Talk:Rudi (spiritual teacher)

Rudi trivia
I was one of the group of young students living with Rudi in his New York home at the time of his death. One of my jobs (we all had jobs) was to run the cassette recorder on all lectures during class. At some point during Rudi's last lecture in the meditation room in his home, the recorder started to hum and the tape was completely eaten by the recorder. The topic was heavily laced with his dream of dying soon and that he would not have another birthday. We were young and I for one kind of blew it off. A few days later, the plane crashed. I've always been a bit haunted about the memory of that class and reflected on why that lecture of the many I recorded was lost forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydfan007 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism
Some person has been repeatedly vandalizing this article by repeatedly removing the following paragraph:

"In 1962, Rudi traveled to India and became a student of Muktananda in Ganeshpuri. Muktananda was Rudi's most important teacher. However, Muktananda's behavior toward Rudi became appalling and after several years of being associated with Muktananda, Rudi chose to break all contact with him. Rudi received a large number of energy transmissions (shaktipat) from Muktananda which were essential for Rudi's spiritual growth. Rudi learned many things from Muktananda's example (if only from his bad example), e.g., the danger of turning an ashram into an organization devoted to guru worship. Rudi repeatedly and harshly condemned the practice of guru worship--the main practice in Muktananda's ashram. Of Rudi's students who later became teachers, the two most popular, Adi Da Samraj and Swami Chetanananda, reinstated guru worship. "

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DR#Ask_for_a_third_opinion) says "Always explain your changes ... to help other editors understand the reasoning behind them. If an edit is potentially contentious, explain why you made the change and how it improves the article." I suggest the person who has been repeatedly vandalizing this article should explain here in the discussion page exactly why he or she is engaging in this conduct. That's what this discussion page is supposed to be for. Therefore, a discussion of the paragraph that keeps getting removed should REMAIN HERE on this discussion page until this dispute is resolved. In the past, this issue was discussed here on the discussion page but it was removed. Someone apparently wants there to be no mention of the important issues in the disputed paragraph either in the article or in the discussion page. But suppressing discussion is NOT what Wikipedia is about. Repeatedly deleting important content from both the discussion page and the article itself, simply because a person doesn't like to deal with important topics, is vandalism.

Therefore, I suggest that the vandal in this case should please explain IN DETAIL and AT LENGTH why he or she is repeatedly removing this content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.206.108 (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Please read WP:OR and WP:NPOV.TheRingess (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There isn't anything non-neutral in the disputed paragraph. If someone thinks there is something non-neutral, he or she should explain in detail why he or she feels that way. Similarly, there is no more "original research" in the disputed paragraph than in any other part of the article. Unfortunately, someone is trying to vandalize this article without providing any explanation. Telling people to read WP:OR and WP:NPOV is not the least bit helpful and does absolutely nothing to further this discussion. Once someone has something SUBSTANTIVE to say about the issues in question, we can start to have a real conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.206.108 (talk)

Saying that "Muktananda was Rudi's most important teacher." seems to me to be original material. If Rudi said that himself, then we should include a citaiton there. Unless there's a published citation, I can't see how it is anything but original material.

To describe Muktananda's behavior as appalling is both non-neutral and original material. At best it's an opinion only verifiable by those present during interactions between both of them. If we have a biographer who called the behavior appalling, then we should make that attribution clear.

To also call Muktananda's example a bad example, is non-neutral and again an opinion. Since no source is given for this opinion, I can once again only conclude that the statement is original material.

There is a whole article about Siddha Yoga and it's practices and philosophies. The article does not mention guru worship or explain what that is. Nor does the Siddha Yoga website. In light of that, to say that the main practice of Siddha Yoga is guru worship seems to at best an oversimplification at worse a gross inaccuracy. Either way since no source is given it appears to be original material.

TheRingess (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a possible first draft re-writing of the first part of the paragraph in question:

1962, Rudi traveled to India and became a student of Muktananda in Ganeshpuri. Muktananda appears to have been Rudi's most important teacher because he was the only teacher with whom, according to Rudi's own report, he had studied with for many years. In Rudi's book, Spiritual Cannibalism, Rudi states that "after separating from Baba [Muktananda], the teacher I had studied with for many years, I needed to work harder to replace the energy I had received from him - At the same time I found that the releasing of tension opened in me a joyousness that allowed God to enter my being. A teacher in no way is a replacement for God and I found that the person with whom I had studied was so obsessed with his being God, or more than God, that I could not respect and sustain the relationship. Anybody who teaches by tension is an insecure human being. A teacher should give love and free people from tension so that they can open to God."  Notice that Rudi singles out Muktananda as "the teacher..." rather than "one of the teachers." This implies that there were no other teachers with whom Rudi had studied for many years. Presumably, as Muktananda was Rudi's teacher while Rudi was himself an established teacher, as well as the teacher with whom Rudi had studied with the longest, Muktananda must have been Rudi's most important teacher.

Muktananda's behavior toward Rudi became appalling and after several years of being associated with Muktananda, Rudi chose to break all contact with him. An example of Muktananda's appalling behavior occurred in 1971, when Rudi was invited by Muktananda to attend a special ceremony at Ganeshpuri in the spring. Rudi had commissioned a statue of Bhagawan Nityananda, and Muktananda assured him that he would be notified when the dedication of the statue took place. As Rudi remarked later about the event, “One day I went into town for an hour. When I returned, I discovered the ceremony had just occurred. Something inside me gave way.” With that, Rudi packed bags and told someone who was nearby to say goodbye to Swami Muktananda. 

The article itself seems to use astro.com as an unacknowledged source. For instance, it states that "In 1962, Rudi became affiliated with Muktananda," which seems to be taken directly (with a small deletion) from , according to which "In 1962, Rudi became affiliated with a fellow disciple, Swami Muktananda," Thus, my own use of  is as justified as that of the author of this wikipedia article. I will address the complaints about the second half (about guru worship) at a later time.

The remark above that we cannot call behavior appalling unless there is a biographer who called the behavior appalling is incorrect. When a clear example of appalling behavior is given, the judgment that it was appalling is beyond any reasonable objection. Wikipedia has numerous such reasonable judgment/descriptions, e.g., Himmler is said to be the main architect of the Holocaust and is then said to have been "fanatical" in the "Himmler and the Holocaust" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.206.108 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone's behavoir appalling is an opinion, a judgement, not a fact. You can describe the behavior in question, but it's beyond the scope of this article to judge it. I'm saying that unless it's a direct quote from a published source, then it is merely an opinion and not fact. As far as I know there is no universally accepted scale that measures appalingness. I remain unconvinced. As well as the word important. That Rudi studied with Muktananda is apparent, that he mentions no other teachers in the few sentences that you quote is apparent. That he considered Muktananda to be his most important teacher is not apparent. You are simply trying to make the argument that Muktananda was. Again it's either an opinion or original material, so completely unnecessary for the article. The astro article looks like it was copied from a previous version of this article, so I don't think it would serve as a good source. If the point of the paragraph is to explain why Rudi split, then we need look no further than his own words. We don't need to try to explain it any further, he split, he said why, that's enough for the article. It also comes down to this, while I agree that most if not all reasonable people would agree that Himmler's behavior (participating in the homicides of millions) would classify Himmler's behavior as appalling/horrifying; I'm not convinced that most if not all reasonable people would classify Muktananda's behavior as appalling. In the case with Himmler there is ample evidence of his complicity, in the case we are considering here, there is no evidence, just one person's version of a two sided story. Most reasonable people, before condemning a person's behavior on one person's word alone, would look for alternate explanations. We can quote Rudi, but to use a label that even Rudi didn't, seems to me to be very pov even considering what a theoretical reasonable person might/might not make of the story.TheRingess (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we can get rid of "appalling." Here, why don't I rewrite the FIRST part of my paragraph as follows (more to come on the 2d part):

1962, Rudi traveled to India and became a student of Muktananda in Ganeshpuri. Muktananda appears to have been Rudi's most important teacher because he was the only teacher with whom, according to Rudi's own report, he had studied with for many years. In Rudi's book, Spiritual Cannibalism, Rudi states that "after separating from Baba [Muktananda], the teacher I had studied with for many years, I needed to work harder to replace the energy I had received from him - At the same time I found that the releasing of tension opened in me a joyousness that allowed God to enter my being. A teacher in no way is a replacement for God and I found that the person with whom I had studied was so obsessed with his being God, or more than God, that I could not respect and sustain the relationship. Anybody who teaches by tension is an insecure human being. A teacher should give love and free people from tension so that they can open to God."  After several years of being associated with Muktananda, Rudi chose to break all contact with him. An example of Muktananda's treatment of Rudi occurred in 1971, when Rudi was invited by Muktananda to attend a special ceremony at Ganeshpuri in the spring. Rudi had commissioned a statue of Bhagawan Nityananda, and Muktananda assured him that he would be notified when the dedication of the statue took place. As Rudi remarked later about the event, “One day I went into town for an hour. When I returned, I discovered the ceremony had just occurred. Something inside me gave way.” With that, Rudi packed bags and told someone who was nearby to say goodbye to Swami Muktananda. 

It seems to me that the above additions to the article give it considerably more depth and substance than in the article as it now stands, with its fairly superficial examination of Rudi's favorite food and t.v. shows, etc. These additions allow the reader to peek into the sometimes unplesant real-life aspects of spiritual study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.228.26 (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see the need to draw a conclusion in this article, especially since that conclusion hasn't been published elsewhere, too much like original research. Let's just present what Rudi wrote, in his own words. The reader can decide how important a teacher Muktananda was. For the direct quotes, we'll need page numbers as well. I wouldn't use the astrobank website as a source since it seems to use an earlier version of the article. We'll also need a page number for the anecdote.TheRingess (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Astro.com uses an ealier version of the article? How do you know the article doesn't use Astrobank? In any event, astro.com is a far more substantive article than the one here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.228.39 (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I don't see any page number citations in the article, either for direct quotes or for any other material. Why haven't you required them for the article? Or, if they are there, where are they?

I don't really know, just making an observation. Anyway, astrobanks sources should be our sources as well. We should use page number, especially for direct quotes, in order for readers to easily look them up. We'll take care of the rest of the article as time permits. We can put in Page number templates where needed.TheRingess (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article in astro.com is an earlier version of this article. I know because I wrote it. Cminard (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well it doesn't make sense to have different standards for MY paragraph than for the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.228.39 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone will come along and improve the rest of the article in time. Just because an article might not be perfect, is not an argument that material added to it should be poorly sourced. Is it really that difficult of a request. It appears to me that you have read Spiritual Cannibalism, which seems to be the source for the quotes. Since you have the book, it should be a simple matter of looking up the page number for the quote.TheRingess (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the book, but it's online, free, in its entirety at http://www.internetyoga.com/spiritCannibal/index.htm. Looks like we'll have to make do with webpage numbers (ie, addresses) rather than page numbers. The other book by Rudi, BEHIND THE COSMIC CURTAIN, is online, free, in its entirety at http://www.internetyoga.com/cosmiccurtain/index.htm. The tapes of Rudi's talks, referred to in the article, are available online, free, at http://www.internetyoga.com/audio_index.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.206.152 (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Would the person who put the warning "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject" please specify which piece of this talk page he or she thinks constitutes misuse of the talkpage? Was it the part by the guy with the tape recorder at the top? 90% of this talk page constitutes an effort to follow dispute resolution procedures for wikipedia. Secondly, when there are two authors to an article and some person pecks at one of the authors for doing something that the other author has done throughout his portion, but ignores that other author's "offense," this raises questions about whether the complaining party is motivated by some sort of irrational personal animus against one author.

This page needs work!
I'm going to flag this article with a number of problems that I see. I've made a few style changes, but until I added a couple others, there were only first person accounts from Rudi's autobio, narratively soft-balled like a bedtime story for toddlers. There are tertiary accounts out there - I've read them - so I will start to round out this glowing happy devotional testimonial with some actual facts. Like how about his sexuality? he was gay. How is this not mentioned here, when it is in every other account of his life? He was not without controversy either, and this is not alluded to anywhere, at least until I added a conspicuously absent Adi Da mention. And what was with the list of his favorite foods, fave dozen films (with links!), TV shows (he liked Dick Van Dyke! That's crucial!), Jazz musicians, etc etc. I assume he also like walks on the beach and candle-lit dinners, and just hoped to find someone who really understood him. Criminy. In other words, this entry does not meet Wiki standards at all. Yet.Tao2911 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Condensed per WP guidelines
The teaching section was excessively long, consisting almost entirely of complete quotes from Rudi's book, with detailed instructions for four different "spiritual exercises." This is not the place for this information. Also, many quotes of his philosophy likewise from his book. WP guidelines state we are to summarize sources, preferably tertiary sources, and minimize direct quotes and use of primary sources. I merely summarized material present, and cited with his book. If readers want more, they know where to go. Also, this brings the page into balance, with proportional weight to sections now more appropriate.Tao2911 (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Swami Nityananda
I wonder why there is no mention of Swami Nityananda in this Rudi article? I can't make sense of either man without knowing about the other. Marfadite (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. Swami Nityananda was Rudi's teacher, not Muktananda.  They were brother disciples.  In the original copy of Rudi's

book, there is a statement to this fact. I will not change the article again on this fact though, unless I can find the quote. Cminard (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"Jewish American" is not a nationality
The caption under Albert Rudolph's photograph states "nationality: Jewish American". The nationality of an American Jew is "American" -- the US does not give Jews a different passport!

84.215.128.216 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Fernando Alvarez jfa2 [at] cornell [dot] edu


 * so...fix it!Tao2911 (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth "Albert Rudolph" instead of "Rudi (Swami Rudrananda)"?!
This article was originally about Rudi (Swami Rudrananda). Somewhere along the way some brilliant mind decided to rename it Albert Rudolph. Why on earth? Everybody knows who Rudi or Rudrananda was. But Albert Rudolph?! Come on... Couldn't someone revert the article to its former title?—Ana Bruta (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was the brilliant mind that did that in December 2009, and since I was the one who wrote the original article, I though it would be alright, because people were not finding the entry under the original name, and said so on the phone, as I was talking to and interviewing people who actually knew Rudi back in the 1970s, and suggested the change.Cindy Minard (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * if you search Rudi or Rudrananda, you find this page. It seems maybe he wasn't well known enough to get to go by the one name, something that seems to be reserved for pop stars.Tao2911 (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Before The Sun - Meeting Rudi, by John Mann
Here is the only pointer at this time for ordering this book:

http://rudimovie.org/news/before-the-sun/

The Amazon.com link should be ready in 2014.

Cminard (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the above mentioned editing controversies
Most of this wikipedia article is a condensed version of a Rudi bio on the web site "en dot academic dot ru". That bio is listed as one of the existing references on this wikipedia article. Currently that bio is tagged as a "possible web forgery" by Firefox, which I find is used 99% of the time to get people to not read web pages that someone does not "like".

The bio in the form of this Wikipedia article is condensed by a seemingly random deletion of sections, the result of which makes Rudi's life more mysterious than it actually was.

Basically, it seems clear that Rudi was someone who had a significant amount of "spiritual energy", but not a lot of spiritual knowledge. This was typical of Western teachers of Eastern spirituality in the 1960's and before, as the amount of information available was minimal, mostly dense scriptures, often poorly translated.

Here is the main example of this with regards to Rudi. One of the most important spiritual practices is recognizing your ego and getting it under control. Swami Muktananda had spent a couple of decades learning teachings and practicing yoga when he became a disciple of Bhagavan Nityananda. Nityananda made a point of treating Muktananda poorly in trivial ways - e.g. giving something to everyone other than Muktananda, etc. Finally, Muktananda realized that Nityananda was pointing out his ego, and he then started observing his own ego. (All of this was reported by Muktananda in his talks and writings.)

The descriptions of Muktananda's subsequent "treatment" of Rudi - ignoring him, "disrespecting" him and other harmless actions - is precisely the same treatment that Nityananda gave Muktananda. From the full bio page, it is clear that despite his friend Venkateshananda's explanation that this was about ego - he told Rudi "...are you above it?”, Rudi never understood about ego, and subsequently stated quote “I was ready for a higher, more merciful approach.” Rudi described his relationship with Muktananda as “a struggle between two spiritual heavyweights.” - a phrasing that seems deeply wrapped up in ego, and clearly explains why Muktananda would go to such lengths to get Rudi to see that he needed to let go of ego.

An enlightened being cannot be insulted or disrespected - he does not care. Kalu Rinpoche once said (paraphrase) "Once you are nothing, then you are everything".

Rudi's spiritual energy enabled him to be a spiritual teacher with students, and the automatic positive feedback from having students, made it more difficult for him to see that he was not yet a "spiritual heavyweight".

His life and career are a cautionary tale. His spiritual progeny was the even bigger ego monster "Adi Da". Unfortunately, one of the flaws of Wikipedia is that the people who care most about a Wikipedia page are those who are obsessed with the topic - in this case, the followers of more obscure dead teachers - who eventually remove any unflattering material. 162.205.217.211 (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * glad you have everything all figured out. I don't see actual suggestions for the page here though.Tao2911 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

..................................... The very interesting opinion expressed above, "An enlightened being cannot be insulted or disrespected - he does not care" by 162.205.217.211 "(talk) 18:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)," (attributed to Kalu Rinpoche) has been posted now for 3 1/2 years, and I think it needs to be addressed. As long as this talk page permits the expression of such opinions (and I think it should), I should like to point out that I've met many, many teachers who are widely considered to be "enlightened," and none of them even came close to being able to ignore lack of respect or insults. All of them had big egos--100% of them. Based on my experience, I truly doubt that there are any people alive today who don't care when they are insulted or disrespected, unless they are brain dead, totally psychotic, or utterly abnormal medically. Kalu Rinpoche's "teaching" on this strikes me as utterly unrealistic.184.180.87.188 (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Rudi (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)