guru is then the person who bring the student from the material darkness into the spiritual light. A guru may indeed do that, but it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word, it is people's etymology.
 * I would argue that there is plenty of evidence in this article that Kraneborg is at worst totally wrong, and at best a minority opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I think he is within the mainstream. The relevant scholarly majority rejects the etymology of darkness/light. Andries 18:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See Monier_Monier-Williams. Andries 18:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also I think it is irrelevant that Kranenborg (or Wouter Hanegraaff) is Dutch. Andries 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not about what you or I think, Andries. It is about sources. If you have sources that say that the light-darkness has nothing to do with the term "guru", please provide them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * May be you or I misunderstood something, but I did provide sources i.e. Kranenborg (2002). Clearly Kranenborg was talking about the etymology. Andries 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain the request for verication that you inserted because I do not understand it. I noticed that this request has already been removed. Andries 20:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

<<< Outdent. Both Kranebourg and Monier-Williams are highly biased in their study of Eastern religions. Monier-Williams declared from the outset that the conversion of India to the Christian religion should be one of the aims of orientalist scholarship. See Monier Monier-Williams. They have all reasons to dismiss these etymologies, despite the abundant sources that claim otherwise ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Monier-Williams' dictionary does not talk about etymologies, just translations. He translates guru to: Heavy, Great, Violent, Weighty, Dear, Venerable, Important, Spiritual teacher, An object of veneration, and other uses. (page 267) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Everybody has their biases in religious or political subject. I do not always agree with Kranenborg, but you cannot dismiss him as a source, because you do not like/agree/believe what he says. Such dismissal of reputable sources is not good editirial judgement, but is POV pushing and does not lead to NPOV article but to a an article that reflects the POV of the majority of the most determined and determined contributors of Wikipedia. Andries 20:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not dismissing him as a source. Just that you cannot assert it to be anything but a contrarian non-mainstream opinion, dues to his very obvious bias. Of interest is the entry on "grave" in Barnhart's "Dictionary of Etymology", in which he compares gravis (Latin) with the cognate "guru". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am simply arguing that Kraneborg, as well as Monier-Williams's scholarship cannot but be taken within the context of what they are and represent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kranenborg represents the majority opinion of the relevant experts and his and similar opinions should have majority space. Andries 20:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not according to the material and sources in this article, and not according to my own research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you make mistakes in assessing the reputability of sources. Andries 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If Kranenborg is such a know scholar to be referred to as a "relevant expert", why is that the lead of his article has no sources? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will try to get sources, but there is absolutely no requirement that the author of a source for Wikipedia should have his or her article, so your question is unrelated to this dispute. Andries 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You are beating a dead horse, Andries. We have good sources that present a variety of etymologies and the diversity of opinion on the subject. You are welcome to add more as well, and I will also continue and add other sources, if I find any more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I was welcome to add more sources, so please do not remove what I added. Andries 16:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording of Kranenborg a bit. The comment by Jossi on what Kranenborg wrote falsely suggested that he diverted out of ingnorance from the upanishads, but of course he must have been aware but made the consious decision not to accept the claimed etymology. Andries 19:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We do not know why he diverted. We are only saying that he did. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I left your edit about Kranenborg, left the rest as it was before, grouping the sources as needed. Also added other sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsensical translation
"Either you ridicule a real guru and say that it is all hogwash or you do believe in spirituality and then choose for a swindler." This sentence in English makes no sense. If the source is reputable (not to be taken for granted), and the original statement says something worthwhile, and there is someone who speaks whatever the original language was and can provide a proper English translation of it, let's go with it. Otherwise, it should disappear. Rumiton 12:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * what the interviewee meant to say is that some Westerners do not believe in spirituality and ridicule a true guru. Other westerners on the other hand believe in spirituality but tend to put faith in a guru who is a swindler. Andries 20:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, now you say so, I can see what she meant, but is it literal? Does she imply that no westerner ever finds a valuable Guru? Many sources say otherwise. Rumiton 03:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic article
This article deserves to be well-written and sourced but it isn't. I will try to find time to shorten the absurdly long and contradictory etymology section for a start. Rumiton 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the section can be shortened by removing the statements by Krishnamurti and Sivananda. They are no experts in Sanskrite or have any scholary credentials so they are no reputable sources. Please note that descriptions of contradictory viewpoints if properly attributed do not yield a contradictory article. Andries (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just removed some of it. The article can contain differences but it needs to be coherent. That can be achieved. Please look at the "swindler" section. As I said before, your translation makes no sense in English and is far from NPOV. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But that is just an opinion among many and with some good reason, I think. Clearly Westerners who have no education and no tradition in distinguishing good gurus from bad guru and who little knowledge of Hinduism tend to blunder in this area. Andries (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That may be a perfectly valid point, but the section does not make it coherently. Please try to clarify with a better translation. I will try to give help if you need it. Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I just looked, you have improved it. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus
This neutral, sourced text was floating in the list of "Gurus in the West". I deleted it because I'm not sure if that's where it belongs. Please put it wherever it goes best. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Kranenborg (1984), Jesus fits the Hindu definition and characteristics of a guru. 
 * Should go into the section Hinduism. I think that it is interesting to see what definitions Kranenborg treats. I will have a look. Andries (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing unexplained Sanskrite terms is not informative
Two unsourced classifications list only unexplained Sanskrit terms Guru. This is not informative and does not help to explain the subject. Andries (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is unscourced already a long time. Andries (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletions
As explained here this was deleted in the article by.

The Belgian Indologist Koenraad Elst criticized Storr's book for its avoidance of the term prophet instead of guru for several people. Elst asserts that this is possibly due to Storr's pro-Western, pro-Christian cultural bias.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guru&diff=prev&oldid=126354717

I think this information is not so important provided that Storr is not discussed in detail. This was probably an acceptable deletion Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * it was sourced to Koenraad's personal Dutch homepage which is probably not a very good source. Andries (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
The heading 'criticism of Gurus' wholly concentrates on criticism of "individuals", considered gurus by their followers. It is vague and not true to it's heading.If those people were criticised, it was because of their 'acts' and 'abuse' of the title bestowed upon them.The term has nothing to do with itAjjay (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sankara.jpg
Image:Sankara.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotation Sai Baba
It is from Radio Sai, Thought for the Day, 15th March 2008. But it cannot be retrieved anymore.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.72.7.227 (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Classification of gurus
I restored sourced material (to Reender Kranenborg) and removed material that had been unsourced for a very long time. May be somebody had some good reason to remove the material by Kranenborg, though, I cannot think of any, then I hope to hear it before it is deleted again. Andries (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Queries
Can anyone identify the guru of whom I recall reading, many years ago, that he reached a personal transformation at the moment when, in desperation, he was about to implement a resolve to commit suicide; I think, with a sword? (Apologies for posing it here, but I've been unable to locate anywhere else suitable to ask this. A reply here would be much appreciated. 163.119.181.242 (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the Buddha have a guru? 68.246.43.31 (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did. Yes. There have been many Buddhas, each the teacher of the one that followed. Rumiton (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gurus in Buddhism
In Theravada Buddhism, a guru is intentionally de-emphasized and thought of as unecessary. Somewhere in the Pali canon, a saying from the Buddha goes, "I myself have attained enlightenment, to whom shall I point to as teacher?" I will likely include this quote in this page citing from "in the buddha's words" by bhikku bodhi, unless anyone has major objections. Thouliha (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice work
Nice work!!!! This page used to be a random collection of facts and quotes, and and it is looking awesome. Keep up the good work. 01:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)