Talk:Kundalini/Archive 3

POV and other concerns
(To explain why I added the maintenance tags) The existence of a "kundalini" is a spiritual belief, not fact, and it should be written about as such. Also the lead section is currently an incoherent mess. ("Kundalini literally means coiled. In yoga, a "corporeal energy" - an unconscious, instinctive or libidinal force or Shakti, lies coiled at the base of the spine.") — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with this . the style of the article is such that IT EXISTS. It should be changes to mean - It is a belief. Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have researched Kundalini extensively over the past ten years and I'm looking forward to contributing to this page. I am new to Wikipedia editing so please let me know if I am not following the correct etiquette.


 * In terms of kundalini being a spiritual belief rather than a fact, many people who have experienced Kundalini understand it as a biological phenomenon rather than a spiritual belief system. Restricting the description of Kundalini to 'a spiritual belief' undermines that position just as much as referring to it as 'a fact' undermines those who don't believe in it. Therefore I think we need to find a middle ground which acknowledges both viewpoints. I will draft up a new section about this when I get time.


 * I would also like to introduce the concept of Pranotthana, which is currently redirected (incorrectly) to the Wikipedia page for 'Prana'. In the Hindu traditions, Pranotthana is understood as being 'Kundalini lite', i.e. a set of experiences similar to kundalini awakening but without the full intensity or scope. Pep Busby (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Pep, thanks for your interest. I think what really needs to be done is rewriting the lead, specifically the first sentences, it really makes no sense right now. There should be some way to simply state "Kundalini is ..." and give its actual definition.


 * Also, no one said it's a "belief system". It's a thing, it's a concept, it's a real word, a symbol -- but most of that concept is comprised of unverifiable beliefs, like it being a part of a "subtle body", of it being a "dormant potential force", of it being "awakened" through meditation, of these symptoms being a good thing rather than a reason to turn to a doctor. Most of what the article writes about are simply beliefs, the rest is symbolic explanation and history. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Jeraphine, your belief that kundalini is not real or not proven is just that – your belief. It is not your position as Wikipedia editor to challenge the existence of kundalini by saying it is unverifiable. Your job is to confirm whether or not the statements made in this article reflect what has been said by reliable sources. If you find that there is any discrepancy, please state it, otherwise the POV template should be removed. Freelion (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the sentence in the intro makes perfect sense to me. If you can come up with a better suggestion, please offer it instead of adding these tags which discredit the article. Freelion (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That the Kundalini Syndrom exists, there is no doubt of that; there were enough clinical descriptions in the psychological literature to back up this assertion. I agree with Jeraphine that the interpretation of the "symptoms" in term of coiled snake, subtle energy, Shakti marrying Shiva, etc... is a matter of belief system. The fact is, there is currently no uncontroversible explanation in modern scientific terms of this phenomenon; it certainly should deserve more attention from academic research, but it doesn't. 188.104.213.172 (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * sheesh, this is not "a belief", it is a very specific technical term in the vocabulary of Yoga as it developed in c. the 16th century. You cannot have a technical discussion without assuming the reader is familiar with the topic's basic. This page is supposed to give a technical discussin within the framework of yoga, and not lose itself over musing whether Yoga, and its technical concepts, are "beliefs" or if they "exist".


 * That said, this article is of course completely broken and would profit from WP:TNT, start over and write it as a technical article you would expect in an encyclopedia, not some online dumping ground of assorted google results. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the article is broken at all. Try some TLC instead of TNT. Freelion (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Page move
Specifically, i am moving Kundalini to Kundalini energy per Primary Dab, even tho i am aware that "Kundalini" means the energy while "Kundalini yoga" is a derivative term. As the guideline makes clear, it is more important in cases like this one for titles to reflect common usage than authoritative usage. In this case, there are far more people aware that "Kundalini" is likely to be used as a term for a type or school of yoga than are aware that that yoga is called "Kundalini" solely bcz it is intended to make use of the energy called "Kundalini". I am aware that Kundalini (energy) could arguably be preferred (as avoiding a redundancy like Water (aqueous). Dab-title criteria specify using the parenthetical for a dab'd title only when there is no short way of making the distinction w/o it (it's always a touch jarring, arguably ugly). But if the "Kundalini energy" title is unsatisfactory to people who are able to contribute substance to the aricle (i can't), and i am asked to, i will join any name-change discussion long enuf to say that i, as the proposer of the title, find the guidelines' preference too weak to dictate the title if Kundalini cognoscenti prefer the parenthesized version.
 * Without taking back any of the foregoing, i found as i previewed before saving it, that the title i am moving the article to is already a RDR to the article, so the likelihood that reading what i just struck thru would waste colleague's time is much higher than i anticipated. (But the offer still stands.) --Jerzy•t 01:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Jerzy, I really don't understand why you did this. There is no need for disambiguation as there is only one definition of kundalini. The other uses (kundalini yoga and a book about kundalini) are derivative as you said. They could simply be referred to in the 'see also' section. There has been no discussion with other editors about this major change and I believe it has created more confusion than anything else. I ask that you change it back to how it was. Freelion (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (The preceding contrib (unlike what follows) is actually what its sig says: a contrib made here by User:Freelion when the timestamp says it was. --Jerzy•t 03:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC))
 * Before i put the pink box around it, what is inside the following pink box purported itself to consist of contributions made on this page by me and by User:Freelion, and thus to have been written in that context. In fact they are (at least) approximate contribs by the two of us, but not on this page that is currently named Talk:Kundalini energy. I am not claiming (nor denying) that any intentional falsification is involved, but Freelion presumably gave no thot to the potential for confusion, especially as effected by change of context.


 * Strikethru is a useful mechanism for signaling the presence of offtopic discussion without making it significantly less accessible.--Jerzy•t 03:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jerzy, in response to your action I originally posted the following (repeated from above):
 * Jerzy, I really don't understand why you did this. There is no need for disambiguation as there is only one definition of kundalini. The other uses (kundalini yoga and a book about kundalini) are derivative as you said. They could simply be referred to in the 'see also' section. There has been no discussion with other editors about this major change and I believe it has created more confusion than anything else. I ask that you change it back to how it was.
 * Discussion on someone's talk page is not the proper place to have decided on this action - there should have been a discussion on this talk page. Could you explain, with reference to my points above and in plain English why you think the term needs to be disambiguated? Freelion (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC) & Jerzy•t 03:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No decisions were made on any user talk pages. I don't feel a need to continue User:Jerzy, but if you want to, i'll explain to you there how you caused all your location problems. --Jerzy•t 03:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, what you ask is easier than a plain English discussion of how an H-bomb works, and i'll try. You've offered your opinion that "there is only one definition of kundalini". (I assume that in a sense that is true -- much like a Catholic and a Muslim would each say "there is only one definition of God".) But your confidence in that notion is not relevant, bcz that is not the criterion for determining a primary topic.  If you want plain English, tho, i've been around the block enuf times to justify more than average confidence in my common sense, and i also know (when challenged) that doing a quick experiment is invaluable. As to the first, i've known enuf for decades to realize that only one in ten or a hundred Americans would understand (from a description of it that avoided the word "yoga") that karma yoga is a form of yoga; as to the second, i asked at least 4, probably 5, intelligent people with broad interests "What is kundalini?" One said "it sounds Indian", two said "a form of yoga", and the rest said they had no idea. I think one of those who said "yoga" said something like "Is that the yoga you do in a really hot room?" -- a question i can cope with only to the extent of wondering whether it is they or i who is inclined to confuse bikram yoga with kundalini yoga, and not to the extent of expressing an opinion on it.    Please do note that it is entirely Dab issues that i am concerned with here: they are
 * the titles of the articles, and (implicitly) the need to make a clear reference, in the lead sent, to the given article's title.
 * For instance, i would assume that a Kundalini (energy) or Kundalini energy article would have a lead beginning something like
 * Kundalini (sometimes called Kundalini energy to avoid confusion on the part of those who are aware of Kundalini yoga but not of its foundations) is ...
 * and conversely that the yoga-focused Kundalini or Kundalini yoga article's lead would begin something like
 * Kundalini yoga (sometimes called simply Kundalini by those unaware that Kundalini is a Sanskrit term for a metaphysical ...) is ....
 * The Dab considerations do not preclude, as long as confusion is avoidable, using the more generic term thruout the rest of the article, nor in fact (as above) in the lead sentence once the title has "been paid off". Similarly, links from other articles to either the yoga page or the energy should point to the actual page name, but can be piped so the rendered link is labelled simply "Kundalini", as long as the article or phrase in which it appears will not confuse the reader.    I respect your obviously much greater knowledge of all the kundalini-related topics, and would be very unlikely to edit these articles in any other regard. --Jerzy•t 03:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You expressed urgency on my talk page about reversing the renaming of at least one page. (Which one is not important to this discussion.) Please be clear on one hand that WP:Cut-and-paste moves are a terrible mistake whose correction produces much wasted effort, and that reversing an orthodox but mistaken move is generally impossible without admin status.  On the other hand, if for some reason there's a clear decision that i've gone wrong, i stand ready to do the task, and having made the move, i should need less study to reverse it. --Jerzy•t 03:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jerzy, your comparison of kundalini with God does not hold water since you will find only one article called 'God' on Wikipedia, despite there being many different descriptions and conflicting beliefs about the subject. Similarly, there is only one topic of 'kundalini' and there should only be one article for it.


 * The other articles on your disambiguation page are Kundalini yoga and someone's book about their experiences with Kundalini. These can both be referred to in the article in the 'see also' section. The book could perhaps even be used as a reference.


 * Kundalini yoga is a technique devised to awaken the kundalini. It is a separate thing like wood and woodworking. Is there a disambiguation between wood and woodworking? Do people get them easily confused? No, of course not. For your information, kundalini yoga is not ever simply referred to as kundalini and I can't imagine where you got that idea from - maybe from your own research with people who have never heard of the subject?


 * A book about kundalini could perhaps be used as a reliable source for the subject. If you are going to make a disambiguation page for every book on a subject then where will we be? It's just ridiculous.


 * The urgency in reversion of this change that you have inferred is related to the Bold revert discuss cycle guideline. You've made a change, I would like to revert it so we can discuss it. I'm glad that you have offered your assistance to revert your change and I ask that in the light of the fact that I have legitimate arguments against your change, you revert it immediately so we can go on and discuss your proposal. Freelion (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification
I cleaned up the opening sections of both kundalini yoga and kundalini energy (which may of may have gotten yet another name switch by the time you read this) in hopes that having clear delineations of these terms with references to support them will help keep the peace in Kunaliniland. If readers/editors are still confused about the difference between kundalini(energy) and kundalini yoga, I suggest comparing qi to qigong: one talks about energy and the other about a practice of tapping into that energy. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Another analogy: electricity and alternating current. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for some more examples Morganfitzp, of related articles which do not need a disambiguation page - very similar to the example I made in the above section (of wood and woodworking). Is there any debate now about the lack of need for a disambiguation page for kundalini and kundalini yoga? Does anyone have any objection if Jerzy does not undo it, that I contact an administrator to revert the disambiguation page? Freelion (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A disambiguation page for kundalini is useful: the word serves as shorthand for several different things. At the yoga studio in my neighborhood, the word "kundalini" simply appears on the schedule and most people have no idea what it means.  They might turn to Wikipedia and see an article about a kind of energy that's "purported to be coiled at the base of the spine like a serpent," but what they're really looking for is an article about Kundalini Yoga.  Morganfitzp (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (An aside: This topic has been ironically contentious for something that's supposed to lead to inner harmony and bliss!) Morganfitzp (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking over the posts and the articles, it seems to me that there should be one page called Kundalini which includes all aspects within the article. A person doing research will see Kundalini Yoga listed at the top and can then just choose to read about that.  There is no need to have many pages. If we did that here, can you imagine if every subject in Wikipedia did that, Wikipedia would become completely unorganized.  Better to keep all the information under one page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand where you are coming from Red Rose, but I believe Kundalini Yoga still deserves its own article, just like the other branches of yoga mentioned in the article which seek to awaken the kundalini. Kundalini yoga is almost a brand name associated with a particular yoga school. Other schools referred to in the body of the Kundalini (energy) article include Kriya yoga and Sahaja Yoga which both have their own articles. That's another problem with the disambiguation page - it implies there is only one yoga school for this subject.


 * Morganfitzp, we can't have the subjects on Wikipedia organised according to the shorthand of a yoga studio in your neighbourhood! :-) Neither should we organise the subjects based on an assumed common misconception of the subject based on our own research. Which other Wikipedia article does that?


 * As you stated correctly before - kundalini is the energy, kundalini yoga is a practice - like wood and woodworking, qi and qigong. They do not have disambiguation pages. Let's stick to the facts and not organise articles based on any assumed misunderstanding. Freelion (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * One key difference: Just about every English speaker knows what wood is, very few know what kundalini is. That there's so much debate about it on Wikipedia is a testament to that.  Morganfitzp (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Morganfitzp, if not many people know about Kundalini then what are we (as Wikipedia editors) in the business of doing - providing people the correct and most useful definition of the term or providing them information based on (and confirming) a misinterpretation that you assume they have already made? Clearly, it would be counter productive to make different rules according to our assumptions about the general knowledge of the subject. Wikipedia works as much as possible to provide correctness, so I think the comparison with wood and woodworking is quite valid. Freelion (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. While consensus is hardly overwhelming, a majority of editors seem to think the unilateral move of this page was hasty, so consider this the R in WP:BRD. No prejudice against a future request against a primary topic for Kundalini. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

– This disambiguation page was created without any discussion or consensus on the talk page. The current discussion on this talk page in the above two sections only began after the disambiguation page was created. According to the Bold revert discuss cycle guideline, the disambiguation page should be undone until consensus can be reached on the talk page. Freelion (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Kundalini energy → Kundalini
 * Kundalini → Kundalini (disambiguation)


 * Agree. I agree with reverting the disambiguation page back to Kundalini with all other page titles being addressed in the one article Kundalini. Kundalini being the main subject with Kundalini energy and Kundalini yoga and perhaps even Kundalini syndrome as subtopics. It would be unorganized otherwise. It confused me when I searched for Kundalini and came across the disabiguation page and wondered why it wasn't all on one page. Kundalini is clearly the primary topic with everything else listed under it. Kundalini energy or kundalini yoga or kundalini awakening or kundalini meditation etc... would not exist without Kundalini. It makes complete logical sense that Kundalini is the primary topic. To split this into separate pages doesn't make sense. If the page was extremely long and impossible to read...perhaps then it would be a good idea to split the page apart. I agree revert and have one page called KundaliniRed Rose 13 (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I suspect that the yoga discipline is better known in English than the philosophical premises underpinning the yoga discipline, but I think in this case it's useful to present a searcher with both terms, since it is slightly ambiguous. It does not help that both articles avoid presenting the reader with an immediate link to the other concept. 168.12.16.14 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as per the above. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. Anyone who knows the subject can tell you that Kundalini is the primary topic. If I could suggest a compromise, rename the disambiguation page to "kundalini (disambiguation)", re-instate "kundalini (energy)" back to "Kundalini" and include a hatnote saying "for other uses see...Kundalini (dismbiguation)". Freelion (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - "Kundalini" and "kundalini energy" mean essentially the same thing. When reference is made to "kundalini" or "the kundalini" it means "kundalini energy", it certainly doesn't mean "kundalini yoga", nobody says "I do kundalini" meaning "I do kundalini yoga". I don't think there can be any doubt that "Kundalini", meaning kundalini energy, is the primary topic from which all the others are derived, and it should clearly be listed as such IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Among yogis, people do say, "I practice Kundalini." Even in books about Kundalini, the energy principle is described, followed by the practice—i.e., kundalini yoga, whether that's "kundalini" (with a lower-case "k") or Kundalini (with a capital "K").  The principle and the practice are esoteric enough in the West (and even in the East) that it's the practice (kundalini yoga) that is more visible, and that's what most people are looking for when they run a search for kundalini.  Morganfitzp (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The only way the statement "I practice kundalini" would ever make sense would be in response to the question "What kind of yoga do you practice?" No-one would say "I practice kundalini" when asked, for example, what their hobbies are, because it wouldn't make any sense. "Kundalini" is not a practice, it's an energy. The difference between "kundalini" and "kundalini yoga" is as the difference between "bread" and "breadmaking", kundalini is the bread and therefore the primary topic, kundalini yoga is the breadmaking and belongs on the disambiguation page along with all the other derivatives of the primary topic. Gatoclass (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. And baking and yoga are two different practices (usually—I know someone who teaches combination yoga/breadmaking workshops) with two different vocabularies, each with its own linguistic ambiguities: The inquiry, "I see that you're dressed in white. What do you do?" could be answered, "I'm a baker," or, "I'm a Kundalini practitioner" without any mention of bread or yoga.  The big difference here is that bread and baking are more common than kundalini in our current lexicon.  When someone sees the word "kundalini" and asks what it is, more often than not the correct answer for what they're actually asking about is, "It's a style of yoga," even though kundalini is, theoretically, a form of energy.  Morganfitzp (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, kundalini is not primarily "a style of yoga", kundalini yogas exist to awaken and maintain kundalini energy, that is the reason for their existence, if there was no kundalini energy there would be no kundalini yogas. You cannot understand kundalini yoga without understanding what the kundalini itself is, it ought to be patently obvious in such a circumstance that kundalini yoga is inevitably a secondary topic. Gatoclass (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That there has been so much debate about this topic (beyond this teensy thread here) only emphasizes the need for Kundalini to be a disambiguation page. Morganfitzp (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The voting is what will determine the outcome.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE --dab (𒁳) 19:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * don't care. Guys, it's no big deal, "Kundalini" can be the dab page, or this can be the "primary topic" where "Kundalini" redirects to, then with a otheruses template here. Both possibilities are arguable, and fine. Please focus on improving actual article content instead, which would be much more sorely needed. --dab (𒁳) 19:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually dab, it is a big deal. The creation of the disambiguation page was done without discussion and it is now obviously being opposed. Therefore, according to Bold revert discuss cycle, it should be reverted and discussed. Administrator rights are necessary to do this. Freelion (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any reliable sources making the mistake of using The word "kundalini" when they mean "kundalini yoga". There is no confusion of these two terms used by reliable sources. I agree with Gatoclass - "kundalini" is the thing and "kundalini yoga" is what you do with the thing. Exactly like "bread" and "bread making" or "wood" and "wood working"; two articles which do not need disambiguation. The only debate and confusion is asserted by Morganfitzp and this seems to be based on his/her original research. Freelion (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The appeal to metaphysical arguments about kundalini is one thing, and the methodology prescribed by WP:Primary topic is another thing, poles apart from it, bcz the project exists for the benefit of ordinary users, not to placate the paradigms of experts in a narrow area. --Jerzy•t 11:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. "Kundalini energy" is a new-agism. The topic is kundalini. And kundalini yoga is derivative. It is not the primary topic of kundalini in any way, shape, or form, but rather a practice that is based on kundalini, and it is an abuse of primary topic to suggest it is, since they don't have the same name!. On top of that, kundalini is used throughout both Eastern and Western occultism, and has been since Woodroffe. It is by far the most common usage for the term. Yworo (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment:
 * FL believes i am in the wrong for having done the move without consensus, but unless the move-tangled history needs to be checked further, it appears that Mfzp created a Dab Kundalini de novo at 18:04, 7 January 2013, in full compliance with the primary topic guideline which states "If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page", which is also referred to "equal disambiguation" (with the sense of equal being that all the topics are treated equally in being denied the unqualified title, rather than in the sense that each topic is equally significant).  What i may have negligently described as a "clear methodology" for determining if a primary topic exists is actually more of a consensus process whose details vary according to the "claimants" for the title. I have not inspected the history to determine whether the conversion from equal to having the energy primary (as the supporters of the move seek to re-achieve) was based on a consensus informed by the primary topic guideline's spectrum of two aspects and three supporting tools, but i conjecture that FL overrode Mfzp's default "no primary topic" judgment with much the same cavalier attitude that FL attributes to me, and redress of failure to reach consensus at any point may well be the correct action here.   IMO there are thus two arguments for a broader discussion:
 * 1) a judgment by Mfzp was made that no primary topic exists, and we may be awaiting the first consensus that there is one;
 * 2) a perhaps weaker argument that the lack of current consensus on any primary is functionally equivalent to a consensus that there is indeed no primary topic, and thus basis for equal dabn.
 * I am not inclined to try to compile the evidence that Kundalini, the yoga is primary topic, and if such evidence is not presented, i would readily support equal disambiguation.  Speaking only for myself, i believe the evidence of the three tools can be expected to point to kundalini, the yoga, as the primary topic, but the current lack of consensus is a strong argument for equal disambiguation, whether or not Mfzp's January draft is indeed the first disambiguation that acknowledged the 3- (and by now 4-fold) ambiguity of "Kundalini".  (Tatva Kundalini leaves me confused whether for him "Kundalini" is his latter name, or whether Tatva is in some sense equivalent to "Tat Tvam Asi" and "Tatva Kundalini" thus something distinct from a name or title of a person.) --Jerzy•t 11:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am astonished that Jerzy has tried to dismiss the arguments made so far by calling them "metaphysical". If you read them carefully Jerzy, I'm sure you will find they are straight forward and uncomplicated. Please participate in the discussion constructively by addressing the previous arguments by name instead of simply dismissing them with rhetoric.


 * Jerzy and Morganfitzp may well have followed the rules for creating a disambiguation page, that is not disputed. What is disputed is that the disambiguation page was made unnecessarily and with no prior discussion on this talk page. In light of the objections it is clear that the action needs to be reversed as per the Bold revert discuss cycle guideline. This should be done first, followed by discussion. Jerzy, this is certainly not the first time I've mentioned this to you, and you have ignored it again. Jerzy for an administrator, frankly I'm disappointed and I can't imagine why you have chosen not to follow Wikipedia policy on this.


 * Even


 * but still refers to a "lack of consensus". Where is this lack of consensus exactly? Is he referring to Morganfitzp's personal assertions? As stated above, personal assertions are not relevant - they come under the title of "original research". So if we include Jerzy, that makes 4 editors so far who agree that "Kundalini" is the primary topic. This is starting to look like a consensus to me.


 * To repeat my proposed compromise: rename the disambiguation page to "kundalini (disambiguation)", re-instate "kundalini (energy)" back to "Kundalini" and include a hatnote saying "for other uses see...Kundalini (dismbiguation)". Freelion (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Accusations aside, folks who look up kundalini can (for now) easily access all of the things that kundalini could mean: a book title, an energy, a film composer, a style of yoga, a syndrome—and that's a great thing. Why sweep something under the Wiki-rug just because it's newer, new age-ier, or someone just doesn't particularly like it?  The whole kaboodle of kundalini articles has been peppered by editing wars for far too long.  Let's keep kundalini dab-style and the wool out of the Wiki-users' eyes.  Morganfitzp (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And for some past discussion on the topic see Talk:Kundalini yoga. Peace.   Morganfitzp (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Freelion, it becomes harder and harder to consider you a serious discussant. I think i have clearly and repeatedly stated that i believe Kundalini yoga is the primary topic for the term "Kundalini"; perhaps you have managed to confuse yourself by continuing to say "kundalini" for the energy, as if you are not trying to communicate with anyone who sees it differently from your way, or fail to understand that construction of a wiki encyclopedia has proven the necessity of a great many policies, guidelines, and ways of thot that you are unlikely to have encountered elsewhere.
 * You say "Jerzy admits that Kundalini should be the primary topic", which cannot be a contribution to the discussion: it is either (A) false or (B) a tautology.
 * (A) I believe that Kundalini yoga is, and should be, the primary topic for the term "Kundalini", and therefore that Kundalini energy (which is to say the energy that you like to call "Kundalini" without qualification, and which i assume is likely to be the sole meaning of "Kundalini" in Sanskrit), and if you mean to say that i made some statement indicating i approve or approved having the energy as primary topic for the term "Kundalini", i expect you to point out to me what made you draw that conclusion, so i can annotate it avoid further misapprehension of my statements and position.
 * (B) It is a strongly established fact that Wikipedia wants "Kundalini" to be used as the title
 * * of the article on whatever topic is determined to the primary topic of the term "Kundalini" (whether that topic is the energy called Kundalini, the yoga called Kundalini, the book called Kundalini ..., or something else), or
 * * of (in the event that there is no primary topic) of the disambiguation page for the term "Kundalini".
 * and in that no relevant information is conveyed by your statement, and you should endeavor to avoid such confusing or misleading statements in future.
 * (I shall continue this response, but interrupt it for now, having noted and addressed a more serious problem in this talk section.) --Jerzy•t 06:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I just read the link you, Jerzy, gave for primary topic and after reading it, Kundalini is clearly the primary topic with everything else listed under it. Kundalini energy or kundalini yoga or kundalini awakening or kundalini meditation etc... would not exist without Kundalini. It makes complete logical sense that Kundalini is the primary topic. To split this into separate pages at this point doesn't make sense. If the page was extremely long and impossible to read...perhaps then it would be a good idea to split the page apart. I agree revert and have one page called Kundalini.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to summarise, we have 4 editors agreeing that "Kundalini" is the primary topic, therefore "Kundalini energy" should be reinstated as "Kundalini". The disambiguation page is unnecessary but we can keep it as "kundalini (disambiguation)" with a link from the primary article via a hatnote. There is only one editor disagreeing, that is Morganfitzp who was involved in making the disambiguation page in the first place. As mentioned above, in the event of disagreement, this should be undone as per the Bold revert discuss cycle guideline. Freelion (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have struck that contrib thru, since (see my response above to Freelion's 13:29, 14 October 2013 contrib in this section) the paragraph proceeds, in good faith, on a definitively false belief: my colleague must be "summarizing" in part the earlier contrib, where they stated that i was one of 4 so agreeing, and since i am not, it is unreasonable to credit the statement that there are 4. Doubtless they will welcome this prompt-as-possible flagging of the erroneous argument before misinformation propagates further; perhaps they will want to post below a more soundly based statement. --Jerzy•t 06:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies to Jerzy, I must have got the wrong impression. So to summarise, we have 3 editors agreeing that "Kundalini" is the primary topic. To be clear, those 3 editors disagree with the creation of the disambiguation page. As the disambiguation page was not discussed nor agreed to on this page prior to its creation, in the event that the change is challenged (and it is), the disambiguation page should be undone as per the Bold revert discuss cycle guideline. Freelion (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Um, wait, I !voted in favour of making "Kundalini" (the energy) the primary topic, I see no reason to get rid of the disambiguation page, I just think that it should be moved to "Kundalini (disambiguation)" instead of being at "Kundalini" where the primary topic should be. Gatoclass (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

More reasons

 * I am going to add three more reasons why I think the page needs to be moved back:
 * Firstly, it's often forgotten that "Kundalini" is not only an energy, but according to Hindu mythology, a Goddess. Naming the "Kundalini" page "Kundalini energy" obscures the alternative meaning of "Goddess" in a way that leaving it at "Kundalini" does not;
 * A google search indicates that the term "kundalini energy" is a relatively rarely employed term, getting only about 242k hits, versus the term "kundalini" alone (minus "kundalini energy" and "kundalini yoga") which gets about 11 million hits. This is because the energy is typically referred to as simply "kundalini" or "the kundalini", another reason why placing the article under the term "kundalini energy" is inappropriate;
 * Dictionary definitions invariably list the primary or only meaning of "kundalini" as the energy. For example:
 * The Oxford dictionary defines "kundalini" as (in yoga) latent female energy believed to lie coiled at the base of the spine.
 * Merriam-Webster: the yogic life force that is held to lie coiled at the base of the spine until it is aroused and sent to the head to trigger enlightenment
 * Free Online Dictionary: Energy that lies dormant at the base of the spine until it is activated, as by the practice of yoga, and channeled upward through the chakras in the process of spiritual perfection.
 * Dictionary.com: the vital force lying dormant within one until activated by the practice of yoga, which leads one toward spiritual power and eventual salvation.
 * It should be abundantly clear from these definitions that the primary meaning of kundalini is the energy, not the yoga - in fact, the yoga doesn't even get a mention in most of the definitions, even as an alternative meaning. Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Kundalini energy should be renamed Kundalini (energy) and Shakti can be added to the disambiguation page in reference to kundalini being one of her many names. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed
I don't see a balanced discussion on this topic because a lot of people also see Kundalini as a very bad demonic influence. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZD2fOyHm7w User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 18:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This article should be treated as an article describing a religious "belief".  Youtube sources aren't reliable.  We need to stick to documented sources that study religious beliefs and philosophies.  As an example, there are many people who think that the holy spirit is evil, but you don't see a section for them on the Holy Spirit article?  There are many people who believe that Jesus was not the son of god, or even a holy being.  They believe he was evil.  Should the article about Jesus include their viewpoints?  My point being, that beliefs an article documenting a belief, is by it's very nature, neutral.  Again, if there are journals that study kundalini and give well researched viewpoints, they should always be included here, however they talk about it.  Happy editing.TheRingess (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, but there are also other, serious works with a ton of research, references and so on. E.g. see this book: http://amazon.com/dp/097990739X 147.32.90.40 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is somewhat biased towards presenting kundalini as if it is mainstream. It is certainly not a scientific view, and you cant deny it has a religious basis. Medical professionals have opined that current interest in the subject may well be pseudoscience. The article has no discussion on the criticism of kundalini. (http://nirmukta.com/2011/10/31/the-yoga-delusion)

Kundalini Syndrome - A literature review, with an assessment of credibility and notability.
I see that the concept of "Kundalini syndrome" is mentioned several times in the article. Since there is a current debate about the concept, see Articles_for_deletion/Kundalini_syndrome, I am posting a synthesis of a literature review that I recently posted on the debate-page. It might be helpful for the future development of this article. I believe that a future development of this sub-topic, kundalini problems or syndromes, would benefit from a core body of academic sources. By academic sources I mean peer-reviewed journals with an editorial board, or books by a credible academic publisher. I tend to view the below sources in the context of "mainstream". I consider some of them to be more mainstream, while others are less mainstream. I do not consider any of the less mainstream sources to be pseudo (see Pseudoscience), although a few of them might be considered fringe (see Fringe science). Other editors may of course disagree with me on this. Anyway, all the journals listed are (as far as I know) peer-reviewed journals. I do however advise readers to use their source-critical judgement. It is beyond the scope of this comment to discuss the credibility of Transpersonal psychology, Near-death studies and Parapsychology. I leave that to the individual wiki-articles on those fields, which have sections (called reception/criticism) addressing this issue.

I would like to emphasize that my framework here is phenomenology, not ontology. There is a lot that can be said about the phenomenology of "kundalini syndrome" without invoking ontological viewpoints. I would also like to emphasize that Kundalini, first of all, is a cultural/spiritual concept, not a psychiatric category. However, in this particular context, via the language of syndrome, a small part of the concept of Kundalini becomes linked to psychiatry. I agree that "Kundalini syndrome" is a marginal phenomenon, on the borders of culture and science, but the lesson from Cross-cultural psychiatry and Medical Anthropology has taught us that mainstream medicine, in some instances, observes these syndromes with a new kind of sensitivity. In 1994 the American Psychiatric Association published the fourth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-IV. In the manual they included a "Glossary of Culture-Bound Syndromes" and an "Outline for Cultural Formulation". The glossary listed several cultural syndromes. The "Kundalini syndrome" is not included in the glossary, but a few of the syndromes in the glossary do (in my view) bear some superficial resemblance to it. However, the DSM-IV did include a new diagnostic category named "Religious or Spiritual Problem (V-Code 62.89). The proposal for this new category was initiated by clinicians associated with Transpersonal psychology who suggested the term "Psychoreligious or Psychospiritual Problem". It was submitted to the Task Force on DSM-IV in 1991, and approved in 1993 after changing its title to "Religious or Spiritual Problem". The particular spiritual problems of the 62.89-code are not identified by the DSM-text. However, in 1995 the authors of the proposal published an elaboration of their work in the psychiatric journals Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (Turner, Lukoff, Barnhouse, Lu, 1995), and The Psychiatric Clinics of North America (Lukoff, Lu, Turner; 1995). In these articles they describe "kundalini awakening" in a clinical language, and as a phenomenon that (in some instances... I guess) can be conceptualized as a spiritual problem. The terminology is, in fact, represented in the PubMed database, however sparsely. A search for the term "Physio-Kundalini syndrome" produces 1 result (J Relig Health. 1993 Dec;32(4):277-90.). A search for the term "Kundalini" produces 26 results.

The summary below does not make any specifications regarding the authors ontological position towards the subject, it only locates where the discussion is taking place. For other considerations regarding the credibility, notability and ontology of the topic, see the articles Talk-page (Talk:Kundalini_syndrome) under the heading: "Considerations for using the term "Kundalini Syndrome". The concept of "Physio-Kundalini syndrome", "Kundalini syndrome" or the understanding of Kundalini phenomena as a "syndrome", is discussed in a number of publications. Many of these publications are situated within the fields of Transpersonal psychology and Near-death studies, while the rest are situated within the fields of psychology, mental health, religious studies and parapsychology. (Please follow the wiki-links to get a source-critical feel for the publications orientation). They include: International Journal of Culture and Mental Health (Paradkar & Chaturvedi, 2010), Journal of Near-Death Studies (Ring & Rosing, 1990; Prosnick & Evans, 2003), Journal of Religion and Health (Greyson, 1993), Journal of Transpersonal Psychology (Greyson, 1993; Greyson, 2000), Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research (Thalbourne & Fox, 1999), Mental Health, Religion & Culture (Valanciute & Thampy, 2011) and Psychological Reports (Thalbourne, 2001). There is also a very brief mention of the terminology of syndrome, in relation to kundalini, in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (Le Fanu, 2002) where the author discusses medical mystery syndromes. Transpersonal writers Grof and Grof (Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc./Perigee, 1989: page 15) and Sovatsky (State University of New York Press, 1998: page 180) also use the term "syndrome", but usually prefer other terminology. The concept of Kundalini-problems, or kundalini-phenomena in a clinical context, is also mentioned in a number of sources. However, these publications do not use the terminology of "syndrome". Kundalini in a clinical context is mentioned in the following publications. Journal of Humanistic Psychology (Johnson & Friedman, 2008), Journal of Transpersonal Psychology (Waldman, 1992; Ossoff, 1993; Jerry, 2003), Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (Turner, Lukoff, Barnhouse & Lu, 1995), Psychiatric Clinics of North America (Lukoff, Lu & Turner, 1995), The Humanistic Psychologist (Bynum, 1996; Elmer, MacDonald & Friedman, 2003) and Transpersonal Psychology review (Sanches and Daniels, 2008). Clinical issues are also discussed in books by transpersonal authors Kason (Harper Collins, 1994) and Scotton (Basic Books, 1996). Vernon-Johnson (2004), representing the field of psychotherapy, discusses the issue in a doctoral dissertation from Pennsylvania State University Graduate School. One of the most recent publications to mention kundalini in a clinical context is the book Spirituality and Psychiatry (see chapter 11: Read and Crowley, 2009), published by RCPsych Publications, an imprint of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. There is also a very brief mention in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (Grabovac & Ganesan, 2003) where the authors present a proposal for an academic lecture series on religion and spirituality in Canadian Psychiatric Residency Training (see Table 3). I agree that the terminology of "syndrome" seems to be less pronounced than other terminologies, such as "awakening" or "experience", in the literature. The question is wether to keep the terminology of "syndrome" or if the topic should be developed with the emphasis on another terminology, such as "kundalini awakening" or "kundalini experience". I leave that decision to future revisions. --Hawol (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This page is terribly written, completely biased pseudo scientific nonsense
In the opening couple of paragraphs in this article, we read this:

"It is reported that Kundalini awakening results in deep meditation, enlightenment and bliss.[6] This awakening involves the Kundalini physically moving up the central channel to reside within the Sahasrara Chakra at the top of the head. This movement of Kundalini is felt by the presence of a cool or, in the case of imbalance, a warm breeze across the palms of the hands or the soles of the feet."

This is utter garbage. It is written from the perspective that "Kundalini" is an actual phenomenon that is real and undisputed. It's a religious/spiritual belief system and should be referred to as such. The article is completely biased and should either be removed altogether or completely re-written from the ground up.

I'd personally like to see the article torn to shreds. It's utter crap.

Aaarrrggh (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Aaarrrggh it seems you have a strong opinion about this subject. I looked through the references and many look fine to me.  Personally I have known people who have experienced kundalini and bliss, and because you personally have not experienced this, doesn't mean that it is not real.  I suggest if you want to be a part of adding or improving this article, that you do your research or limit yourself to grammatical corrections. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is clear that you and many other authors on this page are biased towards non evidence based spiritual belief systems. It is perfectly legitimate to have an article about spiritual belief systems, but it should not be written from the biased perspective that presumes the validity of the claims, as this is. You yourself have a clearly biased opinion. The article needs to be rewritten to conform to Wikipedias NPOV policy, which it is clearly violating in the present form. Aaarrrggh (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually you seem biased in the opposite direction and if you need to bring evidence to this article, then please do. In fact there could already be evidence if we delve into the references offered.  I will help you do the research. I think your statement I reverted was POV along with having no reference.  Let's work together to improve this article. It will take me a number of days to participate, I just moved and I work. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Kundalini is a spiritual/metaphysical/soteriological concept, similar to other concepts from world religions, such as the concept of Holy Spirit (Christianity). From a redactional point of view the article could maybe be developed along the same lines as the Holy Spirit article. Kundalini is a familiar concept to the disciplines of Religious Studies and Comparative Religion and is mentioned in several dictionaries (Including Websters). I agree that the article could benefit from more scholarly references, preferably from the discplines just mentioned. There are several good academic introductions to Hinduism where this subject is elaborated.--Hawol (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, it should be described as a belief/part of a belief system, not as fact. It might be fact that some people experience some feelings that they attribute to Kundalini, but Kundalini itself is just a concept, not a real thing. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's your opinion that it's "not a real thing" :) The fact that something is unverified by science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If scientists took the view that unverified phenomena don't exist, science itself could never make any progress.
 * I don't see a lot of bias in this article, but it is not especially well written and as Hawol says, could do with some better referencing. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And it's your opinion that it is a real thing. Beliefs get described as beliefs, end of story. This is an encyclopedia. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I never ventured an opinion. I simply noted that "not verified by science" is not synonymous with "does not exist". And again, I agree the article needs work - but I don't see a lot of bias, as I think the article does make plain that this is a concept within Hindu philosophy. Gatoclass (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me give an example of a redactional adjustment that might improve the article. Under the headline Kundalini Awakening: Instead of writing "Kundalini can be awakened by shaktipat", it is possible to write... "According to tradition Kundalini can be awakened by...". This makes the statement less bombastic, and more in tune with scholarship. Also, very little of the material in this section is referenced. It is important to find credible sources who discuss these traditions and then include these in the text. Even though Vivekananda and Yogananda are famous Yogis, and might be considered to be authorities on the subject, they might not be the best possible references for this kind of material which includes the phenomenology and history of a particular religious/spiritual concept. Other sources might be more relevant than the first-hand view of famous Yogis, and it is my impression that Wikipedia-policy prefers academic sources to support the backbone of the article. This does not mean that autobiographical sources, or non-mainstream sources, are not relevant. It just means that they are not well suited to build the credibility and foundation of the article. I do not support an elitist view of sources, favoring only academic sources from well-known publishing houses. There might be instances where other sources are relevant, as long as they are judged according to source-critical criteria. However, strong academic sources are - in my view - very well suited for building  the credibility and foundation for a topic. --Hawol (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. It isn't easy, however, to find good academic sources on esoteric topics like this. This type of article also tends to attract adherents of one tradition or another who want to source the article from their favourite teacher or teachers regardless of their wiki-verifiability, which causes a deterioration in article quality over time. I've been intending to visit my local uni bookstore at some stage to try and find some decent sources for this article, but haven't found time for it and probably won't anytime soon. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, since you mention spiritual teachers, let me rephrase what I said about the famous Yogis above. Instead of saying that they are authorities on the topic, I would rather say that they have some intimate knowledge about it. I have some reservations about authority in the spiritual domain, so it is not proper for me to refer to these two spiritual teachers as authorities. As for sources: the article already includes a reference called Flood (2006). I guess this is Gavin Flood, who is an academic scholar who was editor of the The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism (Wiley, 2003). So you see, these kinds of sources are already in the article, but they are not well developed. --Hawol (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Pranotthana
I am missing a short description of Pranotthana. It is often described as a precursor to awakening Kundalini and a state often experienced in life by "ordinary" people not even practising yoga at all. Introducing this important aspect, will help make the understanding of Kundalini more accessible and whole.

Here is a recent book touching the subject of Pranotthana:

RhinoMind (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality
I agree that this article is written in "in-game" style. Not encyclopedic in tone, and needs major stylistic revision Totorotroll (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are going to raise a dispute, please find some reliable sources. So far above we have a youtube video, a sensationalist Christian book and a personal website that does not have anything scientific to say about Kundalini. You can't argue against this article's neutrality based on these flimsy unreliable sources. This is not a well grounded dispute. Freelion (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The resemblance of "kundalini-experience" with epileptic seizures is quite clear; see Google. The attribution of these experiences to religion is also quite common; not only in kundalini, but also, for example, shamanism. See Ann Taves, Fits, Trances, and Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience from Wesley to James, and Michael Winkelman, Shamanism: A Biopsychosocial Paradigm of Consciousness and Healing for an extended treatment of this topic. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)