Talk:Kundalini yoga/Archive 2

"Physio-Kundalini symptoms" and Kundalini Yoga
The occurrence of various problems with relation to practice of Kundalini Yoga is well documented. From what I was able to understand, the Western approach considers that spiritual progress can be achieved through the practices alone, but the Hindu tradition considers practices only as a part of the preparation of the body, where the actual rise of the Kundalini is achieved through the grace of the Gurudev (blessing), which must be a living Self-Realized master. The methods for preparation of the body were in fact held secret in order to protect people from hurting themselves, by trying things for which they had no deeper understanding, and to protect the name and the value of Yoga. Various stories in the West arose why the methods are secret. Some claimed that great (supernatural) powers can be achieved through practice of Kriya Yoga and that methods were secret for selfish reasons. In the 19th century many Yogis in India were also tortured to death by westerns to reveal the secret of their powers. (See reports by Elisabeth Haich.) That is another reason, why the methods were held secret. But one will not and can not attain any real progress or power though the practices alone. This happens only through the Grace of God alone and that grace can not be extorted. According to Hinduism practice of various methods can deliver progress only up to a certain level beyond which a living Spiritual Master becomes a necessity. Trying to force the results, is when the problems arise. Various methods require years of practice before next level can be considered. Jumping forward without guidance can lead to disaster. It is important to understand that the aim of the Kundalini Yoga is not to acquire various powers (which are considered vice on the spiritual path), but to achieve moksha and union with God. Abuse of siddhis has grave karmic consequences. This all must be viewed in the light of teaching known from all holly books, Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita,... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmapuri (talk • contribs) 08:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Further on the topic of benefits of Kundalini Yoga and supposed dangers of practice. Many teachers will use the word Kundalini to emphasize something that is to be more effective practice than other to make it more attractive on the market. On each level of spiritual development different methods apply. It is true that even a prayer is a start, meditation is better, and so on... Spiritual development at any speed eventually leads to Kundalini awakening. If one takes smaller steps, they are safer and more people can harvest more benefits with less risk. Taking larger steps and more demanding techniques leads to greater benefits but also risks. At some point one eventually needs a Spiritual Master to be able to continue. Now, we cannot take the good results of the simple methods and advertise the more complex method as suitable for the general public. Somehow, a balance must be found so that everything that people stuffed under the word "Kundalini" still makes sense. Atmapuri (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have nominated that your references to "Kundalini Syndrome" on the Kundalini Yoga page be dropped entirely. The concept itself is pseudo-scientific and baseless. The article you link to on Wikipedia is already flagged as needing professional verification, and thus is not a good source reference to be used on other pages. "Kundalini Syndrome" mainly refers to changes in "Kundalini Energy", and NOT the YOGA FORM. Any reference to Yoga + Kundalini Syndrome do not EVER specify any particular system of yoga, and in fact yoga as a spiritual practice leading to kundalini syndrome is hypothetical and listed as only one possible cause out of many different potential instances. Therefore any link to Kundalini Yoga directly is very very tenuous and only is mistaken this way because of the name similarities. Stop revising the history and re-placing this in the top paragraphs. This does Yoga as a whole and Kundalini Yoga no service and is misleading. If you replace it here, you would have to place it on EVERY YOGA PAGE and EVERY SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINE page, including martial arts, qi gong, etc. etc.. It makes no sense. This is a very rare "condition" of "symptoms" that have no record of "permanent mental damage" and mostly leads to happiness and greater self-awareness when it occurs. Your reference by your teacher is not scientific, nor legitimate and only creates confusion. If you want to discuss why a 1st source spiritual teacher warning about mental damage is not legitimate, that can be discussed, however, its self-evident he is not a doctor, nor does he support his claim with ANY relevant data. You simply pulled this quote to cherry pick what you wanted to promote - his book has nothing to do with "Kundalini syndrome". In fact, he says in his own Guru's words that: "Kundalini [NOTE: NOT "KUNDALINI YOGA"] is the divine mother. A true mother never causes harm or does anything bad to her children." (quoted from your same book from your source, Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda, page 49). According to his view true kundalini awakening has no side effects other than pure joy, pure knowledge and pure love.Fatehji (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the logic you present is multi-fold. The problem I see today is any pseudoscientist can write a book making some obscure claims. Then an uneducated person can pick this up and read it, and believe it without having the opposite side of the story, or having the experience themselves and thus end up spreading negative beliefs widely with no reference for how obscure they are. You even say yourself a few times you "believe" it to be wide spread. But those books do not offer that, and as such, you should not take it upon yourself to judge how important this is to other people, "as a warning" you say. Your sources are tenuous at best, the article you refernce on Wiki has been flagged for needing further verification and professional validation - which has not happened. So, I would not link to that - the source is unprofessional.Fatehji (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the whole concept of linking this so called "syndrome" to the yoga itself is an error in thinking. The syndrome refers to the dormant energy in all humans="kundalini". But Kundalini Yoga is just one yoga, like Raja or Hatha, and - like all yogas - they are all exercises and meditations that work with the Kundalini energy. It is the goal of all yogas to "raise the kundalini"(awareness). So, the "syndrome" actually refers to all spiritual practices. It only happens to be coined this way because some psuedoscientist made it up. It has nothing directly to do with "Kundalini Yoga".Fatehji (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini Yoga Benefits
<!-- I respectfully disagree completely. This is exactly what I would call misinformation, or misdirection of information. The only thing not making sense is your argument. First of all, you keep claiming this Syndrome is well documented, yet you offer no sources. I have counter sourced you with a US Congressional resolution recognizing its wide range of benefits, and also books by Doctors of all the benefits of the systems. There is an extremely healthy practice of Kundalini Yoga in the US where many people in hospitals, schools and work are helped with their problems with this yoga. No one has every developed "mental damage" from this style through practice that is "widely documented from a legitimate source. In fact, if anything it is widely used to heal mental damage, not cause it! You should try it, because it is known by experience and not talk, and it could help you.Fatehji (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's where you really mislead and misdirect. ALL YOGA forms work towards raising of the Kundalini energy. Kundalini doesn't have a copyright by Hindus (which you've claimed that over and over again) You claim that one cannot understand or benefit from Kundalini Yoga because it must be taught by a Spiritual master or given by a blessing of God... Which GOD do you mean exactly? (I assume you mean a Hindu one, because actually Yogi Bhajan was a Master of Kundalini Yoga at age 16, and in Sikh teachings, there is only One GOD, and that GOD is simultaneously in everyone, so everyone has the right to self-initiate themselves into the practice). Anything like claiming that a Hindu God only can give benefits is the very definition of a bigotry. To the contrary of what you claim, this system, is already being widely taught and the benefits are safe and countless! You cannot copyright enlightenment, love, or healing. You can't copyright Yoga. It's shown that this system can be practiced by anyone of any age and they can have huge benefits in short times.Fatehji (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This in effect is a tactic to keep the benefits of the practice under a hegemony of Brahmin (hindu elite priest culture) beliefs. Yet, this practice has enormous and considerable benefits and that was proven and shown by Yogi Bhajan and the many (100,000 or more) practitioners of Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan in the US. The US Government even recognized his teachings and their benefits on a list that only includes Yogi Bhajan, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, and John Pope Paul II! How dare you claim this isn't legitimate? How can you continue to refute the proof to the contrary of what you claim?Fatehji (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

However, I can see why you act this way, because when Yogi Bhajan left India to teach the system he was cursed, slandered, and threatened with his life by many Hindu yogis who did not want the secrets revealed. BUT what you have refused to understand is that the cat is out of the bag. Once out, it cannot be put back in. You cannot scare people to avoid the practice of this form of yoga. It has already been revealed and opened to the public, and the many benefits are proven: that it is healthy and safe for of self-improvement and equalizes power of people by giving them the tools they need to succeed. That is what you fear, it would appear. If one would logically trace your motives it seems you are trying to say the Hindu practice is the only legitimate way and anyone else who teaches it outside of Hinduism will be harmed... That's just so misleading and untrue, and it's so obvious where you are coming from. Otherwise you wouldn't keep removing the Sikh references being made on the intro paragraphs.Fatehji (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly Kundalini Yoga is a strong style, and people undergo changes and grow from it, and the help of a teacher overseeing it is valuable addition, not a requirement. It helps in guidance... The lack of which doesn't cause 'mental illness syndromes'. It's all open to all now, and it's safe, and because it's needed to help people of this time. Meditation and the Kriyas of Kundalini Yoga teaches us that the many secrets can be practiced by anyone of any age - proven time and time again in the US. Your argument comes from an old religious scare tactic, and you're not fooling anyone.Fatehji (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally you have made no efforts to reference your claims. You use only a single source book, which is a primary source teaching, and therefore non-verifiable. 4 citations to 1 book, and just 2 pages, shows me you have limited knowledge on the subject, and you choose only 1 negative warning out of an entire book promoting the benefits of the yoga... This makes your "pull-quote" suspect. ADDITIONALLY, others posts by you about Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda have been flagged as advertising and lacking proper citation. This is not your first issue relying on your opinion and not facts. Your citations and background on this are weak and your arguments are lacking citation and legitimate proof on any modern "widespread" "mental" "syndromes" that are currently injuring all sorts of practitioners of Kundalini yoga. This is simply ignorant speaking and thinking... and the only people you are injuring are the people who would see this page and help themselves by practicing a healthy and healing style of yoga. This is not advertising. I'm just saying the hundred of thousands of benefits outweigh any negatives, and it should be reflected as such in the descriptions. Additionally it should be reflected that the Sikh and Western practice is equally legitimate as any Hindu practice. Yoga is beyond religion, and you are trying to use religion to hijack yoga, and that is completely elitist and bigoted.Fatehji (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon. Yoga is about making friends. So how are you comming along? Seems to me you ended before you started. About references, The Kundalini Syndrome page contains plenty of references. You see, you can not get a book published on the subject if there is only one case in a million. There has to be a certain population. About Hindu, Yoga comes from India and India has legal copyright on Yoga. Sikhism is part of Hinduism. I also read the Bible and there you can read, there is only one God. We are always talking about the same one. About self initiation, we disagree, but all views have the right to be presented and that is why Yogi Bhajan has its own topic. But to push the views of Yoga Bhajan beyond that and make it seem general would not be appropriate. That would be POV. Saying that Yoga can not be owned by anyone is correct. The problem is only what that is, what is that truth!! Maybe it is advertised as (wine) Yoga, but that is not Yoga? Different people say different things.


 * You said "this system, is already being widely taught and the benefits are safe and countless". What system? There is no definition about what is Kundalini Yoga practice except according to what individual teachers define. "However, I can see why you act this way, because when Yogi Bhajan left India to teach the system he was cursed" I am sorry to hear that, but I would only like to retain both views in the article. You have the right to present your case and should not take that same right from others. As I said not all people agree with the idea of evil "brahmins". The term Kundalini Yoga is used for so many things that it is impossible to say neither, that it is Good or Bad. But some people who have used that name, have practiced things which harmed them. The Kundalini Yoga practice as advertised by Yogi Bhajan, may be as you presented it. I can not know and would not try to judge it. About reference to Kundalini Syndrome. If you really think it is necessary we can copy some of the Kundalini Syndrome article to Kundalini Yoga page, so that different issues will be properly referenced. About hundred of thousands of benefits outweigh any negatives: Benefits of what? We don't even know, if we are talking about the same thing. It is my view that Kundalini Syndrome article is well documented and addresses a real problem that has surfaced in the society. Maybe Yoga Bhajan claims the expression "Kundalini Yoga" for himself and that's why we have a problem? We could write: Kundalini Yoga as though by Yogi Bhajan claims to have this properties. Kundalini Yoga as though by ... claims to have this properties and so on. But writing in general would not be accurate because the diversity is too grand. That is why the paragraph starts: In Hindu tradition, the beliefs are like this. (Because in other traditions the views are so different!) We can add: These claims are not supported by Sikh named Yogi Bhajan which... Atmapuri (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NO. I beg your pardon. First of all, I'm not here to 'make friends'. I'm here to make sure this article is accurate and the information is legitimate. You make outlandish claims and its impossible to reach a resolution with you because you are acting like a classic bigot and you have your own agenda, which you have made very clear. You are making me upset because you constantly remove references to Sikh religion in this post and in other posts. I would take the time to refute all of your beliefs, but I don't see you will change. Others have tried, and you just tell your own story.. So let me at least address a couple points as a matter of record because they are so completely wrong.

1A) Your erroneous and blind claim that the Kundalini Syndrome page on Wiki contains plenty of references. It first of all has already been flagged as needing a professional verification. Can you not clearly see that box at the top of the page? It means, the info is SUSPECT or UNPROFESSIONAL. It uses basically 2 references over and over again, and just because it cites the same book 2 dozen times does not make it more 'prevalent and widespread'. Therefore, I don't need to verify that your source is poor, and unprofessional at best. Your only argument seems to be that because something is published, then that means that it must be widespread. That logic has no basis in reality. If I publish a book about Hindus having 3-headed toilet scrubbers as babies, then that doesn't mean it's widespread - it may have only happened once (and I think I know where).

1B) That "Kundalini Syndrome" (which should always be quoted because it's not a real syndrome... "Syndrome" of What Exactly?) has any relationship to Kundalini Yoga itself, besides in name is sketchy. The term "Kundalini" itself refers to the energy within all humans, and all yoga forms work to raise this energy to raise awareness. You may as well call it "Awareness Syndrome". And you may as well post your warning at the top of all the different Yoga pages, because they all work to raise Kundalini energy. Good luck getting that through - don't know why you are picking just Kundalini Yoga, because it is only similar in name.

2) Your outlandish claims that Hinduism has a "Copyright" on Yoga!?!?!? Seriously. Yoga is not copyrightable by any religion. That's like saying Jews have a copyright on Jesus. Yoga is not a religion first of all. And any co-opting of yoga by one religion is a seriously bigoted flaw. The Upanishads (yogic texts) do not belong to or are copyrightable to anyone. You are talking about Vedic philosophy so old that it originally was passed on by story and word of mouth before it was even written down. I think that may be beyond the reach of "copyright" at this point.

3) This is amazing.. What did you say: "Sikhism is part of Hinduism"??! Wow. You are truly taking your plays from a different book - one that has nothing to do with reality. This is like saying Protestantism is a part of Roman Catholicism. It's downright offensive. First of all, you need to read history before you post such nonsense. For the record, Sikhism is its own independent religion, with its own system of writing and hymns and prayers and separate Gurus and completely different view on God. Sikhism does not preach, but shares and gives unity and the message of One God for the entire brotherhood of man. Don't try to distort history!! Guru Nanak, founder of Sikhism - his first words were: "There is no Hindu, There is no Muslim". That's what you can't stand, and one day you will learn it, but not from me. Study up here: [Sikh Wiki] and here [Sikhism]. This is the kind of bigotry that leads to persecution of people and the re-writing of history, very similar to the fascism of Hitler when he denied the authenticity of the Holocaust. Very bad news that you see the world this way. I am sorry for you because I don't know what I can do to help you, besides suggest you educate yourself and start talking to different people than whomever taught you this nonsense.

I don't have the time to break down your ignorant and outlandish claims any further. Read about Sikhism, don't trample it at every opportunity. It's difficult for me to discuss things with you seeing your history of postings, and multiple warnings as to your many blatant editing wars. You have been warned numerous times, but you don't change. You have tried to erase Sikh references in other articles in the past. It's all a trail of nonsense that I can't support. And on top of it, I don't expect you to understand what I am saying, which is unfortunate.

The main problem with all of your arguments is that you see Hinduism as the beginning of everything and nothing outside of it. This is called BIGOTRY. I could just as well say:"In Sikhism kundalini yoga is seen this way, but in some other views, like Hinduism, it is not to be shared by anyone..." You always want to put your story as primary with the implication that other stories are secondary, in your editing tone and revisions this comes up again and again. You even prove it with your crazy agenda and statements above. You somehow believe that the Hindu view on Kundalini is the primal and accurate one, but there is no such thing as accuracy here. It's interpreted differently by each teacher and shifts based on that teachers knowledge. That's why when Yogi Bhajan made it available to all, he codified it into a system that is not changeable. You claim you don't know about it - that's your issue - but it's what all other people know. He legitimatized it and made it a public system, not hidden away as in the past. That was his great achievement, and thus, this is the real Kundalini yoga as people practice it widely today. If any other form is secret, then you can end the discussion right now, because it's secret. But I will talk about the version that everyone else is practicing (which is the same Kundalini Yoga) just not secret. And this was a big change and revolution in the style, so it is very important to mention that upfront.

And additionally, Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, so I will always talk about one religion on equal level with another religion. So, stop erasing references to Sikhism like you do over and over again. You've done in other articles and been warned for previously! Educate yourself first. Sikhism and Hinduism are equal. Sleep on that.

It would be nice to understand your fundamental gripe. Obviously you have been taught incorrectly, but what is your agenda and mission to remove Sikh references from Kundalini Yoga when it is practiced all over the world? Kundalini Yoga is all over the United States and the World being practiced safely, without any record of this so called "Kundalini Syndrome". Your negative references do Kundalini yoga no aid or assistance... So what is your ultimate goal - to put Kundalini Yoga back into a box and hide it away from everyone?? Sorry, but it's too late. We have an entirely published Kundalini Yoga system here in the West... over 100 manuals. It is categorized, systematized, and it is printed widely and recognized everywhere. And it is shared freely. And it won't ever be hidden again by any big religious group, or one small persons agenda.Fatehji (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Kundalini Yoga, because it is only similar in name." It is important to mentioned that problems arise specifically with relation to Kundalini Yoga, because that it is what the all three "references" talk about (Scotton, Kason and Maheshewarnanda). Typically Kundalini Yoga name is used with more advanced methods of Yoga or as you might say, advanced spiritual practice. If Yogi Bhajan used this name to teach less intense methods than this does not apply to his school. Yoga is Copyrightable for practical reasons. Because its name and features have been used modified and adapted for just about anything, causing harm both to individuals and to the name of Yoga. The knowledge of Yoga in its pure form was communicated (according to Hinduism) from Shiva to Parvati. There is no improvement possible above perfection. We can present the subject differently, but the very methods and practice remain the same. For this reason, India will copyright all original Yogic Asanas and other practices, not to claim ownership, but to prevent them from being abused and charged for by third parties looking to earn a buck in the same way that US corporations tried to patent the DNA of Basmati rice. All adaptions of Yoga which are not first hand (God to man) are not really Yoga and the results of the practices will not give that what the original would. About Sikhism. The religion has its own name for a purpose, if you dont like it to be called a part of Hinduism, no problem. I can not find or remember any edits of mine on the topic of Sikhism. I think Sikhism is a fine religion and I have no objections. If I removed the Sikh word from the article it was not against the Sikh, but because either the content was not referenced or you modified referenced content so that it was no longer according to the reference or because you equated Yogi Bhajan as the representative of all Sikhs (which even according to your writing on the talk page is not true). Yogi Bhajan comes from a Sikh background, but he is not representative of the Sikh. Hinduism is put up front because Yoga comes from Shiva and Shiva is a God in Hinudism (one from the holy trinity which makes up the One). Therefore, it is normal that original and first sources are put up front. The different weights in the articles in general are always given to groups which have more followers and Hinduism has more followers than Sikhism. That is why Hindu tradition is mentioned first, and then followed by the Sikh. What Yogi Bhajan made public I dont know, but I can tell you that anything publicly available today does not cover 1% of the knowledge still hidden. Therefore Yogi Bhajan made public some Yogic methods, which obviously made many people happy and he called them Kundalini Yoga. The types of methods practiced must always be matched with the level of spiritual development. One way to do that is to take lowest common denominator and make them suitable for everybody. This does not mean that these methods are the final and the only way to reach the goal. They will provide benefit and progress until a certain level is reached, where something more would be needed to make further progress, but for many they might be completely sufficient for one life time. I dont have a personal agenda, other than to present all the views. I understand that Hindu view on the practices of Yogi Bhajan is not positive in certain senses and that this is the reason for the conflict that we have editing this page. For this reason, you would like to see a part of the Hindu view erased and hidden. One way or the other, both views must remain public because both come with sufficient background and weight so that they deserved to be published. If they are conflicting, it is not our job or the job of Wiki to decide who is right. All have the right to present their points, even if conflicting. Atmapuri (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. You are wrong here on several points. Again...


 * It is on you to prove the "copyright of Yoga" by one religion or that "God gave yoga to man" and this is the only authentic form of yoga. The essential problem with this argument is that is is a BELIEF. For the purposes of the WIKIpedia, you need a verifiable source. Since this unverifiable, it has no place on this site. You can say that all you want on a blog or other forum, but here it must be verified. Your only argument is that India, and a God, copyrighted on Yoga and Asana. Yet Yoga has been passed on from man to woman to man to be shared for all, and it doesn't belong to one man or religion or god. It has evolved as it grew, through texts and over the years passed on by word of mouth and updated constantly. Yoga is always evolving. It is the nature of Yoga. You can trace this back to the Veda, Upanishads, Patanjali's Sutras, and Kundalini Shastras, but you cannot ever trace it back to a God. Sorry, as nice as that would be, it is actually truly scary thinking. This is how wars are started by ignorance and bigotry of this level. In this thinking, you could say I suppose that Hindu God has a copyright on man as well... So, therefore any Hindu can kill any other person without repercussion because Hindus were here "first" and any other human is just an incorrect copyright violation. Sorry, but this logic will never hold up on any level, neither legal, nor spiritual. However, if you can prove that a Hindu God gave Yoga to man, and some original copy of it exists somewhere, cite the proof.--Fatehji (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 2- Again you are mistaking "kundalini energy" with "kundalini yoga". In this syndrome page when they mention "kudanlini" they are specifically NOT talking about "kundalini yoga". Get your facts straight. Open your eyes. "Kundalini energy" and Kundalini Yoga are not interchangeable terms, so keep your reference to "kundalini syndrome" off of this page. Last I will say about it.


 * 3- You said Yogi Bhajan came from a Sikh Background but was not representative of Sikh? Really? Let me educate you: "A deeply devoted Sikh, his inspiration and example motivated thousands to embrace the Sikh way of life. Through his personal efforts, Sikh Dharma was legally incorporated and officially recognized as a religion in the USA in 1971. In 1971, in acknowledgment of his extraordinary impact of spreading the universal message of Sikhism, the president of the SGPC (governing body of Sikh Temples in India), Sant Charan Singh called him the Siri Singh Sahib, Chief Religious and Administrative Authority for the Western Hemisphere, and he was given the responsibility to create a Sikh Ministry in the West by the Akal Takhat, the Sikh seat of religious authority in Amritsar, India. He was honored with the title Bhai Sahib by the Akal Takhat in 1974." - You can check it with the Akal Takhat.


 * 4- You claim anything available today doesn't cover 1% of what's secret. really? again, show your proof. Sir John Woodroffe translated the ENTIRE Kundalini Shastras to English in the 19th century. Again, The entire sastras are available in printed form in English - that means 100%. Anything that is still secret his passed on from teacher to student, and Yogi bhajan went to many many teachers and got their secret information and passed it on. So, I would actually say Yogi Bhajan teachings compromise the entire Sastras plus his secrets - probably 99% of the system. Maybe 1% is actually UNKNOWN, or something that he didn't feel appropriate to teach (like the tongue cutting practice, for example) to Westerners. Finally, he became a Master of Kundalini Yoga at age 16. To say that his mastery came with only 1% of knowledge of Kundalini is not based in any kind of reality. As a Master, this implies 100% knowledge and experience.


 * 5- Finally, you have clearly admitted that your view is tainted by Hindu view on Yogi Bhajan. The truth is revealed, even though it was clear to me right from the beginning. Now you admit that the "reason for this conflict" is "negative hindu view of yogi bhajan". As they say in the courtroom, "I rest my case, your honor". Additionally, you have stated clearly your bigoted and elitist viewpoint that when one religion is "bigger" than naturally it has the right of presenting something as more important. This could not be further from the truth, although I have never moved your Hindu references or erased them, even though your sources are very primary and not properly legitimate. At the same time, you have erased reference to Sikhism numerous times. Again, all religions are EQUAL. Size does not imply RIGHT.

Don't claim you want to represent ALL views either, when it's clear you are simply coming from one view point. Your words are important, don't keep writing stuff that simply isn't true - especially about yourself. You will have to live through the mud of your communication, so don't spoil it today. Your words live on forever, especially here on Wikipedia.Fatehji (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC) -->

I am not changing your "edits" (or actually, they are not edits, rather simply you just re-post the same thing every time), because of "conflicting views". I am changing them because they are simply not relevant, poorly sourced, and do not add to the topic. It makes no sense to reference a negative single view at the top of the page when this is one small, tiny view or issue which has an unprofessional reference material source This is called undue weighting [WP:DUE]. Additionally you do not do any service to Wikipedia by enforcing what you have admitted to, as your "negative view of Yogi Bhajan", and I have tried to correct the negative bias out of your "edits". Plus, you do not address my points appropriately in reply to talk back discussion as to the validity of your edits, so therefore, I will continue to improve and correct them. Fatehji (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My view of Yogi Bhajan positive for all the good things he did. Atmapuri (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You are continuing to misunderstand what this Encyclopedia is about and how to edit properly, as well as the purpose and scope of references. You have changed back AGAIN, for perhaps the 12th time to the EXACT same sentence which I have rebuffed over and over again in discussions and comments. You are clearly not interested in reaching a consensus with me on this matter. I have shown again and again why your edit was changed, and have added to it, and helped shape it into a better description. You seem to think that once a "reference" is created, it cannot be changed. Sorry, but this is not helping the editing process and reaching a consensus to make an article more legitimate and clear. A reference doesn't mean once you reference something that other editors cannot add onto it to clarify or expand to your edits if it adds to an understanding of the topic. Clearly you have not read the citation and source guides on Wikipedia. Please read and study this before you make any more changes. You need to read these: [Editing] [Verifiable Source] and [Reliable sources] and [Exceptional Claims]--Fatehji (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The main problem is you started this and you tried to remove and water down problems related to the certain practices of Kundalini Yoga. Edits can be expanded, but not in conflict with the meaning in the reference. You can not say, water is pure and dirty at the same time. We can reach a consensus, if you agree to include the reference to "mental damage" and link "Kundalini Syndrome" in the beginning of the article. You have to understand that the paragraph you are attacking, is a rather mild version from the original source and already very much adapted. The point is that traditional Hinduism obviously does not agree with Yogi Bhajan's teachings, at least as you presented them, and that we have to find a way to include both views. There is no consensus possible in the sense of presenting only one combined viewpoint, because the differences are too big. The Wiki references you mention apply to you the same way as they apply to me. All the sources in the paragraph are verifiable and reliable in the context of the subject of this article. If you agree, I can also include direct quotes from the book's.Atmapuri (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Atma, I am not attacking your "references" nor am I trying to water anything down. In fact, the main dispute is over that I am trying to correct what you have hyped up. I don't understand why you propose this view, but it's not relevant to Kundalini yoga as a primary concern. You may disagree, so I have posted additional references to show that this view is not definitive by any means. I am adding to the paragraph with other references from Hindu teachers - on the same par as your reference's source. You have no right to strike one teachers down, while you revert to solely your own teachers views.

So this is not by any means as you claim "in conflict with the meaning in reference". It's a new source that expands upon it and offers a different view. You make it sound and (from your actions) appear like once you have added a source, that that is the final word, and no other sources can refute or add to this claim. Perhaps then you should consider that the entire argument, if it is debatable should not be posted right up in the front of the page, but moved down to its own section. Only DUE [WP:DUE] legitimate claims should be presented in the article as a whole, but certainly in the top of the page, it's essential to provide a due weighted neutral view that can be agreed upon. But for some reason, you don't want to hear any different view, so you removed my references 5 times in one day to the exact same edit you have been running since Jan 18th - over a week ago. Your history shows you don't seem interested in compromise or consensus. This should get you blocked and it also got the page blocked. Now what will you do? We're supposed to work this out by Feb 3rd, and you haven't changed one inch since Jan 18th. Actually, I'd rather get a third party to look at it. Until you can demonstrate change, I believe you've exhausted your range of input into this topic.--Fatehji (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for verification and clean up of disputed content
Hi guys. Thanks for all your great work. It's really appreciated.

Sorry to bring this to your doorstep, but I have an ongoing dispute situation with a user Atmapuri over the content presented at the top of the Kundalini Yoga page. Needless to say we got carried away and the page is now blocked until Feb 3rd. My main gripe with this editor is that is an edit warrior - he has done so in his past, and he has not demonstrated an ability of working towards consensus or how to properly reference and edit sentences or concepts. He has reverted numerous edits to his same exact edits, and I have reported him for making 12 or more identical reversions in 8 days (5 of which were today). Additionally, his single point of reference material is primary source.

The big issue for now is that the editor in question is determined to link "kundalini yoga" with "kundalini syndrome". The second point is that he would like to link practice of the form with "permanent mental damage". It's bad enough that he wants to keep this reference up top, but it's also a complete error in linking the two together. "kundalini syndrome" refers to kundalini energy, and not to the yoga form. Check the page yourself. Even the "kundliani syndrome" page as a whole is marked as unprofessional (needing professional validation). Basically, he is giving this form of yoga a bad name, while referencing and citing material that is tenuous at best. And when I have added in material to refute this, or offer an alternative view, he has straight up deleted my references and citations, while commenting "If you want to change something add your own text and reference." Needless to say, it's been difficult.

My request is, can you give a third party review of this and establish that, on the grounds that "Kundalini Syndrome" refers to a spiritual energy source that can be "spontaneously generated", or "awoken" through any number of spiritual practices, it therefore has no definitive linking with any one style of Yoga. And as such, I propose that:
 * A) Kundalini Yoga is not linked to "Kundalini Syndrome" in word or reference.
 * B) Since "Kundalini Syndrome" itself in a non-professional term with dubious scientific value or validation, that it not be considered a valid reference source (internally) for topics of this nature (otherwise all yoga forms, Qi Gong, and martial arts would also need this "warning").
 * C) That "Kundalini Syndrome" is only speaking about Kundalini energy, and not directly with the Yoga form by the same name.
 * D) And finally, strike all references to "Kundalini Syndrome" from the Kundalini Yoga pages under the fact that it is misleading, negative and erroneous.


 * E) Additionally, his use of a primary source material for a reference to the practice of the style leading to "permanent brain damage" is from an unscientific and opinion based source, and unreliable because the author would have a conflict of interest, in that his business as a teacher might suffer if people were to go to learn yoga from a source not lead by a "master yogi". Many sources, such as the ones I have added numerous times show that Kundalini Yoga is completely safe, very healing, and can even used for curing mental conditions (not causing them) when practiced correctly by oneself, or under a master teacher.

Thanks for your attention to this matter, it will be really helpful to have a 3rd party review from a knowledgeable source. --Fatehji (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolve the dispute
'''@Atmapuri, please do not move it at the end of this Talk Page. Your very attitude of moving this at the end of the page and putting Kundalini Syndrome on the top, shows that you are not interested in ending the dispute, which is the need of the hour, but instead want to push ahead your personal agenda about Kundalini syndrome. Because of your unaccepting behaviour, the article is facing non-improvisations due to its un-editable status. I have seen that you have no interest in resolving the dispute. Please assume good faith henceforth, and help us to better improve Wikipedia. Thank You''' -- Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 10:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

@Atmapuri: Hello, atmapari. I have observed all the edits you have made tothis article and the other article. It seems like you have had some bad experiences (or more correctly have 'heard' some bad experiences). Please note that this article is about the 'yogic' inclinations of the kundalini power and not more into the history & geography of Kundalini. You seem to be a bit skeptical and negated towards this Kundalini stuff. For this I would like to refer you this article by SwamiJ.

So, you are requested to contribute and make edits in verifiable resources and assume good faith.

To have a simple understanding: Electrocution shall not be included in Power plant ORElectricity !!

@Fatehji: Thank you for saving this article. But, if you don't mind, there are some much better alternatives of editing and improving this article for the benefit of everybody. Rather than focusing on the Sikh-ist or Hindu-istic involvements, please stress on the Yoga part of this practice, rather than specifying the inventor of this Sikh-ist or Hindu-istic Kundalini Yoga. This would result in a much better and more precise encyclopedic article of Kundalini Yoga. I will make some changes, after the edit-protect tag has been removed. I hope you guys help me to improve this article in the way 'Wikipedia' would want it to be rather in the way we want it to be. Thank You Bhuto (Talk |Contribs) 07:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear all, I would like to point out that Fateh deleted about 75% of the discussion on the talk page for "brevity" fixing my own edits, post and additions (on the talk page (!) ) and also changing the contents of the article directly contradicting references which were not removed. Most of the argumentation not supporting his point's is currently missing from the talk page. This article is not about discovering what Kundalini Yoga is. It is simply to present it according to various sources. These various sources however are highly conflicting and directly contradicting. Nevertheless, looking deeper in the types of sources, we can make the following observations:


 * 1.) The original authentic sources on Kundalini come from India and Hinduism. Therefore, I believe it is the moral right that these sources are presented first according to the level of reliability of source. This means that all western source inevitably come second in reliability claim.
 * 2.) Fateh is a member of a small religious sect operating in the west disputing milleniums old tradition of Kundalini Yoga as practiced in India trying to push his view which is not singular in the west much beyond its due weight.
 * 3.) Assuming that Kundalini Syndrome is not related to Kundalini is a fairly far fetched idea considering the very name of the Syndrome and the psychatric hospital stats. Notice that Fateh admited existance of psychatric cases within his own group, but described them as "minor" in compare to great benefits.
 * 4.) What is considered Yoga in the West may not reflect its original source. That is why I suggest that western understanding is always to be analyzed separately. Fateh correctly pointed out that Kundalini Yoga Shastras were brought to West and used and practiced outside of its complete context and today there are many schools in the west which are making of use this without following all the instructions whose direct financial and egotistic interest is to continue this practice.


 * What we have a here a classic case of cultural mutilation. Not all warnings are always without weight. When you go to nuclear plant where there is a sign of high radiation, ignoring the warning will innevitably lead to health hazard. Simply saying that because there is a severe warning, that this warning is without weight, is very very naive. Atmapuri (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The unmutilated contents which is being discussed is this (Fateh do not delete this again from the talk page !) :

This wording accurately represents the contents of the references. The current contents of the article does not. So, either the references have to be removed, or the contents.Atmapuri (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say Mr. Atmapuri, but the statement made in quotations is actually misleading. There are many practices ranging from Yoga / Tantra / Dance / Football, which cannot be learnt from books and has to be taught by a Master. Yet, this isn't exclusive. Many people do learn yoga & dance by their own self, and same goes for Kundalini too. You are just blowing out the 'syndrome' stuff - out of proportion. It is like - while editing the article aboutdancing, you are gossiping more about falling down and bruising oneself. So please focus on the article itself, rather than some other related topic.


 * One more request. When you make an edit to any page, an editor is requested to briefly describe the changes he has made, which helps other fellow editors to have a gist of the changes made. You don't seem to follow it. Please go through the Wikipedia articles, on guide to good editing and help your fellow editors. And by the way, why aren't you improving the citations for theKundalini Syndrome article. I am unable to check the authenticity of your claims made in the articles. Please, it might get deleted someday for lack of proper references and citations.Bhuto (Talk |Contribs) 10:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion always goes top down, not bottom up. See the instructions at the top of the page in the template box. That is the only reason, why I moved the discussion down so that people know where to continue (!) Why you are upset about that I dont know. The quoatations made are specifically citing "Hindu" sources. So there is no generalization in that sense, that football could be considered. The Syndrome stuff is not blown out of proportions according to Hinduism view on the subject. The problem is only that this view is being deleted, even though Hinduism is the root of knowledge about Kundalini Yoga. What you delete is your doing and your karma. Atmapuri (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Bhuto, I think you hit the nail on the head with your comments and observations. I will do my best to make this article fit your comments and suggestions, as I feel they are appropriate.


 * Additionally, I removed the prolonged discussion, which was actually a war between myself and user Atmapuri because my comments were irrelevant, heated, long-winded, and did not add anything to resolving the page issue. It was simply a tidy, and can be referenced in the history of the page easily. Not helping to have them here.--Fatehji (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not move others' comments on this page
Per WP:REFACTOR, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." New sections should go at the bottom of the page, per the usual practice, and once an editor makes a comment, it should be left where he originally placed it. Any exception to this should have the consent of all participants. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The edits that were moved and/or deleted were not pertinent to page improvements. They were an ongoing debate of the subject of the article. The very first bullet at the top of this page clearly states: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."--Fatehji (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is a mess
The structure of this article is a very screwed-up version of a good encyclopedic article. See the format and constituents of Hatha Yoga, Siddha Yoga, Raja Yoga, Karma Yoga, etc. Just look at the contents of these articles - and then compare them with the contents of this article. Editors have put in informations that do relate to Kundalini Yoga, but are far away from the central theme of this type of Yoga. I believe the whole article has to freshen up and re-written to match the standards of other Yoga articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep (talk • contribs) 04:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yogi Bhajan
I have removed the reference to Yogi Bhajan from the intro. There must be scores of Kundalini Yoga teachers and schools, featuring a particular school in the intro is a clear case of WP:UNDUE that smacks of promotion and that implies that one particular school has more legitimacy than others. Gatoclass (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass, you are making an assumption here that "there must be scores of Kundalini teachers and schools". Have you researched this before deleting the comment? While there are some other Kundlaini Yoga schools and teachers... in the West, and globally, there is a central Kundalini Yoga organization called 3HO that acts a community center for hundred of centers and schools across the globe. Yes, it's true that it was Yogi Bhajan who largely revealed this style to the West, and this is a very valid and important statement. Until him and a few other teachers revealed it, it was secret. It's not about his personal practice or promotion, but rather, that largely, that all Kundalini that is practiced in the west be standardized and hence, under the system of Kundalini Yoga it has been standardized in book forms which are spread and sold to the public. Hence, the only real system of Kundalini Yoga that is standardized, as known to the west is the translated into books by Yogi Bhajan. It's not a "form" of Kundalini yoga or a publicity of Yogi Bhajan. It is Kundalini yoga. But the original basis of it obviously comes from pantanjali and the vedic texts, and also -- as translated into english by Woodruffe -- the kundalini texts.--Fatehji (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the Yogi Bhajan article or the 3HO article. This is the kundalini yoga article, and it's about kundalini yoga, not about one or another particular school of kundalini yoga. Gatoclass (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again without doing~it was first introduced by Yogi Bhajan. There are not scores of other schools qnd this is not about a particular school. This is historically significant as well as valuable to the students of the yoga who wish to know where the teaching evolved from. Please do your research.--Fatehji (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass

I will recommend reading and quoting the information offered on the teacher manual for the international kundalini teacher formation as well as sources like www.KRI.org and www.3HO.org these are respectful and established sources that can be cited and read for accurate information on the type of yoga known as Kundalini. I don’t read any of this in your articles and suggest that a better research is done to validate your point. All along the articles seem to be a complete misunderstanding of what this type of yoga is. The Kundalini yoga you are referring to is the only kundalini yoga tough in the west and brought by yogi Bhajan, I am a teacher of kundalini yoga and as one I recommend you to interview some dedicated instructors and practicants in the topic as well as the Kundalini Reasearch institute which main purpose is to evade all this discussions and clear and maintain the integrity of this powerful technology that should be available to all humans in a clear and understandable form, not as a personal belief or understanding.

For example in the beginning of the article you are proposing that Kundalini Yoga is a subdivision on Hatha which is completely wrong and misunderstood. Please I will recommend we maintain our mastery in writing topics we are dedicated and good on, not on some technology thousands of people practice as a way of life and will love to share with others. Misused information and personal opinion can prevail and just by a few western textbooks that can serve as your source of information can demerit a vast and well organized standardized technology that is constantly being kept save from distortion and vandalism form individual and personal ego. Please research further if your real concern is to inform the English speaking world what kunalini yoga is all about. Sat Nam 201.230.249.233 (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Levtar Kaur201.230.249.233 (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for comprehensive intro
Authenthic Kundalini yoga in Hinduism is a pure spiritual science that leads to enlightenment and God-realization under the guidance of a spiritual master and is a part of a religious practice. The awakening of kundalini means awakening of inner knowledge. In Hindu tradition, Kundalini techniques are only communicated from Master to disciple once the disciple is deemed ready and were long held a secret. . In the 19th century Sir John Woodroffe translated the Hindu Kundalini Shastras to English and published them in the West although Hinduism does not equate Kundalini Yoga Shastras with Kundalini Yoga itself. Ever since has the term Kundalini Yoga been considered a controversal topic because of various health related problems expirienced by practitioners in the West which were combined under a common name of Kundalini Syndrome. Some (non Hindu) teachers consider some of these health problems a consequence of the Kundalini rising and to be transitory. Other problems are said to be related to unsupervised practice or accidental activation of Kundalini.

Hindu tradition warns that inability to follow strict instructions of the Master, or practicing of methods without a living and self-realized master, can lead to a series of psychic disturbances and sometimes even mental damage These warnings on the other hand are played down, especially in the West because Kundalini Yoga is said to have great benefits for the practioners and that the reason why some of its methods, today public were secret in the past, are selfish and not a safety precaution.

The term Kundalini has become a "catch" word in the West and has been associated with various practices which may not all be related to the Kundalini Yoga Shastras as translated by Sir John Woodroffe. Various derivates sprouted in the West which sometimes play down the role of the need for a real Guru and relation of the methods to religion moving the concept closer to sport like activity in order to make it more attractive to general population. There are also many Hindu schools which teach the Kundalini Yoga according to the authenthic tradition also in the West. The exercises are sometimes referred to as Kriya Yoga or simply Kriya.

With relation to now public Kundalini Yoga methods, the system has been in some cases documented as a system of exercises and meditations with extensive benefits for personal growth, health and improving mental and physical well-being, including asthma, diabetes, pain, stress-related diseases, healing and rehabilitating addictive behavior, and treating of mental disorders.


 * I'm open to improvement of the intro, but I think this is too long and detailed. Also, it's taking a particular POV (that kundalini yoga requires a Guru) which is unencyclopedic. If there are different views out there, they have to be presented neutrally. Gatoclass (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree the entire article needs to be restructured, but the intro is just the icing on the cake. However, this suggested intro does not cut it. It has a heavy weight on Hindu based tradition, to the exclusion of all other traditions -- it doesn't even mention them by name, only citing "non-Hindu" traditions in the body -- therefore, this is clearly biased, and just as sure to lead down the path of past warring edits on this article.


 * To work, this page needs to more closely relate to other yogic pages on Wiki in the body and structure as a whole for it to be considered a reliable & neutral encyclopedic definition (as suggested above: "This article is a mess"). Since yoga is not about a religion, and specifically because this yoga is practiced by all religious groups equally, it doesn't make sense to continue to reference the Hindu based practice of it being secret. It is already not a secret, has not been secret for a long time, and the cat is out of the bag, so it's not appropriate to keep referring to the "potential dangers of non-master taught yoga" as has already been refuted (comments by Bhuto, [i.e. "Resolve this Dispute"] higher up on this page).


 * Additionally, I agree with the writer who commented that must be treated as non-religious in nature and in tradition. That is not to say that further sections down the page cannot reference the important religious differences that make it unique. However, as a whole, in the West, the practice that is systematized and largely taught in schools across the globe is associated with Sikhism, this does not mean that the style is inherently intertwined with religion. Rather, it is a choice to be made by the practitioner.


 * It should also be noted with importance that the style as taught by Yogi Bhajan is the most largely known and the only public and systematized style, which additionally has been recognized by the US Government. This style is only enhanced by a merger with Sikh Dharma and such philosophy, however, regardless, people practicing in the west have had no issues with practicing Kundalini yoga as a style regardless of what their religion is, or the associations with Dharma. This is because unlike other religions Sikhism has a foundational difference in that it does not initiate people nor does it proselytize its beliefs. Sikhs self-initiate themselves.--Fatehji (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yogi Bhajan's system of yoga has not "been recognized by the US government". What's been recognized is that he contributed to US-India relations. Not that it matters, because politicians are not reliable sources, and while political resolutions may be notable, they cannot be used as determinants of encyclopedic content. Moreover, you appear to be trying to equate kundalini yoga with Yogi Bhajan's methodology and that is obviously POV. Gatoclass (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On closer inspection of this article, I have now deleted the section on Yogi Bhajan as a blatant example of WP:COATRACK. This is not the article on Yogi Bhajan, he has his own article. It is also totally misleading to try and equate kundalini yoga with one particular school. The section was also POV and contained numerous unsourced or dubious statements. Please do not restore it. Gatoclass (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Refutation of Coatrack Claim
A coatrack is described as this:

Enforcement of the policies on biographies of living individuals and what Wikipedia is not makes it clear that "coatrack" articles are a particularly pressing problem where living individuals are concerned.

Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject. In either case the article should be corrected.

Coatrack articles run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced.

Comment/request: it does not help to make wholesale deletions and reintroductions of refuted quotes onthis page at this time. details of historial evolution in the style are valid and wholesale deletion under the guise of coatracking smells of reverse bias and the same edit warring that went on in this page recenty. we are woring on a new consensus and a new page and your deletions at this time are reverting back to earlier issues. we are trying to move forwward here. please do your due diligence in researching this matter and gaining experience in it before you conduct further edits and revisions. changes should be improvements from this point on, not an ongoing battle of older revisions. thank you.

Refutation:
 * 1. Individual in question is not living.
 * 2. This is not a biography
 * 3. This is not a bias of 'one school'. As stated, and referenced, kundalini yoga is the same no matter where it is taught. as a history of the style as it is known publically 99% of people in west studying kundalini yoga are teaching and learning what yogi bhajan revealed to the west.
 * 4. This is not excessive. Future edits are welcome to reveal more history and evolutions and include as many different references as possible. currently however and historically this is most significant; More research is welcome on your part before making such claims and conducting wholesale erasure of historically signficant developments.
 * 5. This is not unbalanced. if mention is made of hinduism on this page, then it is only truly balanced for mention of western and sikh developments to be made as well.
 * 6. No sale of any school or 'system' is being made only information about the current status of kundalini yoga and the history of its development, revelation and growth in the west. kundalini yoga is the same everywhere.
 * 7. No equation of methodology is being made because the methodology is that of kundalini yoga. it is already equal in that it comes from the same source. the teachings are purely what they have been before. yogi bhajan is only the deliverer of it and the one who spread and systemetized it in writing for widespread understanding and teaching.

Thanks for your understanding and taking the time to research this further before making further edits.--77.201.227.110 (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * and actually yes kundalini yoga as taught by yogi bhajan was recognized by the us government and in a very important joint resolution that was only also ever given to martin luther king, mother teresa, and john pope paul the II. please don't try to also refute their additions as well because a us government document "is not a valid source" as you claim.

the quote is (he is being honored for): "the teachings of Yogi Bhajan about Sikhism and yoga"


 * Coatrack articles are not only about BLP's, that is a total red herring. You are trying to claim that kundalini yoga and ky as practiced by Yogi Bhajan are synonymous - that is nonsense, there are scores of schools teaching kundalini yoga, both in the east and west. I am deleting the section again. Please do not restore it or I will be obliged to take the matter further. Gatoclass (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I respectfully disagree. It's on you to prove and show the "scores" of schools teaching Kundalini yoga and that it is different or is not different from what you consider "authentic". Please list the scores of different schools and teachers that have completely written down and systematized this style and who are teaching it today as a comprehensive system. I don't think you'll find one, but if you do, please reference and show their systematized manuals []. Please show your sources and references. Yogi Bhajan's impact on the description of this style is essential to this yoga in both East and West - especially since as other would claim, the style has been kept secret... Well, no more, and not for 40 years has it been a secret. What you are claiming is like saying that since the plans of the Allied beach attack at Normandy in WWII were a secret, then therefore, you cannot possibly know what the secret diversionary plans were now, in this present day.

Secondly, many other yoga pages have references to teachers and the history and lineage of the style hatha yoga for example... the very first line references as you would call a "school" of hatha yoga "introduced by Yogi Swatmarama". Then there's a whole "Origins" section that lists many different "schools" and "branches", although it's all the same thing: Hatha Yoga. So, therefore, it's entirely pertinent to showcase major evolutions bringing out the style openly, as demonstrated on this page. In fact, based on the Hatha page, and that you claim that this style was kept secret from the public, it would as such be correct for me to start this page with: "Kundalini Yoga also called Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan, is a system of Yoga introduced by Yogi Bhajan, a sage of 21th century India and America, and Master Teacher of the Kundalini Yoga system". I think I could argue that sufficiently, appropriately, and reference it as well.

It's not right for you to pick on this style only and erase reference not favorable to one's view or that don't comply with your hunches (i.e. "There must be X number of other schools..."). You obviously have an agenda here, and seemingly little or no experience in the matter, nor an interest in expanding your awareness and knowledge about it. Please do not continue to delete from this page. It's also not in the spirit of Wikipedia that you end your comments with threats. Your bias [] is showing clearly. This is another edit war you are starting and before your threaten to "take things farther", it should be opened to 3rd party opinion and common sense. Sadly, you are not helping to try and solve this by your actions.--Fatehji (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are over 1,000 books on kundalini yoga listed on Google books. Nobody "owns" kundalini yoga, it's a system that has been around for thousands of years. Your insertions are a blatant example of WP:COATRACK and if you continue on this path I will be obliged to take the matter to dispute resolution. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This makes no sense. 1,000 books does not equate to "scores" of "schools" and teachers. I've refuted you and asked for references and you simply offer a blind list of 1,000 books as "proof". This doesn't amount to any referable or cited proof (except to prove my point, as the first 3 books of the "1,000" are from well known and respected senior teacher students of Yogi Bhajan). No claim of ownership was ever made. As I said already, and shown examples of, teachers who widely introduce systems of yoga are noted on other yoga pages, and as such, this is a totally valid section. It could be edited but not wiped entirely - you breaking the spirit of Wikipedia. Please ask for a 3rd party resolution of this warring practice you are continuing before you request for a dispute resolution. Just because you have stars on your page doesn't mean you understand the topic or make you any righter or more righteous than anyone else.--Fatehji (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is my neutral reading of this. I find the section titled "Origins" is a misrepresentation. As written, it implies Kundalini Yoga originated with Yogi Bhajan in the 1960s. Although it is considered an ancient practice extending back thousands of years, the "Origins" section ignores any mention of other practitioners or any history. It lends undue weight to one personality rather than provide any history of the subject matter.

In checking for references, I found that a cursory glance at the world catalog showed dozens of books written on the subject in English prior to the mid-1960s such as an illustrated guide by Swami Sivananda. The article also references this FAQ which explains there are variations of kundalini yoga -- mentioning B. K. S. Iyengar, Yogi Bhajan, and "Kundalini Yoga in the Tibetan Tradition".

I think this article should make reference to Bhajan as a main popularizer of one form of Kundalini Yoga in the west with a link to Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan. This can be presented in a one or two sentences. Anything more is unnecessary since the other articles on that topic already exist. The "Origins" section should be expanded to present a historical overview while lending greatest weight to its development in India and Tibet. — Cactus Writer |   needles  21:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an article on kundalini yoga, a form of yoga that has been around for millenia and does not belong to any group. There is no evidence that Yogi Bhajan is a "main popularizer" of kundalini yoga in the West, no objective evidence even that what he teaches is authentic kundalini yoga.  Mentioning particular groups in generic articles of this type inevitably leaves the impression that the school which gets a mention is somehow more legitimate than other schools, and it just shouldn't be done. Gatoclass (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. A cursory search for Yogi Bhajan on Google books turns up 577 references of [Yogi Bhajan] and of his teachings on Kundalini Yoga as opposed to 1 by Swami Sivananda and 0 by Iyengar (main populizer/founder of Iyengar Yoga, not Kundalini). If you are trying to establish that Yogi Bhajan is not instrumental to Kundalini Yoga being taught publicly worldwide, you would have to find some proper and practical refutation of that, other than a list of books mentioning Kundalini yoga (of which more than half are attributable to Yogi Bhajan).--Fatehji (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Number of works on google is meaningless -- it is quality not quantity that is required. My further reply is below. It is helpful if you please confine your comments to a single thread (now continued below). — Cactus Writer |   needles  00:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Improving this article

 * Thank you Cactus writer for finally presenting a helpful, unbiased AND researched opinion. Please Gatoclass, again, please do some deeper research and discuss changes BEFORE wholesale deletions... The aim of edits as I understand is consensus and improvement... and not warring and bias. Your book search again in Google was a huge red herring, as a search for "Kundalini Yoga", obviously brings up all books covering Kundalini energy, which is universal to ALL spiritual practices OR Yoga which obviously is extensively covered, but not directly in any way a school or system of teachings.


 * Cactus, I agree the term "origins" is not appropriate. I will be happy to extend the section and call it "Modern Origins". In the meantime, Yogi Bhajan is going back with revised wording. I have some of the books by the authors you have pointed out at a "cursory glance" and I would exercise caution with determining the origins of Kundalini based on just one mention or book on the subject here or there - as I mentioned above Yogi Bhajan turns up 577 books on the subject of Kundalini Yoga []. I can't say other origins you mentioned constitute a specific school or historical significance as of yet, especially that a website FAQ would compare to that. In fact, the FAQ only supports that Kundalini yoga, is by its very nature difficult to define, widespread in theory, always changing, and dependent upon the individual experience.


 * "Kundalini" is roughly translated to "energy and awareness". So, it's important to note kundalini energy is produced and the goal (i.e. enlightenment) of ALL spiritual forms, therefore many different forms of yoga could theoretically all be called "kundalini yoga", even if they are called Hatha, Layla, Kriya, Qi Gong, etc... Just breathing and visualizing peace is technically "kundalini yoga"! But as far as there being proof of a predominant style of "Kundalini Yoga" that was revealed comprehensively and publicly as a complete system of yogic exercises, which is practiced globally under one understanding, there exists only one that I know of that is widely taught modernly - more could be researched on this and I'm open to referenced and researched input and proof of other widespread schools.


 * Additionally Cactus, I support my point on Yogi Bhajan being a main popularizer of the style with many different references, and I will gladly add more. Since this style was kept secret for 1,000's of years, it has been only just revealed, and no one else has spread it so completely - it's entirely new in development actually to the public!! The books you mention are of very small spread, with little behind them in terms of a teaching structure, support, existing or Global schools or organization of support behind it. Writing one book on the subject is vastly different than what we are talking about in terms of precedence. Yogi Bhajan broke the mold with over 100 different dedicated publications (a few here: [Yogi Bhajan books on Amazon Books]), and 577 book referenced to him on the subject of Kundalini Yoga [] 10,000's of given exercises and meditations, and 8,000 video and audio assets of lectures in his lifetime on the subject [Library of Teachings] and [Small Lecture Archive]), a Global support structure [About 3HO Organization] and [3HO Global Community], hundreds of schools across the world teaching Kundalini Yoga as he taught it [Find Local KY training], and an established, regulated, and comprehensive teaching structure with 3 levels of Teacher Training [Kundalini Yoga Teacher Training], in addition to recognition by the US Government for his accomplishments in this field, on the same par as Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and John Pope Paul II: [Yogi Bhajan life] and [Joint Congressional Honorarium].--Fatehji (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I should have been more careful with my wording. I agree with Gatoglass that the term "main popularizer" would be POV (and disputable) in a general article like this. The section entitled Origins would not include Bhajan since the practice far predates him.

I am suggesting a section titled something like Modern Methods or Western Interest -- which could mention briefly (one or two senetences) Bhajan's promotion of Kundalini Yoga in the United States as an incorporated part of the 3HO new religious movement. It should also mention the many other influential teachers according to valid reliable sources. Anything more than a brief mention of Bhajan becomes a coatrack of other articles which already expand on that issue.

In the study Offering Flowers, Feeding Skulls: Popular Goddess Worship in West Bengal (Oxford University, 2004), June McDaniel writes: "Despite Yogi Bhajan's claim to be the only legitimate tantric master and teacher of kundalini yoga, other Indian gurus and teachers have written and taught on the field. These include Amrit Desai, teacher of kundalini as Kripalu yoga; Swami Rama of the Himalayan Institute; Swami Sivananda, Swami Radha, Sri Aurobindo, and Swami Muktananda, among many others. It was also mentioned by Ram Dass in his popular 1971 book, Be Here Now. Western interest at the popular level in kundalini yoga was probably most influenced by Gopi Krishna..."

As far as any joint congressional honorarium -- it never happened. There was a resolution made by a Senator from New Mexico which went into judicial committee in 2004 and never emerged. In political context, it can be construed as a kind gesture toward the US Sikh community because of heightened religious tensions during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But it was not passed, is an invalid source and has no meaning in this article. It certainly does not place him at any level with Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King and John Pope Paul II. In my opinion, that statement is way over-the-top POV.

Obviously you have a strong emotional attachment to this individual. That is fine on a personal level but it is not helpful when writing an encyclopedia. An editor who is unable to view the subject from a neutral point-of-view using only valid  reliable sourcing will be considered to have too great of a conflict of interest and will be requested to refrain from editing that subject. Please take note of that. — Cactus Writer |   needles  18:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Your opinion as a NPOV is appreciated. Surely I have strong opinions and emotions when someone who is instrumental to the style of yoga is consistently deleted by people with no other references and negative bias - it all started out on a very bad foot with the war vs atmapuri who has in his past shown an anti-sikh and anti-yogi bhajan bias (I'd have to dig into his talk pages, because he deleted it). Certainaly Yogi Bhajan is instrumental to the modern practice, (159 articles in Yoga Journal referencing him: [Yoga Journal Yogi Bhajan], and any encyclopedic reference of Kundalini Yoga without inclusion of Yogi Bhajan would be lacking.


 * Most certainly, it should be mentioned that other schools and teachers have forwarded the style, and there should be some kind of historical thread... But it should be taken with care to see which teachers are simply mentioning "Kundalini energy" in relation to yoga, and which mentions of persons are actually of dedicated teachers of the style of "Kundalini Yoga".


 * Also, it should be questioned if they are historically relevant by some means of measurement. Like where is there a lasting modern legacy? Where are there students? And who is teaching Kundalini yoga now under their name? How many verifiable books and sources did they leave behind? One author's opinion (June McDaniels) and 1 book on the matter [] advancing Gopi Krishna is certainly not on precedence nor balance with what I have already stated was the legacy of Yogi Bhajan.


 * And actually, on closer inspection, the book by Gopi Krishna is on "Kundalini energy" and not a single mention of "Kundalini Yoga". See? Also interesting is that someone has slipped in a paragraph at the bottom discussing "Physio-Kundalini syndrome", which doesn't seem like it really should related to this sages' autobiography, nor does it seem he mentions it in his book, but I can't confirm where it was sourced from.


 * And as far as the Joint Congressional Honorarium it seems you are wrong. If you see this link [] you'll see at the bottom it was voted upon, and as far as I understand it was passed unanimously[]. And it was proposed after his death to honor him, and not as I see it due to escalating tensions between US and Iraq and Afghanistan - an idea that would need a leap of assumptions. Finally, comparing different individuals accomplishments to other individuals is not fair, and I don't think I ever implied any such comparison. Your opinion may be yours, and that's nice. I can't recall that Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, or JPPII ever did anything for me, personally... (slight devils advoate, but I'm being literal here) so that would have to depend on your own POV and personal experience and beliefs.--Fatehji (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ===Discussing the Modern History and Lineage of Kundalini Yoga===


 * As per the links provided by Cactus above, and I'm not doing this just to disprove you.. Just to see what these people have done in relation to Kundalini Yoga:


 * Swami Rama: 1 mention of Kundalini yoga, stating he taught secret Tantic once, and only from a primary source book/notes written by himself.
 * Swami Sivananda: Stated as proponent of Sivananda Yoga and Vedanta. Nothing about Kundalini Yoga in his WP bio.
 * Swami Radha: Known for "Hidden Language" method of Hatha Yoga. I have her book "Kundalini Yoga for the West", and there's teachings about Kundalini yoga mostly as a form of thought and visualization through the chakras with only a few meditations given. Not truly comparable a basis for a comprehensive school or system compared to 10,000s of meditations and kriyas provided by Yogi Bhajan. She also did not have mastery level in Kundalini Yoga, admittedly training only 6 months in her book before leaving her Guru.
 * Sri Aurobindo: Laid out the practices of the Integral Yoga or Poorna Yoga. Nothing about Kundalini Yoga.
 * Swami Muktananda: The founder of Siddha Yoga. Some mentions of "kundalini shakti", "kundalini-related meditations" and sadhana, but nothing directly to teaching Kundalini Yoga as a system.
 * Ram Dass: Trained in Raja yoga. Also, a good friend of a Kundalini Yoga senior teacher, but I won't say which - irrelevant, except to show he knows about Kundalini Yoga and Yogi Bhajan.


 * I don't directly see how any of these teachers directly have had a large influence on Kundalini Yoga teachings at this time. You may actually have to take me on good faith when I claim that Yogi Bhajan was a pioneer of this style, bar none other, based on the available evidence. Happy to discuss more and rework the wordinng based on consensus.--Fatehji (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please confine comments to a single thread. Continually creating multiple sections with more comments is not helpful to the discussion. I have refactored your last comments to appear in a single column in an attempt to keep the discussion whole.


 * 1 Thanks for the updated reference on the congressional resolution. I see that it did pass in 2005 and the man was highly regarded as a leader of the Sikh community. The resolution is definitely noteworthy in the WP article about Bhajan. However, American politicians are not religious scholars and their comments are not valid references in an encyclopedic article about kundalini yoga.


 * 2 Wikipedia is only interested in the quality of references not the quantity. We must be careful to select only those references written from an outside NPOV. This is the foundation of WP -- verifiability. Sheer number of sources is meaningless because certain individuals can be great promoters with many books written by themselves and their followers. However, that work is not considered neutral and is therefore is of little use as a source material. Unfortunately, this is often the case with religious movements and their leaders. (For example, L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology).


 * 3 June McDaniel is a professor of religious studies who specializes in Eastern mysticism and can qualify as a neutral expert. Besides the work I cited above, another of her works, The madness of the saints: ecstatic religion in Bengal (University of Chicago, 1989) appears to go into in-depth explanations about the practice of Kundalini yoga. It is this kind of scholarly work that meets encyclopedic standard. Something like The Psychology of Kundalini Yoga: Notes of the Seminar Given in 1932 (Princeton University, 1999) by Carl Jung would also be of good use.


 * 4 I believe you are acting with good intentions, but we cannot take claims from any editor "on good faith". And your disagreements with a scholars and your presentation of your own interpretation of the Kundalini Yoga is original research. So far, I have yet to see a reason that Yogi Bhajan requires anything more than a mention in this article. I invite you to create a neutrally-worded sentence or two below (on which you and Gatoglass can agree) about Bhajan for a Western Influence section. — Cactus Writer |   needles  00:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * CactusWriter, thankyou for your interest in this topic, however I really must reject any notion that Yogi Bhajan or any other school of kundalini yoga is entitled to a mention on this page. Unfortunately, in generic articles of this type, we often get disciples of one school or another attempting to insert mention of their particular school - it happens quite a bit at the meditation page, for example. Once you allow one school a mention, there is nothing to stop all the other schools from adding a mention of their own practice. What you then tend to end up with is a list of schools instead of an informative article about the topic at hand. Secondly, as many articles on schools of spirituality are dominated by practitioners of that school, they tend to be badly written and tendentious insertions that are difficult to manage.


 * Thirdly, any list so created is unlikely to be truly representative of the range of schools out there, which raises issues of balance and WP:UNDUE. Finally, many schools of spirituality are quite frankly cons or destructive cults that damage lives. There is no effective means of distinguishing between legitimate practices and dodgy ones because most teachers in the field are self-authenticated. And the dodgy ones are unfortunately, often the ones with the highest profile, for the very reason that they are organizations dedicated to making money rather than educating people.


 * To summarize, there is really only one effective method of avoiding all these hazards, which is not to allow mention of individual schools in articles like this in the first place. The articles on the individual schools themselves still exist and are still available to anyone who actively seeks them out, but they are not getting free referrals or the tacit endorsement of the encyclopedia from generic articles like this one. Gatoclass (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, as you can see, Gatoclass is unrelenting in his pursuit that no one should be mentioned in the history of this style of Yoga, despite almost every yoga page on WP having some mention of a founding teacher or historical lineage of the style. Would that he would go through all of those and delete every reference to anyone else, but no -- perhaps in his belief kundalini yoga just dropped out of the sky.


 * YET, at the same time, he would insert back in the "Hindu" tradition of kundalini yoga as primary reference to the article at the very top. Why so? Isn't yoga not owned by any one style or religion, as he would put it?? Plus, the sentence is attributable to any traditions belief of Kundalini Yoga, and not just "Hindu". Strike Hindu as it creates a tone of proselytizing and ownership, and is prima facie unverifiable as unique to just Hinduism.


 * You see, the problem with this article is 1, it is a mess because of people like Gatoclass. He's obviously either had a bad experience or most likely just heard of one. The second problem is that "yoga and kundalini are interchangeable terms, for there is no yoga and no union of the individual without [something called] 'cosmic consciousness' unless kundalini is activated" ([Book Product Description]). So therefore, the definitions of what it "is" be as elusive as describing as what is enlightenment? It's valuable therefore to include many different schools and teachers' takes on the style, because it is so vast a subject. Gatoclass instead would have us believe it is Hindu, and that's it, and besides that, it's secret, and needs no other description. He would do well to actually read about some of this stuff before sticking his nose in it.


 * Additionally, as already shown in 3rd party opinions by several others, the whole paragraph about the harmful effects being placed so prominently is so beyond useless, it is akin to putting a paragraph on the on the tennis page focusing on the potential "dangers" of tennis and including a section on ankle twists and tennis elbow. Why is this not mentioned on the Shaktipat page? This is windbaggery, and misleading in nature.


 * Gatoclass has taken this stance which disagrees with only this article, but not the way such articles are presented in other yoga forms.


 * I move to strike the paragraph about harmful effects up front, and the mention of "Hindu tradition" be removed. Additionally I move that it's very valuable to have many and equal weight given to Yogi Bhajan, Hindu, Western, Sikh and every other tradition expanded in a lower section about its many different traditions, additions and views on the style.


 * It's a complicated topic that needs clarification - as it stands this article makes absolutely no clear impact on defining what is Kundalini Yoga.--Fatehji (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass, I agree with you about the difficulty of maintaining articles against POV advocates. But that difficulty never precludes our attempts to provide readers with an overview of a subject. Full protection and blocks/bans can deal with any difficulties.


 * After reading the article and the above discussions. my understanding of the topic is this:
 * Kundalini yoga is a particular type of exercise practiced by various forms of yoga.
 * It is an ancient practice with a long history in Asian cultures.
 * There is a large modern history in Western culture of Kundalini yoga associated with the proliferation of pop and New Age religions.
 * The modern history will contain names of particular individuals who became notable (for both good or bad) with its spread.


 * My neutral opinion is this:
 * To provide a good overview, the topic requires some form of a history section which describes both ancient and modern development. However, it should not contain propaganda, and no individual/school is entitled to be mentioned. Any individuals mentioned in the modern history must only be referenced for a notable reason by a neutral scholar' -- that is, a highly reputable academic with no association or endorsement of/by any particular school/teacher.


 * With only a brief search, I found one example -- the studies by June McDaniel I quoted earlier above -- which would meet the criteria for references. That's a start, there must be others. An example of a reference which would not be a neutral source -- the section titled Developmental perspective references an individual who makes a profit from kundalini yoga.


 * Using references of only high quality, a history section can be written. If maintenance of it is the only problem, protection can be requested. — Cactus Writer |   needles  19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Rethinking Linking of Yoga to Idiosyncratic Information
I'd like to suggest a complete removal of the Cautionary Observations section at the bottom [] under the principle of [Content Forking]. Again, this is dealing completely with a cross-over topic, and is akin to putting a paragraph on the on the tennis page focusing on the potential "dangers" of tennis and including a section on ankle twists and tennis elbow. Other reasons: 0) It is idiosyncratic 1) Kundalini energy and kundalini energy syndrome has not been established as specific to "Kundalini Yoga". 2) "kundalini" energy is attributed to many different practices, and any such mention of "kundalini" energy already has it's own page. 3) This page is for kundalini as a form of yoga only.


 * Gatoclass has taken a stance which disagrees with only this article, but not the way such articles are presented in other yoga forms. This breaks the [UNDUE Weight principle] and demonstrates a blatant act of [Content Forking], and the continual inclusion of this information amounts to [Tendentious editing].


 * Putting back in [Kundalini syndrome] while ignoring the comments above amounts to continuing bias and promoting idiosyncratic and irrelevant information WP:UNDUE. This matter has been discussed already several times and consensus has been that while Kundalini syndrome in theory may relate to Kundalini energy, it does not directly attribute to Kundalini Yoga, and the Kundalini Yoga page should be related to Yoga, and not hypothetical symptoms relating to another field of study.


 * Kundalini Yoga in an extensive healing system with health benefits ranging from the physiological, emotional, mental, neuromuscular, glandular, chiropractic, and includes many fields of additional heath studies and benefits, such as childrens' yoga, pre-natal, post-natal yoga, mens' and womens' yoga, humanology, walking yoga (breathwalk), numerology and many, many more. It is a system of self-reflection, exercise and meditation, whose many benefits have been extensively studied and documented ([Health benefits of yoga]).


 * Inclusion of a "dangers" section based on studies of psychiatric literature and information from writers in the fields of transpersonal psychology and near-death studies is an idiosyncratic contribution and opinion of individual Wikipedia contributor which is irrelevant from the subject of yoga. Please do not continue to replace this information or further action will be taken.--Fatehji (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

--Fatehji (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that any information on syndromes and symptoms of Kundalini rising, -- symptoms that are 99% attributable to the positive experiences and natural growth on the pathway to the higher consciousness; as such, the positive results of rising of Kundalini energy -- should be represented by quotes and sources taken from the yogic community, sources and masters, and not from studies or small mentions excerpted from within idiosyncratic fields of psychology/psychiatry. Additionally, this mention should be small in comparison to the benefits of kundalini yoga - perhaps a sentence or two at most.--66.65.62.138 (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Enthusiasts for Kundalini yoga may be expected to see it in a good light. Their observations are surely not scientific, though within limits they could be appropriate. Hard information obtained from medical studies, such as those described in WP:MEDRS, should have preference here. Otherwise the article will become advertising for Kundalini yoga. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * However, observations on Kundalini syndrome by the fields of psychiatry do not represent "hard evidence" -- even from within the fields of psychiatry. There exists no "hard evidence" at all linking Kundalini Yoga neither specifically nor directly to any so called Physio-kundalini syndrome.


 * Let's see what alternate descriptions can be found first before we pass judgments their supposed validity. The topic sources should stay within the realm of topic expertise, and be weighted appropriately to reflect accurate comparison to the many benefits of the specific yoga form being discussed. They should not be relying unduly on tangential and cautionary observations that are related only through "theory and circumstantial evidence".--Fatehji (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is in conflict with WP:MEDRS. If this form of yoga is reported to have medical hazards, and this work is published in peer-reviewed medical journals, the observations of Kundalini enthusiasts are unlikely to sway us from reporting that. If you disagree with the guideline, I suggest you try to get WP:MEDRS changed. In any conflict between science and the enthusiasts, here on Wikipedia the science is likely to win.  EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Allow me to insert here, that perhaps you did not realize, but the quote above is from a DR. Bruce Greyson MD. who did a studies on NDEs and Physio-Kundlaini syndrome, so his statement is coming from a WP:MEDRS. Perhaps you didn't catch that -- it is not an "enthusiast" source or opinion and in NO WAY does it state that this form of yoga is reported to have medical hazards. I'd like to see where you read that this form of yoga is reliably shown in a MEDRS to be connected to any medical hazards, please.--Fatehji (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting to make observations from relevant sources, not to content fork, make such warnings duly weighted, and not create associations to Eastern practices based upon on theory and circumstantial evidence.--Fatehji (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest strongly that any MEDRS source that you do manage to find, specifically those covering Physio-kundlaini syndrome be assessed for the quality of its evidence, be checked for peer review and that secondary sources not be aggregated and presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of major health organizations -- in this case, being used to undermine the many well documented benefits of yoga practice.


 * Linking Kundalini Yoga to Physio-kundalini syndrome pretty obviously presents problems with speculative proposals and by presenting independent and culture-bound studies as fact - which creates an issue with marginal ideas whose controversial aspects can be mistakenly taken at face value or, worse, being asserted as fact. Additionally, "if the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough for inclusion". And finally, "the views of tiny minorities need not be reported." --Fatehji (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Requoted from 3rd party opinion: --Fatehji (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at reference 18, a 1995 paper by Turner et al. The 'Cautionary Observations' section in the article includes what seems to be a direct quote from that article, which mentions 'kundalini awakening'. It is of interest that the DSM-IV now includes a category 'Religious or spiritual problem', which is discussed in the paper by Turner et al.  We *do* have an article called Kundalini syndrome. Are you going to suggest that kundalini yoga has nothing to do with kundalini syndrome?  Our article on  kundalini syndrome has quite a number of reliable sources, and our Cautionary Observations paragraph includes only a few of them. EdJohnston (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not suggesting... Stating that raising Kundalini energy is the end goal of all yoga and spiritual practices and that raising this energy is a "basic lever of all spiritual practices" . Are you going to suggest in this case that all yoga and spiritual practices eventually cause Kundalini syndrome?


 * Trying to directly make it appear as if only Kundalini yoga, when practiced as taught, can lead to Kundalini syndrome is a misappropriation and completely misses the point of why people practice yoga in the first place, and how it is to be practiced properly.


 * Over and over, it has been stated and shown that correlations of Kundalini Yoga directly to Kundalini Syndrome is "relatively unlikely" and any "clear correlate needs to be elucidated". Even doctors have stated that studying this is "nearly impossible"..


 * More attention should be called to the positive aspects of a Kundalini awakening and how Kundalini Yoga works with the kundalini energy. Kundalini awakening offers for many people a return to health and a life free from chronic illness, as well as positive mental benefits, such as "joy in being alive right now", "energy to enjoy life", "bliss", "enlightenment", and "happiness".


 * Mentioning Kundalini yoga is responsible for Kundalini syndrome (without including all the benefits or giving due weight to the benefits) is like saying that bungee cord jumping is a direct responsible for death (but omitting: only when practiced without a bungee cord).


 * Therefore, please do show one, or more than one instance where it is documented that Kundalini yoga is directly responsible for a case of Kundalini syndrome, otherwise, this mention should be removed as irrelevant, or too broad, as to be irrelevant. At the very least, it should be altered to reflect actual potential dangers (i.e. sprains, ankle twists, etc.) rather than conceptual/hypothetical/fringe correlations to a loosely bound aggregation of symptoms.


 * Finally, please don't remove the 3O requests, as the idea being that we wanted to get someone other than you, edjohn and gatoclass responding. Your POV is already noted. Ideally a neutral 3rd party with experience in this field.--Fatehji (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you haven't provided any worthwhile sources to support your position. The fact that some disciple of Yogi Bhajan repeats the 3HO position that kundalini yoga is perfectly safe does not invalidate the observations by many others that there are certain hazards involved in the practice of kundalini yoga (or indeed, other forms of yoga or spiritual practice). And they cannot be ignored in an article like this. However, as I said earlier, I think there is room for improvement in this article. I will try to give it some thought over the next week or two. Gatoclass (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The current referenced content in the lede is largely unsupported by references. It has been so beaten together that it no longer reflects the meaning in the original references. In its current state the article almost does not exist. Atmapuri (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Anything in particular you find objectionable? Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the first sentence "Kundalini yoga is a physical and meditative discipline within the tradition of Yoga, associated with the subdivision of Hatha yoga,[1] but also closely associated with Raja Yoga, Tantra, Ashtanga, Kriya Yoga and the sutras of Patanjali.[2]". The aim of all authenthic yoga practices is to awake Kundalini. Talking about subdivison and associations is groundless. Only the methods are different may be by type or difficulty or speed of progress and effect.


 * This "According to one tradition Kundalini yoga is a pure spiritual science which relies upon a technique called shaktipat that leads to enlightenment under the guidance of a spiritual master.[4] " says that it relies upon shaktipat, but that (5 words) is not in the reference and the sentence comes out false. It is not one tradition which says that guidance of the Master is required. There are at least 3 famous schools that follow the tradition: Swami Vivekananda, Paramahansa Yogananda and Swami Shivananda from Rishikesh and I dont know any which would not, but would be recognized as authenthic Hindu. Shaktipat is also not considered the only thing required as this sentence makes it look.


 * This "Another tradition believes that Kundalini awakening can be accomplished through intentional yogic techniques including Mantra, Hatha Yoga, Laya Yoga, Prana, Kriya Yoga or Raja Yoga.[5]" is also not true. There is no "other" tradition than Yogi Bhajan, which believs that and that should be either said as it is or deleted or expanded with the list of traditions which support the idea. This should not include Texas rangers that went to Yoga school and then started their own business. We could say for example that new age beliefs have spread out that Guru is not required.


 * Furthermore, according to the original Hindu tradition all authentic yogic techniques serve the purpose of awakening the Kundalini, but just not its own.


 * This: "Kundalini Yoga has been documented as a system of exercises and meditations and claims to provide extensive benefits for personal growth, health and improving mental and physical well-being, including asthma, diabetes, pain, stress-related diseases, healing and rehabilitating addictive behavior, and treating mental disorders.[8][9][10]" is according to one source only and is known to be true and advertised for Yoga practices in general and is not specific to the Kundalini Yoga or Yoga by Yogi Bhajan. Atmapuri (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with most of these comments, but when you say "shaktipat is not only thing required", what else did you have in mind? Gatoclass (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I wanted to say that even those Yoga schools which include the idea of Guru and shaktipat consider various other types of yogic practices as the necessary part of the preparations. If you choose the path of Bhakti Yoga, you have to practice it, if you choose Raja Yoga or Karma Yoga etc..., these all require work, to earn the grace of the Guru, or Guru Kripa. Therefore it would be wrong to say that one tradition includes Raja yoga and other relies on shaktipat for example, which is the impression currently given. Atmapuri (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with most of it, partially because you are clouding this section with side-topics and POV discussion. There are no references given anywhere or outside comments supporting you. Anything that comes from discussion without agreed upon opinion and also references is obviously not up for inclusion.

I do agree this is a difficult topic to figure out because of secrecy, it is not clear what exactly Kundalini yoga and maybe no real thing exists as one thing. So, when you start off by saying: "Talking about sub-division and associations is groundless." first of all, that's opinion. And later on you are talking about subdivision and associations. When you say: "all authentic yogic techniques serve the purpose of awakening the Kundalini." So, all yogas are kundalini yogas - is that your position? Which one is it?

I do agree that I have 3-4 opinions supporting me, so we have to first determine the inclusion of Yogi Bhajan as instrumental here. Was Kundalini Yoga practiced worldwide until Yogi Bhajan broke the secrecy in 1968? No. Is Yogi Bhajan legitimate? Beyond a doubt. Of course he is. His credentials fill books and pages. No one else has done more for Kundalini Yoga than at any other time. Totally qualified in every way. And he was more than just a qualified Master of Kundalini Yoga... He was a Ph.D., a Minister, Man of Peace, a Dietician, and a Spiritual Healer (and yet.. what have you done in your life that you don't hesitate to slander him?). Perhaps you don't have a clear meaning of what "breaking secrecy" means. --Fatehji (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And again, you are erasing my 3O request... Please stop that until we get other opinions!--Fatehji (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's absolute nonsense to claim that Yogi Bhajan broke the "secrecy" around kundalini in 1968. Sir John Woodroffe was the first Westerner to write about the kundalini, and his book Serpent Power was published in 1918. And all your claims about Yogi Bhajan are "in-house" - sourced from Yogi Bhajan and his 3HO movement, hardly independent sources. Gatoclass (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to put it in a clearer way. He demystified it, giving all humans an opportunity to experience themselves, as all truly should, a better awareness of their consciousness.

I agree Sir John Woodroffe's book and place in history should be included - and his place in history was in publishing English translations of texts which brought a non-experience based awareness and esoteric teaching, with potential for misuse. This has more to do with a largely misunderstood kundalini energy and popularizing that - perhaps doing more harm than good - because it provided a source for incorrect Western yogic adaptations that never learned about the proper methods, nor gave respect to the style -- which certainly may have been the cause of more than one bad experience -- and hence, a cause for much of the misunderstanding and negativity surrounding something so simple... and pure... as properly led yoga by a Master teacher.

As for the yoga side of kundalini yoga -- Yogi Bhajan came from the East and demystified it and openly shared it because he foresaw that all of humanity would need this technology in this time of crisis. Instead of hiding it, he believed in everyone's right to use these tools to improve health and find inner happiness, and he simply shared those teachings. He foresaw the need to systematize the yoga side, because he knew the teachings could be taught safely to uplift humanity -- and to avoid future misunderstandings surrounding the yoga form.

There's no existing draft of an paragraph yet to debate "all my claims", but when it's posted please identify "all claims" that you feel are invalid and not in good faith. Mostly Yogi Bhajan's qualifications, and the benefits of the yoga would appear to speak for themselves clearly -- he was also one of the most photographed, video taped and audio taped speakers, with 8,000 audio and video archives surviving him over his 35 years teaching around the world. Some of his teachings and stories were certainly first source, teacher to student, but the majority of it was eye-witnessed, experienced and recorded [].

Please allow others to comment as well and wait until we have more opinions.--Fatehji (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am the Third Opinion Wikipedian who issued the Third Opinion set out above on this page. I have removed the tag from this section. Posting the  tag does not make a Third Opinion request; please read the text of the tag and see the more detailed explanation and suggestions here. Please do not replace the template until you make a request at the Third Opinion project page. —  T RANSPORTER M AN   ( TALK ) 17:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)