Talk:Kundalini/Archive 2

Notes and Further Reading
The lists below are being moved here from the main page to be converted to cites (or be deleted) -20:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cromie, William J. Research: Meditation changes temperatures: Mind controls body in extreme experiments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Gazette, 18 April 2002


 * Flood, Gavin. An Introduction to Hinduism. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1996). ISBN 0-521-43878-0


 * Greyson, Bruce (2000) Some Neuropsychological Correlates Of The Physio-Kundalini Syndrome. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, Vol.32, No. 2




 * Kason, Yvonne (2000) Farther Shores: Exploring How Near-Death, Kundalini and Mystical Experiences Can Transform Ordinary Lives. Toronto: Harper Collins Publishers, Revised edition, ISBN 0-00-638624-5


 * Krishna, Gopi (1971) Kundalini: the evolutionary energy in man. Boulder, Colorado: Shambhala


 * Lazar, Sara W.; Bush, George; Gollub, Randy L.; Fricchione, Gregory L.; Khalsa, Gurucharan; Benson, Herbert (2000) Functional brain mapping of the relaxation response and meditation [Autonomic Nervous System]. NeuroReport: Volume 11(7) 15 May 2000 p 1581–1585 PubMed Abstract




 * Palamidessi, Tommaso (1948) Alchimia come via allo spirito, ed. EGO, Turin


 * Rudra (1993),  Kundalini die Energie der Natur die Natur der Energie im Menschen, Wild Dragon Connections, Worpswede, Germany, ISBN 3-9802560-1-4


 * Scotton, Bruce (1996) The phenomenology and treatment of kundalini, in Chinen, Scotton and Battista (Editors) (1996) Textbook of transpersonal psychiatry and psychology. (pp. 261–270). New York, NY, US: Basic Books, Inc.




 * Suny Series in Transpersonal and Humanistic Psychology


 * Svatmarama, Swami (1992) Hatha Yoga Pradipika. London: The Aquarian Press, An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers. Translated by Elsy Becherer, foreword by B K S Iyengar, commentary by Hans Ulrich Rieker


 * Turner, Robert P.; Lukoff, David; Barnhouse, Ruth Tiffany & Lu Francis G. (1995) Religious or Spiritual Problem. A Culturally Sensitive Diagnostic Category in the DSM-IV. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,Vol.183, No. 7 435-444


 * Laue, Thorsten: Kundalini Yoga, Yogi Tee und das Wassermannzeitalter. Religionswissenschaftliche Einblicke in die Healthy, Happy, Holy Organization (3HO) des Yogi Bhajan, Münster: LIT, 2007, ISBN 3825801403 (in German)
 * Muktananda, Swami (1978): Play Of Consciousness, Siddha Yoga Publications. ISBN 0-911307-81-8
 * Narayanananda, Swami. The Primal Power in Man or the Kundalini Shakti, N.U. Yoga Trust, Denmark, 1979, ISBN 87-87571-60-9 (6th rev. ed., (1st ed. 1950))
 * Sannella, Lee (1987): The Kundalini Experience, Integral Publishing, 1987, ISBN 0-9412-5529-9
 * Thomas, Kate., The Kundalini Phenomenon - the need for insight and spiritual authenticity, New Media Books, 2000.
 * Tweedie, I., Daughter of Fire: A Diary of a Spiritual Training with a Sufi Master, The Golden Sufi Center, 1995, ISBN 0-9634574-5-4
 * White, J, edt., Kundalini. Evolution and enlightenment, New York: Paragon House, 1990, ISBN 1-5577-8303-9
 * Sannella, Lee (1987): The Kundalini Experience, Integral Publishing, 1987, ISBN 0-9412-5529-9
 * Thomas, Kate., The Kundalini Phenomenon - the need for insight and spiritual authenticity, New Media Books, 2000.
 * Tweedie, I., Daughter of Fire: A Diary of a Spiritual Training with a Sufi Master, The Golden Sufi Center, 1995, ISBN 0-9634574-5-4
 * White, J, edt., Kundalini. Evolution and enlightenment, New York: Paragon House, 1990, ISBN 1-5577-8303-9

Notes and Further Reading
The lists below are being moved here from the main page to be converted to cites (or be deleted) -20:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cromie, William J. Research: Meditation changes temperatures: Mind controls body in extreme experiments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Gazette, 18 April 2002


 * Flood, Gavin. An Introduction to Hinduism. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1996). ISBN 0-521-43878-0


 * Greyson, Bruce (2000) Some Neuropsychological Correlates Of The Physio-Kundalini Syndrome. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, Vol.32, No. 2




 * Kason, Yvonne (2000) Farther Shores: Exploring How Near-Death, Kundalini and Mystical Experiences Can Transform Ordinary Lives. Toronto: Harper Collins Publishers, Revised edition, ISBN 0-00-638624-5


 * Krishna, Gopi (1971) Kundalini: the evolutionary energy in man. Boulder, Colorado: Shambhala


 * Lazar, Sara W.; Bush, George; Gollub, Randy L.; Fricchione, Gregory L.; Khalsa, Gurucharan; Benson, Herbert (2000) Functional brain mapping of the relaxation response and meditation [Autonomic Nervous System]. NeuroReport: Volume 11(7) 15 May 2000 p 1581–1585 PubMed Abstract




 * Palamidessi, Tommaso (1948) Alchimia come via allo spirito, ed. EGO, Turin


 * Rudra (1993),  Kundalini die Energie der Natur die Natur der Energie im Menschen, Wild Dragon Connections, Worpswede, Germany, ISBN 3-9802560-1-4


 * Scotton, Bruce (1996) The phenomenology and treatment of kundalini, in Chinen, Scotton and Battista (Editors) (1996) Textbook of transpersonal psychiatry and psychology. (pp. 261–270). New York, NY, US: Basic Books, Inc.




 * Suny Series in Transpersonal and Humanistic Psychology


 * Svatmarama, Swami (1992) Hatha Yoga Pradipika. London: The Aquarian Press, An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers. Translated by Elsy Becherer, foreword by B K S Iyengar, commentary by Hans Ulrich Rieker


 * Turner, Robert P.; Lukoff, David; Barnhouse, Ruth Tiffany & Lu Francis G. (1995) Religious or Spiritual Problem. A Culturally Sensitive Diagnostic Category in the DSM-IV. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,Vol.183, No. 7 435-444


 * Laue, Thorsten: Kundalini Yoga, Yogi Tee und das Wassermannzeitalter. Religionswissenschaftliche Einblicke in die Healthy, Happy, Holy Organization (3HO) des Yogi Bhajan, Münster: LIT, 2007, ISBN 3825801403 (in German)
 * Muktananda, Swami (1978): Play Of Consciousness, Siddha Yoga Publications. ISBN 0-911307-81-8
 * Narayanananda, Swami. The Primal Power in Man or the Kundalini Shakti, N.U. Yoga Trust, Denmark, 1979, ISBN 87-87571-60-9 (6th rev. ed., (1st ed. 1950))
 * Sannella, Lee (1987): The Kundalini Experience, Integral Publishing, 1987, ISBN 0-9412-5529-9
 * Thomas, Kate., The Kundalini Phenomenon - the need for insight and spiritual authenticity, New Media Books, 2000.
 * Tweedie, I., Daughter of Fire: A Diary of a Spiritual Training with a Sufi Master, The Golden Sufi Center, 1995, ISBN 0-9634574-5-4
 * White, J, edt., Kundalini. Evolution and enlightenment, New York: Paragon House, 1990, ISBN 1-5577-8303-9
 * Sannella, Lee (1987): The Kundalini Experience, Integral Publishing, 1987, ISBN 0-9412-5529-9
 * Thomas, Kate., The Kundalini Phenomenon - the need for insight and spiritual authenticity, New Media Books, 2000.
 * Tweedie, I., Daughter of Fire: A Diary of a Spiritual Training with a Sufi Master, The Golden Sufi Center, 1995, ISBN 0-9634574-5-4
 * White, J, edt., Kundalini. Evolution and enlightenment, New York: Paragon House, 1990, ISBN 1-5577-8303-9

Sri Chinmoy
Kundalini Yoga: The Mother Power Excerpt from Kundalini: The Mother-Power by Sri Chinmoy. Insert it how and where?
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.88.145 (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody called this linkspam. I don't know why.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.79.242 (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sri Chinmoy There is a book: (1992) Kundalini: The Mother-Power - Aum Publications

This cannot be linkspam by definition. I insert the book.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.79.242 (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need more links. We need more material.   Please add appropriately sourced material. thanks.TheRingess (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't want to read Sri Chinmoys book and then geting deleted everything I write because there is some ban on him/it.

Is there?
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.194.249 (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A ban? That sounds counter to Wikipedia philosophy.  If Chinmoy is considered an authority on kundalini then I don't see why his/her material could not be added to the article.TheRingess (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include the book, you should find something relevant it has to say on the definition of Kundalini, then paraphrase it and catagorize the book as a citation reference. If it is being called "linkspam" it is probably because you are using a direct excerpt (rather than paraphrase), likely out of context (cramming it in where it doesn't fit), with your primary goal being a link to the book and author, rather than further clarification on the definition of Kundalini. Check your motives. (Bainst (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

Raise of the Kundalini
What is disputed is the claim that awakening of Kundalini is not a physical occurrence but something that consists exclusively of development in consciousness. Here is how this claim is supported by other contents on the same page. Swami Vivekananda writes:

"The arousing of kundalini is said to be the one and only way of attaining Divine Wisdom" Attaining wisdom is not a physical occurrence. We can further read that according to www.siddhayoga.org "a Siddha-Guru who awakens the kundalini shakti of his disciple through shaktipat". A blessing is also affecting "knowledge" and not the form of the body.

According to Sri Ramana Maharshi "Advaita teaches that Self-realization, enlightenment, God-consciousness, nirvana and Kundalini awakening are all the same" which are all terms reflecting the state of consciousness and nothing physical.

It is my understanding that the association of the "physical" aspect with Kundalini comes from Kundalini Syndrome experiences of some of the people who practiced this. Side effects of unfortunate practice can in fact be also of physical nature. There are various claims on internet that all kinds of evil, half crazy, painful or other experiences are a sign of (otherwise positive) Kundalini awakening.

If there is somebody, a school or philosophy that claims that Kundalini awakening is something physical, I think there should be at least one reference to support the suggestion of removing the claim that it is not physical. Simply removing claims because one does not understand (yet) serves no purpose, because that does not mean they make no sense to other people. Instead the article can be improved to make the topic more clear, but somehow it has to be first clear, what is that which is unclear? Atmapuri (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not provided any support for the statement that kundalini awakening "is not a physical occurrence" or that it consists "exclusively of development in consciousness". This appears to be very much a WP:OR theory of your own. I am therefore reverting. Gatoclass (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you say that? Is Self realization a physical occurrence? To say it is my own theory would not be right, because the statement has a referenced source and makes sense in the context of the article. Atmapuri (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The statement makes no sense at all in the context of the article or indeed with regard to the kundalini at all. Kundalini is an energy and by definition energy has a physical dimension and physical effects. Right here in this article you have an extended quote from Swami Vivekananda describing the passage of the kundalini in physiological terms, how can you possibly claim therefore that kundalini awakening is something which occurs "exclusively in consciousness"? Gatoclass (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. I see. What Swami Vivekanada talks about "in the symbolical language of the Yogis", this sentence is also in the same paragraph. You should not think, that I am trying to simply push something through. I am doing my best to edit in good faith. In the next sentence you can read "layer after layer of the mind becomes open and all the different visions and wonderful powers come to the Yogi". If these were to be physical developments in nature, then the rise of Kundalini from Muladhara (between the legs) through all other chakras before reaching the brain would have no effect on the mind, because energy still has not reached the brain. The shape of the human body itself is a pointer for the spirit to follow and understand. In Yogic tradition, it is frequently mentioned that we can get to know the Universe, if we get to know ourselves. (self realization). If that were to be physical occurrence, that could not happen, because the Universe can not fit inside ones body and one could not understand something which is outside by looking inside. It is the human body which is purposely created "by his image" (See the Bible), so that all the knowledge of the Universe can be realized by looking within. But, at the end, this is only knowledge, it exists only in the consciousness. We are going here down the path of countless people that studies Bible and other holy books and tried to understand, to unlock the secrets of its true meaning. And yet, some where blessed to understand, while others did not and many times those who were more powerful forced through a more "simple for the brain" interpretation and advertised it as the only truth. Things are not as simple and as material as they may look. Depending on the type of mind a person has, that is what he/she sees first. Most westerns when they saw Shiva Lingam first they though it is phallic symbol, but has nothing to do with it. In the same way there was a dire desire to oversimplify Yogic knowledge about Kundalini and to refuse the acceptance of the option that something could not be understood properly with the superior western intelligence. Atmapuri (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, I think we can skip this philosophical discussion. Let's get back to the point. Where is your source which states that kundalini awakening consists "exclusively of a development in consciousness" and "is not a physical occurrence"? If you have no source for these claims, they cannot stay in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How can we skip philosophical discussion on the philosophical topic? You read there to be a difference and some other people don't? The source and reference are clearly stated and are not of minor value to the others. You want to have more references? You are creating an artificial problem which exists only in your understanding of the subject and would like to hide those things you don't yet understand? Or how? If you are open to discussion, then we can resolve the issue. Currently you seem to be only pushing a POV. Atmapuri (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One more time - statements in articles must be attributable to reliable sources, per WP:V. If you have a source for these statements, then please quote the original source to me so that we can discuss them. If you have no source for the statements, then they have no place in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources in the lede of the article are according to the Vedanta and Advaita philosophy. This is important to mention, because this defines the context of the "reliable" source. Namely, you can not have a reliable source in particle physics giving opinion on ocean life. In the same way, reliable sources on Vedanta and Advaita can only include those, who are considered an authority on the subject by those who actually study and follow this teachings. Within Hinduism, the Vedanta and Advaita are followed by the seven Akharas established by Adi Shankaracharya. The Mahanirvani Akhara is considered one of the major ones. If you read the biography of the author for which you dispute source reliability, you will notice that he holds the highest title of Mahamandaleshwar in Hindusim as the memeber of Mahanirvani Akhara. His view is not the view of one yogi, but shared by all followers of Adi Shankaracharya. The Acharya of Panchayati Mahanirvani Akhara said during the Kumbha Mela 2010 in Haridwar that: "... there are many stars among Mahamandaleshwars of Vedanta but among them the very incredible star is Swami Maheshwarananda..." and other member of the governing body said "... Swami Vivekanada also went abroad, but the work of Swami Maheshwarananda is unexcelled... ". The 15min video from Haridwar recorded in Feb 2010 can be seen here.


 * You have mentioned before that you do not consider a Guru to be necessary for the practice of the Kundalini Yoga, which is an important part of the authentic teachings and that you don't feel to have the capacity to have a constructive discussion from the standpoint of Vedanta. Swami Vivekanada also followed Vedanta and Advaita and as explained before he clearly states to be talking in the "symbolic language of the Yogis". Atmapuri (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Atmapuri, I am not disputing the credentials of the yogis you mention. I am simply asking you to provide a quote from a source - any source - which states that awakening of the kundalini consists "exclusively of a development in consciousness" and "is not a physical occurrence". Since you've been unable to provide such a source in spite of being requested to do so on multiple occasions now, I can only assume you have no such source, in which case I am obliged to revert. Please do not revert again without supplying an appropriate source or I will be taking the matter further. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But the source is provided. Reference contains page number also. It is nearly equal to the exact words, but not the same otherwise it would be copyright violation. Atmapuri (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your reference, The Hidden Power in Humans, does not come up on a google search, and the ISBN appears not to exist. Can you correct the ISBN or point me to a site where I can verify these quotes? Gatoclass (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Publication ISBN numbers you can find here. The english version has -4 at the end and is cited correctly. I went to here and found multiple references and options to buy, but always shipping from India. I went to Google and tried their book search (never used before). I understand now, what you mean that you did not find it. There are multiple language versions listed by Google, but just not in English. It could be that because his activities are concentrated on Europe and not so much in US/British language space that this could be related. To my knowledge the book is not available on-line to read. Atmapuri (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay then, well how about posting a direct quote here, in context, so I can get a handle on what he is actually saying. Gatoclass (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can get the book in my hands on Monday evening and by Tuesday I can post the paragraph(s) in question here, but the book is still a book and you can only get exact insight, by actually having one, especially if this discussion is to continue :) Atmapuri (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are the two paragraphs in question:


 * Atmapuri (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Atmapuri (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this quote, Atmapuri. According to this source the raising of the kundalini is "not a physical occurrence" but "exclusively a development in conciousness". However it also states that we get "perceptions of cosmic vibrations and radiant energy". So my question is where do these perceptions come from, if not through our physical body? The awakening may not a physical occurrence but the experience can still be felt through the physical body. So I don't think it is right to say categorically that this is not a physical experience. Freelion (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the extended quote Atmapuri. However, I still believe the quote should not be included in the article.

The first point to make is that, from an enlightened POV, there is nothing but consciousness. The entire cosmos, presumably including the body, is just a manifestation or emanation of consciousness, according to Hindu philosophy. From the POV of Vedanta, likewise, the notion that there is a physical realm separate from the spiritual realm would probably be considered a dualistic error. And it's from this POV that Maheshwaranda is presumably speaking, because he is reputedly in that state where "everything is consciousness".

However, we cannot expect people unfamiliar with these concepts to grasp such nuances. This is a general purpose encyclopedia, most people coming to read this article will not be familiar with any of these esoteric concepts. The problem, basically, is that if you tell a Westerner that something occurs "exclusively in consciousness", he will assume it means it occurs exclusively in his head, because that is how most Westerners interpret the word. And that is transparently not the case with kundalini. Kundalini awakening affects the entire body, in all kinds of ways, it's not just an experience you have between your ears. This is why I feel we should not include a quote like this in the article - it's only going to utterly confuse and mislead most readers, which is obviously not an appropriate outcome. Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The body can only perceive the world through the five senses. Only the Atma or the consciousness has the ability of "perceptions of cosmic vibrations and radiant energy". That Atma may be incarnated in the body as Jiva-atma (soul) be without the body or even without the soul, when it is a part of the Paramatma (God). If the consciousness in the sentence would be meant in the context of Paramatma, the all pervading consciousness then we should know that the physical body is also a part of the Atma and the sentence would therefore read: "But its awakening is not an occurrence in consciousness; it consists exclusively of a development in consciousness." which of course makes no sense. The word consciousness in the second part of the sentence can only be interpreted as referring to the Jiva-atma. Atmapuri (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this: "According to Hindu philosophy, the entire cosmos, presumably including the body, is just a manifestation or emanation of consciousness. From this point of view, the awakening of Kundalini is technically not a physical occurrence but consists exclusively of a development in consciousness. However, Kundalini awakening is also said to bring about changes which we can perceive, such as an increased awareness of cosmic vibrations and radiant energy." Freelion (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I put in a new reference which describes some physical sensations which accompany the raising of the Kundalini. Freelion (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Then I think you should also mention by whom and according to which school, because that is not generally acknowledged. Atmapuri (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Muktananda quotes
I used to have a little collection of books about spirituality back in the day, until one time when I lived in a share house and someone decided to help himself to them. I never bothered replacing them, but as it turns out, I still have one or two left which I'd forgotten I had. One of them is Swami Muktananda's Kundalini Stavah - a commentary by Muktananda on a well-known hymn to the Kundalini. In this little book, Muktananda writes at some length about the kundalini's impact upon the physical body and the senses. Allow me to quote a few short passages:

I think it should be clear from these passages that Muktananda is describing the ascent of kundalini as not merely a process of development in consciousness, but one which also affects and transforms the entire body and the physical senses. Indeed, he appears to be saying that it's this physical purification process which ultimately gives rise to the attendant transformation in consciousness. Gatoclass (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel we should be careful here because if we start adding everything, we may put in some things which contradict. For example, from what I've read - shaking uncontrollably, spontaneous yoga postures, visions etc happen as a result of spirit possession and specifically not as a result of kundalini awakening. I see now why previous editors have pushed the western interpretation... then again I suppose that's how Wikipedia works, by the democratic, judicious selection of info from various editors. Freelion (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Spirit possession? According to whom? Gatoclass (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have a reference, but have heard similar things. The main problem is that our current state of awareness is at the state of Muladhara Chakra. The number of levels above this, before we can reach self-realization, is as high as a nine story building and we are in the basement. Within every higher level one already can have the capabilities which can be described as "magic" and superhuman and those increase the higher one gets, but the highest level is very very high. The people who believed they achieved self-realization can be from any of those levels, with the pyramid getting smaller and smaller when going towards the top. The final consequence is an unbelievable mess of different beliefs. The actual number of self-realized people may be 100x or 1000x less, from the count of those, who believed they achieved it. And next to those are many who are also very high, but they know they did not achieved it yet. And everybody is publishing books. I think we should try to put together a lead which has substantial support from what we can agree to as reliable sources and then list specifics of various other beliefs in separate topics and such a way that everybody gets mentioned within their context and nobody can complain, unless they would want to hide the beliefs of others. From newer sources I consider Paramahansa Yogananda, Swami Vivekenanda] and [[Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda as the most noteworthy. Atmapuri (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have a reference, but have heard similar things


 * Well, what you've "heard" is of no interest to this project, the information here is based on what reliable sources have to say, not on hearsay.


 * As for listing "specifics of various other beliefs", we have to exercise caution there. Part of the problem with this whole field is that anybody can claim to be enlightened, and there are no formal credentials to prove one's attainment. Basically, we should try as much as possible to rely on what academic and scholarly sources have said about the subject. There may be some justification for citing this or that guru, but for the reasons given above, any such citation should be approached with caution. Gatoclass (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

References could be found if searched for it, that is what was meant with "heard". About academic view. The only reliable sources we have on Kundalini are Gurus. The only difference is the time and the place. Some sources are thousands of years old an some are new. Academic sources could only say what Gurus said and add their own level of misunderstanding (and like John Woodroof also abuse). Most academics are atheists and their view on something which is strictly religious topic can only be in the form misunderstanding, because their basic POV is already biased. I could not agree for a baker to comment on structural integrity either. If we would want an opinion about a specific passage in the Bible, we would also ask somebody who studied this and believes it. Atmapuri (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The only reliable sources we have on Kundalini are Gurus


 * But as I said, how does one distinguish a real guru from a phony? As you yourself said, there are many levels of attainment out there, and many people who have attained some level or another and think they are fully enlightened. How does one distinguish between them?


 * Basically, this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias rely upon what academic and scholarly sources say, not what self-identifying gurus have to say. And while I'm sure you are correct that academics like everyone else add "their own misunderstanding" to the field, that is also the case for people who read what the gurus themselves have to say. One cannot escape that particular problem until one is realized oneself.


 * The point about academic and scholarly sources however, is that they are sources who are trained in the study of the field, who have read widely on the subject, and who are likely to have the best intellectual grasp of it and to be able to write about it effectively. In any case, we have no choice, per wiki policies. Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The goal of encyclopedia is to present the human culture as it is, so that people can have an insight into various sections of it in the past and present. The problem with academics is that this is the population which has most atheists and this makes it nearly impossible for them to write something without a fairly strong bias. This is even more so, because God did not seem to care much about the level of intellectual achievements of those who were dear to him in any religion. This means that those who we do not consider academic, were given a much deeper insight in to the reality of our existence than the best scientists. How can now those who were, so to speak left behind, become the judge of that which they never qualified for? Religious academics are very rare and usually not widely accepted by their environment. This is quite simply a question of intellect and of the heart. One can never realize God with pure intellect. And once you take away the heart, you are left with ... nothing.


 * How to know who is the real Guru? That requires a blessing sometimes coming after many lives of pious living. When Jesus Christ walked this earth, he had only 12 people who decided to become his disciples. There are some general rules though: 1.) He is not self named or self made. He is recognized by his Guru and his Guru always comes first. 2.) He comes from a long Guru disciple tradition where all were honored and respected for their good deeds. Even Jesus was baptized. 3.) He works for piece and understanding among all nations, cultures and religions and in our days for the protection of the environment. Atmapuri (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well fine, but most of this is just your personal opinions, and little if any of it is relevant to this encyclopedia. Here we have rules about who and what are considered reliable sources and who are not, and academics, or people with tertiary qualifications in a relevant field, are considered the most reliable sources. Gatoclass (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you two think about compiling references from different gurus then... this guru says this about it, this guru says that about it...? Freelion (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So which gurus get to be quoted? There's a lot of them out there. It would be difficult to confine it to a representative sample, and in any case, we hardly need a quote farm. Gatoclass (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Gatoclass, there's definitely a lot of them out there but not all of them have something unique to say about kundalini. I'm proposing the inclusion of info about kundalini from various sources and in the case of them being contradictory, we can then attribute them to the source. So I'm not talking about a "quote fest" but specific information worked into the body of the article and inline quoting of the sources. For example - "There are many different reports about the physical effects of kundalini awakening. According to (someone) it results in physical shaking. According to (someone else) it results in a feeling of coolness on the palms. According to Hindu philosophy, the awakening of Kundalini is technically not a physical occurrence but consists exclusively of a development in consciousness" Freelion (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable suggestion, if the "some" would be able to reflect some weight as to how widespread this idea is in compare to others. There are two types of views which are important: the majority view (of those who are many) and the authority view (of those who are considered an expert). I think that the only way to avoid this analysis, which might be too hard to get a consent, would be to include various schools and somehow group them together according to commonly shared beliefs. I still think that "many" should get the right to be mentioned within their context. About: " and academics, or people with tertiary qualifications in a relevant field, are considered the most reliable sources. " I am not aware of any Wiki rule stating something like that. That would put POV right in to the root of the Wiki. Reliable sources in general are those who are considered reliable by editors for whatever reason. For some areas which are covered by science, this may be academics and academic rules to measure relevance. For areas not covered by science, they are not. Is there academic research on UFO's? Alien life on earth? There are subjects which are off the map of science, but not also off the map of existence and sometimes have a profound influence and presence in the society. Atmapuri (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are academic and scholarly writers for every notable topic, including religion and spirituality. As for Freelion's comments, the problem with his suggestion is that not all kundalini phenomena have the same degree of recognition. For example, the position of Sahaja Yoga that the sign of an awakened kundalini is "a feeling of coolness in the palms" is not supported by any other source that I am aware of and would thereby fall into the category of WP:FRINGE. Kundalini signs such as those described by Muktananda, on the other hand, have a lot of independent verification. Gatoclass (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I welcome the inclusion of all sources. If there are more sources which support the signs described by Muktananda, I don't think that's a problem. Sahaja Yoga would not fall under WP:FRINGE because there are other references which support the claimed effect of coolness on the palms, for example Judith Coney the sociologist noted that people independently report the feeling of coolness plus there has been medical research which has measured temperature on the palms of meditating subjects. I think it's great to include all the sources and very interesting that they are apparently contradictory. Good for the article. Freelion (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided any additional sources concerning the "coolness of the palms" theory. This is a marginal theory which AFAIK is only propounded by Sahaja Yogis. It's clearly a fringe view and as such probably doesn't belong in the article at all, certainly not in the prominent position you placed it. Gatoclass (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the link to the meditation research which found that meditators using Sahaja Yoga technique experienced a reduced temperature on the hands: http://www.researchingmeditation.org/blog/category/meditation/sahaja-yoga-meditation


 * Judith Coney the sociologist reported the same experience in the following reference which is used in the main Sahaja Yoga article: Judith Coney, Sahaja Yoga: Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement (1999) p55-56


 * So while this may be a "fringe view" it is definitely well documented.


 * Please explain your other deletion. Surely you could have reclarified instead of simply deleting the reference. Also the additional material in the introduction which is unreferenced!!! These are substantial changes Gatoclass which should have been discussed. Freelion (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'd appreciate it Freelion if you indented your replies properly, as it makes it more difficult to make sense of a thread when people indent randomly.


 * In regards to your sources - as I said, these so-called studies were done by Sahaja Yogis, it's the only school I know of which has this teaching, therefore it is WP:FRINGE. I'm not sure what you are referring to by "your other deletion".


 * As to the addition to the intro - I don't believe there is anything controversial about these statements as I have read the same thing again and again in dozens of publications. But if you feel the statements need a source, I suppose I can go and find one. Gatoclass (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've given you THREE independent references Gatoclass. The medical studies were published in the Journal of the International Society of Life Sciences. That should be enough to say it's not fringe. You have added something unreferenced because you read it somewhere...? Your standards are slipping man. The other deletion is related to Ibera Verlag pages 47, 48. We had previously discussed the inclusion of the words relating to the experience of kundalini awakening not being physical. Freelion (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are dozens and dozens of sources describing the physical manifestations of kundalini. Against these we have one random quote from one particular guru who says it is a development that occurs exclusively in consciousness. For a start, we don't really know what this particular guru's complete teachings are, and secondly, we should not be presenting minority views as if they were mainstream.


 * As for your "three independent references" - IIRC you have provided only two, and neither of them are independent - they are studies carried out by Sahaja yogis. You have not provided independent sources, and as I said, we cannot present fringe views as if they are mainstream. Gatoclass (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The references are independent of each other. The founder of the technique claimed it, a sociologist observed it and medical research has proven it. It doesn't matter whether or not the medical studies included work by practitioners because the results were published in a scientific journal and should be judged on their own merits. A scientific journal is a reliable source according to the rules.


 * Let's include various accounts of the physical manifestations of kundalini. As I said before, this would be good for the article, even if they appear to be contradictory. Our job is only to include reliable sources and use a bit of editorial license. Freelion (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because something appears in a scientific or pseudo-scientific journal does not mean that the study has been peer-reviewed or that it is somehow validated. If you've followed the debate over TM at all, you would know that group has had hundreds of studies published by journals and that independent scientists have nonetheless dismissed the majority of them as worthless.


 * In the case of this particular study you refer to, it was not independent but carried out by Sahaja yogis and its methodology was plainly flawed. Moreover, it demonstrated absolutely nothing about a connection between kundalini awakening and cool hands - I don't think the word "kundalini" was even mentioned.


 * In regards to your comment about including various accounts, I can concur with that, but as I've said they must be presented with a mind to policies such as WP:UNDUE. One cannot present fringe or minority views in an article which doesn't even mention the mainstream view, because it gives a completely distorted picture. The mainstream view must be presented before any such additions can even be considered. Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope that you can demonstrate that this study is flawed, because otherwise this is only your own opinion. If you can find another reliable source which disputes the findings or demonstrates that the methodology is flawed, you are welcome to use them. Otherwise you have no reason to reject this as a reliable source.


 * There is a clear connection between kundalini and cool hands in that the technique studied is well known to be based on the experience of kundalini awakening.


 * As you have left the article, there is currently no mention of the physical effects of kundalini awakening - mainstream or otherwise. There were previously two references in relation to the physical effects. If you believe that these represent only fringe views then you are welcome to add more mainstream references on the subject. Otherwise leave the paragraph as it was. Freelion (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is "only my own opinion" that the study is flawed, but anyone with common sense would be likely to come to the same conclusion. But in any case, that is not the central issue, the point is that this is not an independent study and you have still not provided any independent support for these claims. Per policy, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and a trifling ten-minute study done by Sahaja yogis and published in an obscure parapsychology journal is not remotely sufficient support.


 * Regarding the "exclusively in consciousness" statement, again it's a fringe claim with no independent corroboration which contradicts countless other sources, so it shouldn't be in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The physical effects of kundalini awakening
Let's put this into its own topic Gatoclass. Regarding the following:

The awakening is not a physical occurrence but consists exclusively of a development in consciousness. Kundalini awakening brings increased perception of cosmic vibrations and radiant energy. Understanding of the connections and laws within the universe deepens. According to Nirmala Srivastava however a cool breeze is felt on the fingertips as well as on the fontanel bone area.

May I remind you that the above was arrived at through collaboration and agreement between you, me and Atmapuri. You have removed this whole paragraph arbitrarily using the argument that they are exceptional claims.

I have provided two additional references which support the statement that coolness results from the Sahaja Yoga technique. You are obstructing the addition of these references which meet the requirements of Wikipedia policy.

It's only your Original research which says the above are exceptional claims. Instead of deleting them you should instead be adding your so called "mainstream" references. The article now contains no references related to the physical effects of kundalini awakening.

Previously on the talk page you were OK with the inclusion of different reports even if they were contradictory. The previously agreed-to copy should be restored and further changes should be discussed. Freelion (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't recall ever "agreeing" to these edits. At most I temporarily acquiesced in them, probably because I had other things to get done. I have a huge amount of things on my wikipedia to-do list ATM.


 * Per your references, as I said they are in-house and you need to produce some independent sourcing. Per the rest, as I said there has been no corroboration of the claim that the awakening occurs exclusively in consciousness either, and it appears to contradict numerous other sources. The statement about "cosmic vibrations" and so on is jargon.


 * I agree that I need to add some information on more mainstream views. I just haven't got around to it yet, as I've said I don't have much time to dedicate to this topic ATM. Another problem is that there are so many sources one could use that it's hard to make a choice about which one is best. I guess I could temporarily add a couple of sources at random and perhaps make some more careful choices later. Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added some more material to the article. I will add some more sourcing for it later. Gatoclass (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How is the Journal of the International Society of Life Sciences not a reliable source? We're not talking about Wellbeing magazine or any popular press. This is a report of a clinical trial which indicates the same results as have been claimed by the two other sources that I have provided. I don't understand how you can say they are in-house.


 * The physical effects that you have included are also referred to on the Kundalini syndrome page. And these are also said to be the result of improper awakening of the kundalini. So it could be they are not the true effects. Why not include the three new references as an alternative view? Instead of outright rejecting of the references we should be talking about the appropriate wording. Freelion (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how reliable the Journal is - as a parapsychology journal, probably not very - but the point is that it's not an independent study, it's a study that was done by Sahaja yogis. Re the kundalini signs, there are plenty of refs for them, I just added the Yoga Journal one because I thought it was a reasonably good summary, but there are more refs that could be added yet. My edit was really only intended to be a temporary fix until I can spend a little more time on the article in any case, as I said I have a lot on my to-do list at the moment. Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How can you say that it's not independent? From the report I can see that it was done in a university laboratory under supervision by qualified researchers who were unaffiliated with the practitioners. In any case, as editors we are not supposed to make this kind of call. We are only supposed to judge the reliability of the source which is scientific and appears to be fine. You state that you don't know how reliable it is so I have to ask why are you questioning the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelion (talk • contribs) 01:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just created a new section called Physical Effects and added in three new references. Please discuss the reliability of the sources not the content before removing. As mentioned we are in no position to make judgements on the research, only to report it in the right context. If you believe that this is a minority view, please discuss the wording because the references still deserve a place in the article. Freelion (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Still WP:UNDUE. I'm not going to revert this immediately, but I may refactor this section when I can find the time. Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for not deleting the references. I agree that the wording could be changed to add proper context or to take away any undue prominance which I may have given it. I will study the WP:UNDUE article. Freelion (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yoga project
--Yoga Mat (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Vedanta view on Kundalini, Tantra and Sex
i find this section quite confusing. i'd suggest someone in the know rewrite it, or perhaps just add a few concluding sentences to more clearly explain the "vedanta view on kundalini, tantra and sex". best, k kisses 19:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's not useful, but it's probably not doing much harm either and so I've left it there for the time being. Gatoclass (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't kundalini just orgasms without ejaculation and holding of the breath? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.182.113 (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A problem?
Atmapuri added the following:

"Physical effects are believed to be a sign of kundalini awakening by some, but described as unwanted side effects pointing to a problem rather than progress by others." This is a very dubious claim, please provide a quote to verify it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it has been discussed to great depths that some people believe one way and others the other. Clearly, one reference says one thing and the other another. I still believe that both views should be presented, especially if properly referenced. People can make up their own mind. Atmapuri (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, please provide a quote from a reliable source which states that these effects "point to a problem rather than progress". If you don't have a source, the claim cannot stay in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comparison to other religions systems
The heading "Comparison to other religions systems" implies that Kundalini is a religious system, which it is not. Some of the terminology used to describe the Kundalini experience comes from Hinduism, but Kundalini is not a part of Hinduism. The Kundalini phenomenon, the chakras, and the nadis, have also been described in other cultural and religious traditions.

84.215.128.216 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Jose Fernando Alvarez  jfa2 [at] cornell [dot] edu

Good Article
Whoever has written this article must receive applauds. S/he is the knower of the subject in depth and has good experience in this field. Sarleya220.255.1.29 (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comparison with vajrayana section
213.235.233.85 (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC) i think there is something wrong in the 'comparison with vajrayana' part...'red bodhicitta' and 'white bodhicitta'. as far as i know there is no such thing. relative bodhicitta is the resolve to reach enlightenment for the benefit of all beings; absolute boddhicitta is compassion without anything towards one is being compassionate which rises through realization of emptiness. the term i think would be correct is 'tigle' or 'chakra'.


 * I don't know about red and white bodhicitta but the first paragraph sounds OK to me. However the next paragraph: "This practice of 'inner fire' is seen as a preliminary yoga to a further set of practices; obtaining the 'Illusory body', and obtaining the 'Clear Light', as well as practices such as dream yoga, and consciousness projection." does not seem to be about Kundalini so much as encouraging the reader to learn more about Buddhist practises. So I see this paragraph as furthering an editor's particular area of interest more than adding something to our knowledge of kundalini. Freelion (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Unintelligent deletions and reversions is the same as vandalism
BrahmanAdvaita and Atiyogafan, please try and contribute more intelligently by doing more than simply making broadside additions, deletions and reversions. I have restored the article to how it was before Atiyogafan made his/her sweeping changes which had no discussion. I have since made several improvements one at a time with detailed explanations. If you disagree with any of these, please address them individually and not just revert the whole lot. If you would like to make some additions, please do what I have done and make them one at a time with explanations so that they can be reviewed. You are both on notice for your unintelligent reversions and any continuation of this will be seen as vandalism. Freelion (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing non-RS material is not vandalism. And there clearly seems to be Consensus. Lastly, since Atiyogafan added high quality academic material, how can you accuse him/her of vandalism?  BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it was clearly unverifiable material I removed, as indicated in the edit summaries. Please see Verifiability.  Idle calls of Vandalism are simply amusing. Atiyogafan (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BrahmanAdvaita, please mention the reason in edit summary while reverting, like (unsourced, advertising etc), it is very helpful sometimes.
 * Freelion, a friendly suggestion, use the word "vandalism" carefully, or it is going to give you trouble.
 * Freelion, the revert you are talking about, I'll not comment on its content, but, I found some minor formatting errors, for example–
 * In your edit I saw those code :Active approach – hatha yoga
 * It should be EITHER  Active approach – hatha yoga  OR, I think better is start the line with a semicolon–  ;Active approach – hatha yoga  You have used  ...  tag at least four times.
 * Also, I am not sure why you used indent (colon) at the beginning of sentences! Not a big issue, but, if you ask me I'll suggest you not to use it, since every time I see indent in paragraphs, I think it is a quote (since the similar formatting is followed in quotes, blockquotes, cquotes etc). If you have any formatting related questions, you can ask me, I'll try to help! Best -- Tito Dutta  ✉  02:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the indenting advice Titodutta but I think there are more important issues at hand here at the moment. I have just restored the article to how it was before Atiyogafan and his buddy started this edit war. Let's recap. Atiyogafan made a whole lot of changes which did not have proper edit summaries nor any discussion leave alone consensus. You should try and reach some consensus here on the talk page rather than continually reverting these changes. To argue over the definition of vandalism is a joke. Edit warring is akin to vandalism and you shouldn't have to consult a dictionary or the Wikipedia book of rules to realise that.


 * I have undone Atiyogafan's massive changes because:
 * There were not proper edit summaries (ie massive changes with minimal explanation)
 * The changes were not discussed
 * They did not reflect any consensus


 * Since then I made some reorganisational changes in line with what TheRingess, a long standing editor of this article, has suggested. The changes that I made were one at a time and all had proper explanations. As I said above, if you would like to discuss these changes, please address them one at a time and don't simply revert the whole lot as BrahmanAdvaita keeps doing. If you would like to add additional material such as tongue pulling, please make a new topic here on the talk page first and seek consensus as this technique is obviously controversial.


 * Before doing anything – review what I have done and if you have a problem with it – discuss it here first – do not simply revert. Freelion (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you wrothscaptcha for reverting the page. We definitely have consensus. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * When you have not addressed any of the questions above, there is by definition: no consensus. I have merely taken it back to the last version which reflected consensus. Please review the points above and stop this edit war. Freelion (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have addressed. See above.  Your main issue is consensus, correct?  Well we have consensus.  Atiyogafan (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where have you addressed the issues that I have specifically listed above? Freelion (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You falsely accused people of vandalism. That was addressed.  You say there was no consensus.  That was addressed repeatedley.Atiyogafan (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm seeking admin action. Leave everything alone for now.  BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour for more responsible editors to join in on this discussion. But there is no need to stop talking in the meantime. To recap, I have reverted the article to the state it was in before Atiyogafan made wholesale sweeping changes with minimal edit summaries and no discussion. This is per the standard of Bold Revert Discuss cycle. If you are conscious of following Wikipedia guidelines, we are now in the discussion phase and should be discussing, not reverting. I have invited you Atiyogafan to remake your changes or discuss them one at a time to seek consensus. In the meantime, please review and comment on the present structure of the article because it's looking pretty neat even if I do say so myself. Freelion (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Gatoclass's deletion of all academic material from article
As an admin, why would Gatoclass delete the only material in the article that comes from actual PhD's in ancient studies? Atiyogafan (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm also baffled on that. Its the only section that references actual hatha yoga texts, and comes from a scholar.  Gatoclass obviously holds some kind of New Age interpretation of kundalini divorced from hatha yoga and pranayama. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I didn't know that yoga was fringe. Atiyogafan (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the book in question in front of me, so I have no way of evaluating the text. However, it appears to be an anthology of ancient texts rather than a treatise on the modern practice of yoga.

I have read quite a few books on kundalini and I cannot recall ever coming across the tongue-pulling exercise as a method of kundalini raising. I did once read, long ago, a text which recommended using a razor blade to shave back the part of the tongue that attaches to the lower palate, which supposedly assists one in extending the tongue up the nasal passage, but I've never seen that method corroborated either.

The traditional method of kundalini raising is receiving shaktipat through a Guru. Kundalini raising can also be achieved by chanting, meditation, hatha yoga and other forms of spiritual practice. The problem with the section in question as it currently stands is that it effectively presents "tongue pulling" as a primary means of kundalini raising when AFAIK it is a fringe practice which is virtually unheard of in modern yoga. The various recommended bhandas I have less of a problem with, but again, I think any section on methods of kundalini raising should present mainstream methods followed by less common methods in proportion to their representation in practice. Gatoclass (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: After a google search, I have come across a few sources that mention the tongue pulling exercise, as well as the tendon-shaving method, but I still see no evidence that these methods are in widespread use. Per WP:UNDUE, it is important that minority views are not presented as mainstream. The way the section is currently presented, anyone reading it might conclude that the primary means of kundalini raising is to yank one's tongue back and forth, a conclusion for which there is little if any evidence. Gatoclass (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not an anthology of ancient texts. Its a secondary work by an Oxford academic.  Shaktipat is not the traditional method of raising kundalini.  Moreover, we are merely presenting what the traditional texts say. Please respect the consensus.  Atiyogafan (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Shaktipat is not the traditional method of raising kundalini


 * That is just an assertion. You would need to demonstrate that with reliable sources. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass, you are relying on quite incorrect personal knowledge. Since you like Googling, please note there is a whole internet forum where people practice kechari mudra by first snipping the lingual frenum.  Its called Advanced Yoga Practices.  There are youtube videos on it as well.  It is mentioned in the most popular hatha yoga text, Hatha Yoga Pradipika. Yogananda brought American awareness to the method in the 1940's.  Tibetan yogis also touch the palate with the tongue in many practices.  Yet what does any of this have to do with Wikipedia policies? BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * An internet forum is not a reliable source. Also, the fact that such a forum exists does not prove the practice is mainstream; there are forums in support of practically any fringe belief.


 * As I do not want to spend too much time on this issue however, I am willing to propose a compromise for the present. I do not have any great objection to mention of kechari mudra or the other bhandas mentioned in the section; I just think the part referring to tongue pulling should go, as it appears to be a far from universally employed (or approved) method of achieving this mudra. And while I still have some misgivings about this information, it might be suitable for inclusion in the kechari mudra article itself provided it is not presented in a WP:UNDUE manner. I am still uncomfortable about the presentation of this section at the top of the article however as it implies these methods are more important than other methods. It would be more appropriate IMO to discuss all the methods in the same section, in proportion to their representation in sources. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not understanding. I have already supported my claims. An Oxford scholar is not a reliable source?  You are the one making the fringe claims citing Google.com  Atiyogafan (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How do I know you didn't simply cherry pick the info you liked from that book and ignore that which didn't suit you? How do I know that the scholar himself didn't cherry pick the info he preferred? Just because a statement is reliably sourced doesn't necessarily mean it can't be inaccurate or misleading. Giving undue weight to one particular POV (assuming it is even presented accurately) would obviously be a violation of policy. Gatoclass (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Gatoclass, you don't believe that the actual traditional Indian methods are far more important than modern "New Agish" ones? Moreover the section is titled "Medieval Texts". People are free to skip that, if they are not interested in the traditional approach. Borakai (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, what are the "actual traditional methods"? In my experience, most of the traditional texts emphasize the importance of the Guru. There are also the other methods of kundalini awakening such as chanting, meditation, hatha yoga and service to others. Emphasizing a handful of yoga postures over these broader methods seems to me to be almost by definition a case of WP:UNDUE. Gatoclass (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again relying on your personal unsubstantiated views? Unless you have some sort of reliable reference, you need to move on.  Most of the traditional texts do mention exactly what the section entails.  I already mentioned the Bible of hatha yoga, the Hatha Yoga Pradipika.  You can't get more mainstream than HYP.  BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, look, I have the flu at the moment and I'm really not up to a content debate. I will try to return to this debate in a few days when I am feeling better. Apologies for the inconvenience. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is my experience in reading this thread article and others of similar topic that Gatoglass brings a contentious and ambiguous POV with a very poorly informed underlying bias. Any "admin" who selectively sources google for some things, and then completely ignores PhDs and referenced materials... needs to be doing more yoga rather than spending his time on the computer making thing difficult for other people. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary, you and your numerous sockpuppets have been using Wikipedia as a promotional outlet and nothing else, that has got to stop. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)